Chapter 1 "Discussion"

Last night was the book study where we went over Chapter 1! But it was not as enjoyable as I had hoped.

Apparently everyone there already agrees with the book, and the "discussion" leader was simply going over how great it was and how excellent the author's points were. We weren't there to see if it was true, we were there so it could be affirmed to those who already agreed with it just how great it was.

I asked for proof of any of the author's assertions, and was told that they were later in the book. I pointed out that the first chapter is kind of the foundation of the book, and so it was of some importance to know why the author was believing in such a different way.

I got nothing more than the very non-answers the author had gave. That the need for giving up a personal God was due to some having had trouble believing in Him, so that this way those people can have an easier time remaining in the faith.

Some of the others wished to conflate my disagreement with the author into the apparently "conservative" practice of forcing them to believe something against their will. I had to assure them, I am not sure how many times, that the issue was not whether they had a right to believe the author, but rather why I should believe the author?

No answer to that one.

It seemed to boil down to this. The author, and various others, back in the sixties, were disaffected with the more conservative churches (which were most churches back then), and how such churches typically did not give very good answers as to why God is an existent being, or how Jesus did miracles, or where heaven was, and other such "Cain's wife" questions.

Relying upon authority instead of loving explanations, the churches back then created a noticeable minority of disaffected members, including some in the clergy.

This author then - as some others had before him - tapped into that, and instead of simply calling his leaders to account to give (or find) the real answers out there, decided to chuck it all out, and go with his "feelings".

That the author was one of the leaders of one of the churches back then is rather sad, as he is then reacting to his own failings at getting the gospel message shared appropriately. Oddly, as I pointed out in my review of that chapter, the author admitted that his not accepting the traditional view was far more likely due to his "spiritual inadequacies", a point I think is much overlooked by the author's fans today.

Nowadays, the author's liberal progressive successors and fans seem to have now developed the very traits that probably prompted the author to this in the first place.

That is, a heavy reliance on authority instead of evidence. I heard things from the "discussion" leader like, "Given my many years in the ministry" or "The three cited were great theologians", and others in the room would cite their retired ministerial status to lend weight to answers that otherwise would have to be considered to be fashioned out of helium.

Yet neither his years, nor the greatness of the men cited, or the collective ministerial experience in the room, aided him or anyone else in having any answers. Like the conservative boogeyman church that apparently prompted this in the past, I was to rely solely on "argument from authority".

That the three cited were a minority among theologians of their time? Made no impression. That C.S. Lewis, their contemporary back then had vigorously disagreed with them?

"He wasn't a real theologian."

Oh. Well, then. If the only theologian that any of you reading this - or anyone in the English speaking world - is likely to be able to name from the 20th century isn't a theologian, but the no-names advising that God is a feeling, Christianity doesn't need religion and the New testament doesn't need miracles are "great", then what can I say to that?

That last was sad. One of the men - er, "great theologians" - that the author had quoted was putting forth the position that we needed a New Testament stripped of the miraculous things, so that the message could be gave without confusing the laymen.

It was both sad and interesting. Sad that this should be what can be agreed with, interesting in that it did not seem to be something that many wanted to out and out admit they agreed with.

Me: "So Jesus did no miracles?"

Leader: "That's not what the author said."

Me: "He said that we needed to strip the miraculous from the New Testament, and named the miracles of Jesus as an example."

Leader: "He just meant that the miracles were not necessary to know of and have a relationship with Christ."

Me: "He said the authors of those New Testament books used that 'language of the miraculous' to get people interested, doesn't that mean that the authors were then just making up that 'language'?"

Leader: "He just meant that we don't need the miraculous to know Christ!" (note that's the same answer that meant nothing before)

Me: "So this is that whole 'Jesus as a social reformer' thing, he said some good stuff, so the authors tossed in miracles to sell it?"

Leader: "No, that's not what he meant!"

Me: "Then let's figure it out this way - did Jesus do miracles?"

Leader: "Uh, that's not relevant to the message is what the author is trying to say."

Me: "But did he do them?"

Leader: "We're almost out of time, and we can't solve all the issues of the world, let's move on for now."

Oh, yes indeed, I thought. Let us move on for now. With the sure and certain knowledge that once moved past, we'll be on Chapter 2 next week, and discussion of last week would not be "relevant".

Were the author alive today, he should be proud. Or ashamed. He's succeeded however he'd feel about it, or however he should feel about it.

A kind of success.

He has an entire group of what I can see are the intellectual leaders of a random church in my town - and from what I understand, this church is representative of all other mainline Protestant churches - who not only agree with his ideas, but defend them as vigorously and unswervingly as the conservative churches of his time defended against him.

I guess that could be a cause for "pride". But that those same churches have consistently had membership decreases since adopting those ideas might seem to be a better reason for "shame".

Funny, it was brought up to me in all the verbal chaff flying about last night, that many back then were disaffected with the too authoritarian church and this author was aiding those who no longer believed in miracles and a God "up there" to stay in church!

I think next week I'll ask, "How'd that work out?"

How it worked out.

Chapter 1: Reluctant Revolution

"Honest to God" by John Robinson

Chapter 1: "Reluctant Revolution"

An important chapter. Here we should be able to see what he wishes to persuade us of, and what evidences and reasons he has for why we should agree with his claims. The chapter starts on page 11.

On pages 11 through 14, Robinson sets up a non-existent problem, that of God not being "up there" or "out there".

He does this by making use of false comparisons, so that a "three-decker universe" being not literal means that therefore an "up there or out there" God may not be literal. In his view, that man at one point regarded God as above the clouds, then later out in space, and still later way out in space, shows that maybe God is no where at all.

He sets up a false distinction between "up there" and "out there", not realizing that such can be the same. Every "out there" is "up there" to those on a planet's surface. But by this false distinction, he can allege that just as we had to change from "up there" to "out there", so should we now be willing to change again.

He seriously over-estimates the level of knowledge man has of the universe. We only just recently got pictures of Pluto, so far from there being "no vacant places left" for God to be (as he claimed), the Known Universe is far more than 99.999% "vacant places" as far as our knowledge goes. In other words, God may be any where He cares to be.

On page 14 he drops in the odd statement of "And there is nothing to stop us, if we wish to, locating God 'beyond' it. And there he would be quite invulnerable - in a 'gap' science could never fill." "It" being the "known universe", past which we can not presently receive data due to light speed limitations.

This is odd for two reasons. One, because it may well be true, and negates his entire premise at once. Two, because he follows this statement up in the very next sentence of, "But in fact the coming of the space-age has destroyed this crude projection of God - and for that we should be grateful."

As he had just got through saying, a God placed outside the known universe would indeed be "invulnerable", so why he imagines that man's tentative excursions within our solar system or even our detection of light and radio waves from other galaxies "destroys" any projection of God is beyond me.

It should be noted that God being outside the known universe may still be regarded - even literally - as both "up there" and "out there".

On pages 14 and 15 he cites many of the times the Bible, and modern Christian writers and theologians have used phrases that suggest God is "up there" or "out there". He is apparently under the impression that by naming these instances, he is showing them false. Yet all he actually did was name them, and never even tried to show them as false.

He then states that the Bible writers and modern theologians do not believe that God is literally "up there" or "out there", but cites no sources that would indicate that such is so.

He correctly states that as so many have no trouble seeing it in "up there" and "out there" terms, that it makes one "hesitate" to "call it into question". He then promptly calls it into question.

Having incorrectly assumed that we are all performing mental gymnastics in automatically translating "up there" into "out there", he suggests that we go further and start translating "out there" to what he is about to suggest about God. He then also claims that failure to do so will somehow "cut ourselves off" of "classics" of the Christian faith. No proof is offered for this, or reasons gave of why he would imagine that to be so.

He states that such would be a difficult transition period. And he states that we are "reaching a point" where the "out there" view is becoming a "hindrance". Yet so far it seems mainly to be a hindrance to him.

On page 16 he again mentions that the three-decker view of the universe has fallen out of favor. Apparently the repetitive citing of this half truth is sufficient to validate his theory that the "out there" view of God needs to be jettisoned as well.

To be clear, the "three-decker" view of the universe simply reflected that we saw the sky above, and that water was deeper than any dirt we could see, and that we were in between those two things on that dirt. It was not so much disproved - as skies are really above us and water really is deeper than we are - but improved. We understand that the land is on magma, that the deepest waters are upon "land" - so to speak - that is itself above that magma, and etc. And that the sky is still above, but that vacuum - and the rest of the known universe - is above that.

The "three-decker" theory was then simply a good working theory that held up very well, and was only improved upon, not jettisoned. We added magma below land and sea, and added vacuum and all else above the sky. That's important to note, as he is citing this as something that did have to be jettisoned and something completely different put in it's place. That false representation is then used to justify him jettisoning the old and putting what he represents as new in it's place.

That three-decker example fails then for two reasons. One, it was not a theory "replaced" so much as "improved". Two, even if one wishes to debate that much further, and heavily advocate that it was sufficiently enough changed to count as a "replacement", that would not then mean that to be true, one only needs to offer a replacement of traditional Christianity to be true as well.

He goes on to suppose that a knowledge of Earth's interior (that magma and such) is why "hell" fell out of favor, as opposed to the more usually accepted explanation of competing Protestant faiths in the New World giving cause for churches to preach more happiness than hell-fire to retain members.

On pages 16 and 17 he correctly identifies a problem. That to "be asked to give up any idea of a Being 'out there' at all will appear to be an outright denial of God." That is the problem, and it is - in spite of what he might think - a real problem. A God that is not a "being" is not a God at all.

Also on pages 16 and 17 he is setting himself up as some kind saver of God. In that the false distinction he has described between "up there" and "out there" is somehow giving atheists ammunition, and ammunition that he believes would lead people to no longer believe in God at all. Such that if people then cannot believe in an "up there" or "out there" God, we must take his idea of abandoning an "up there" and "out there" God seriously! That in order to still believe in God, we will have to jettison that which is an integral aspect of God! His very existence as a being!

Bear in mind, that up till now, he hasn't actually shown any real problem in believing in God as a Being, a Being with existence, and a Being that he already admitted could be outside the known universe. There being no real problem then, he has spent this time trying to show that the "no problem" is really "a problem" and one in need of his solution.

He is also slipping in an odd phrase, on page 17, in which he asks, "Suppose that all such atheism does is to destroy an idol, and that we can and must get on without a God 'out there' at all?" This is odd because for one, by his own admission on page 14, it is perfectly safe to have God "out there" past the known universe, "invulnerable" to any atheist. And secondly, he has, without any foundation at all, slipped in a bold new claim that to believe in a God that has existence as a Being is to believe in an "idol"!

Given that he is soon to be preaching his own version of what a non-existent and non-being God is, and that such a new entity could easily be regarded as itself an "idol", if not a violation of the "no other gods before me" commandment as well, it is bold indeed to let those who do believe in what he dismissively refers to as "Traditional Christianity" be regarded by him as idolaters!

He also still clings to the false distinction between "up there" and "out there", and suggests that any who believe in "up there" would be primitive.

He drags in Freud, and in a sentence with the word "perhaps" in it twice, suggests that "perhaps" God is but a projection and "perhaps" "we are being called to live without that projection in any form". Not mentioned is who - besides himself - is in any way calling for us to live without that. Not mentioned is that he has yet to in any way bring in evidence of God being only a "projection".

On page 18 he states that he believes a great many will resist what he calls a "Copernican revolution", and asks the quite valid question of if this is even necessary. It is important to note, since he uses this term more than once, that nothing he is proposing is in any sense a "Copernican revolution", and it's a bit prideful for him to assume it is so. To be labeled such a grandiose thing as an equivalent to that historical change in paradigm, would come better from another, and years later on, when the full effects could be judged dispassionately.

For myself, looking back on it with 20/20 hindsight, I can see clearly that it was not so much a "revolution" at all, but more like a third party getting 15 people into a Parliament that has 100 members. And rather than replacing a broken system with a new and good system, it took that which was doing fine and attempted to substitute that which "felt" right to him and others.

On page 19, he specifically mentions that it might be said that he not feeling that certain things about traditional Christianity were correct might be a "spiritual inadequacy" on his part. And even goes so far as to follow that up with stating that "there is clearly a very large amount of truth in this."

That's very interesting, because that's actually a trick usually found in movies and television shows. Where one mentions a problem, simply to then have it assumed to be dismissed. An action scene might seem very improbable, such that the viewer is going to doubt it enough to be jarred out of the film. The script writer then has one of the character's say something to the effect of, "Can you believe this? What were the odds of this ever happening!?"

This reassures the viewer that he is not the only one who doubts the scene - but doesn't do anything to explain how that scene in any makes sense. It does let the viewer dismiss the doubt though - as he has just heard himself and his doubts validated, before the doubtful scene continues on undisturbed!

Likewise this author has brought up a perfectly valid point, and one that he surely knows that I - and probably 10,000 before me - would leap to bring up at once. That his doubts over traditional Christianity are surely more likely to be indicative of his own spiritual troubles than an indicator that the rest of the world needs to change!

So he names that, and even says it is largely true - as of course, it is true! Having then mentioned the very objections most likely to be brought up against his thesis, and having granted the validity of that objection, he then feels free to carry on as if nothing had happened!

Then, rather than support his thesis, or offer any solid evidence as to why the world should have to change due to what he himself described as being most likely his "spiritual inadequacies", he offers only the most remarkably insubstantial answer one could imagine.

His feelings.

It's true. In pages 19 to 21, he cites only that he himself has felt that the traditional theology is inadequate, and that several ideas from authors he quotes "feel" right to him. I understand that he is speaking of an actual phenomena, where all the variety of experiences and ideas that a man is exposed to can give one a general "sense of life" (as a Russian philosopher once called it) and that can give a person indicators on what is or is not comfortable for him.

But such are emotions, and are not - as the same Russian author said - "tools of cognition". They do nothing to get us any nearer or further from any truth of any subject at all.

Please bear in mind, too, that this whole book is supposed to be a "modernization" of Christian thought, that the general implication is that his view is somehow more scientific and sophisticated than belief in what is dismissively referred to as "Traditional" Christianity.

Yet he overlooks a key concept in science - the concept that Carl Sagan stated as, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."!

Should he wish to say that he "feels" that we should remain seated while singing hymns, who would quibble with him? But when he says he "feels" that God is not God, but something entirely different with the same name, then it is more than okay to expect some pretty extraordinary evidence to back up his extraordinary claim!

He's about to quote people, though, perhaps the evidence will be there. Let's see!

The first author he quotes is Paul Tillich, who has apparently described an "infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being" and then in the part he is quoted on, says that this is "God".

No where in the quote is that claim supported, and in fact, it cannot actually be true. See, words actually do have meanings, and they aren't supposed to be randomly changed without cause. True, they sometimes are, but it's never a one man process. If you can persuade enough people that "cool" can mean "hip", then eventually the sound used for a temperature can come to mean a social status.

Always in such cases, both meanings remain, and context determines which is meant.

In this case, though, the word "God" which already meant (among other things) an existent being who stood in relation to us as a Creator "out there", is now defined as a variety of concepts pertaining to yourself. "God" is thus, according to Tillich, "the depths of your life" and "the source of your being" and "of your ultimate concerns" and "what you take seriously without any reservation".

Theological inquiries - Robinson-style!

 

You, you, you and you. Or when you read it, "I, I, I and I". One could as well then take away the idea "God is I" from that single quote, or rephrased in normal English - "I am God". Hmm. Put like that, it doesn't sound to good, does it?
 

In theory, this is allegedly to make an atheist now understand that he has believed in God all along, as he certainly has always believed in himself!

In practice, instead of simply ascribing a second meaning to the word-sound "God", he has gone ahead and alleged that the first definition is wrong, and that the second one is the real one. Thus there is no such thing as a temperature between warm and cold any more, only the social status of being "cool". Those who still feel that there could be a state between warm and cold should be regarded as "traditional", "old fashioned" or "primitive".

Understand that this negates what we have known God to be, and substitutes a secular belief in ourselves. It is possible for those who call themselves Christian to profess a belief in this, one may profess to believe anything one likes, but like the Deist and Transcendentalist movements of the late 18th and early 19th century this will inevitably lead to agnosticism at the least, atheism at the worst, and membership in the Unitarian Universalist Association at best.

It is not entirely inevitable that a person who embraces Tillich's concept of God must then embrace Deism and Transcendentalism and then down to secular humanism. But to the extent they claim to represent Christianity, they may expect a quite predictable backlash against such secularization of religion and the start of new more literalist/fundamentalist movements. Or new life given to such as already exist.

And we've sure seen that in the fifty years since this book was authored.

However, this Tillich apparently made a big impression on Robinson. I mention this as he spends some time assuring us of just how big an impression this made upon him. Yet oddly, nothing in the quote of Tillich provided any evidence of the truth of his or Robinson's claims at all.

Let alone any "extraordinary" evidence. All that quote did was show that Robinson agrees with another man. It does nothing to show the truth or falsity of either man.

Next on page 23 Robinson cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Who if Tillich believes in the Christian God without God, Bonhoeffer believes in the Christian religion without religion.

Bonhoeffer makes a rather bizarre analogy. He claims that God is calling us to form a "Christianity that does not depend on the premise of religion" in the same fashion as "St. Paul was calling men in the first century to a form of Christianity that did not depend on the premise of circumcision."

That analogy is apparently supposed to make us accept his claim, as we have already accepted St. Paul's claim. Forgot is that St. Paul was speaking of getting rid of a specific practice out of the totality of the entire religion, while Bonhoeffer - not God as he so boldly claims - is calling us to give up the entirety of that religion!

And again, no where in any quote of Bonhoeffer's is there any kind of evidence gave to support this claim, or Robinson's claims.

The last quote is on page 24, where Robinson cites Rudolph Bultmann. So far we have the Christian God without God, Christian religion without religion, and now Bultmann's contribution is that we should have the New Testament stories without any of the miraculous or divine, but just as a straight history.

While we are not given any reason why Bultmann would believe this, we are given to understand that Bultmann believes that "New Testament writers used the 'mythological' language of pre-existence, incarnation, ascent and descent, miraculous intervention, cosmic catastrophe, and so on" as a means of expressing the "trans-historical character of the historical event of Jesus of Nazareth".

That would be rather sophisticated of them, in a marvelously goofy way, if that was the case. We are then to picture them all sitting around, knowing full well that Jesus was but a man, born of Mary and Joseph, nothing more than human, a performer of no miracles, a healer and life giver to none, who then died badly and due to the betrayal of his trusted associate, and left to rot in a tomb till he turned to dust - we are to picture them knowing all that, but then saying, "Hey, let's tell everyone he was a god and did magic and rose from the dead, and that way we can get them to accept his Sermon on the Mount!"

Really? So in this view the preachings of Jesus were so bad as to need magic added to get them noticed? Having read them, I doubt this. Rather I stick with the traditional approach, in which the Apostles related the miraculous and divine for actually having witnessed it, and those things took place so that humanity could be aware that this One - Jesus - was Himself miraculous and divine.

Robinson then asks the obvious question - "If he is right, the entire conception of a supernatural order which invades and 'perforates' this one must be abandoned. But if so, what do we mean by God, by revelation, and what becomes of Christianity?"

He's asking the correct question, but regrettably it has all the appearance of being asked rhetorically. It is apparent he believes that this very book of his will let us know how that miracle of miracle removing will be achieved, how the de-godding of God will proceed and how the removal of religion from the Christian religion will succeed.

And all for he himself having a hard time swallowing the faith he has made so much a part of his life! And for perpetually referencing unnamed others who find it hard to swallow, a group that he admits is a "minority".

Needless to say, no evidence in support of any claim was to be found in any quote or idea of Bultmann.

On page 25 Robinson marvels at how this "new" view resonates with all who are not theologically trained or otherwise familiar with the Christian faith. And how it does not go over well with those who are "in the pews".

Why he marvels of this is beyond me. Obviously it is easier for a person unfamiliar with any of it to accept "God" as just "what you feel" and "Christianity" as something with no order or structure and the New Testament as just a few sermons and history lessons of some carpenter turned failed revolutionary.

It's easier because it calls on the person to make no real changes at all for any kind of betterment. A God "outside" demands that we figure out who He is and what He wants. A God "inside" us requires nothing more than that we check our feelings, and be sure to act upon them as we would have anyway! Remember those inarticulate "feelings" Robinson referred to? That let him figure out his views that he wants to share with us in his book?

Those feelings, that "sense of life", are then the "God" looked down to for guidance. One doubts such a god is very demanding, which I suspect is the point.

Also, a Christianity without church or code or codification lets one feel a part of "something" while not having to learn anything. Like, for instance, pesky rules or standards.

And finally - for that new person exposed to this - a life of Jesus with nothing miraculous requires no sense of wonder at what greater things than us and our world can be. It has us - and our feelings - as the "peak". A "peak" to be found in the depths. Nothing for us to look up and out to - only ourselves to look down and in to.

He concludes chapter 1 by expressing that he will not be speaking to us as a theologian, but as a layman. That he feels that this will be the better way to convince us. That due to this being a "Copernican" level change, that it will be hard and meet resistance.

That it might meet resistance simply for being false does not seem to occur to him. No, it must be for it being such a large and important theory, such that he stands in relation to his theory as Copernicus stood in relation to his theory! No modesty or humility here! This guy is literally describing his feelings on this subject as a "revolution" the likes that have not been seen since Copernicus!

And yet, while he gives no homage to any previous authors, besides the three quoted, there have been many in history who have gone down this very same road. Where God is not out but in. Where revelation does not come from a Supreme Being, but from our Supreme Feelings. Any person who has ever said, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", and such types existed long before Robinson, are closer to being the original authors than he is.

In fact, the entire Buddhist population could claim copyright infringement here!

Robinson then does the "run for the Presidency" thing, where it is pretended that he had no desire to do this, but feels compelled to answer this call. The implication being that he is being pushed by...by...could it be? God himself?

He wisely does not flat out state that the "push" comes from God, but leaves that tiny blank to be easily filled in by the reader.

Then he adds the pretense of claiming to not know the answers he will come to learn of in advance, but to simply be wandering about seeing where these thoughts take him. He will be as surprised as you, and this also has the benefit of setting up the false "we", as in now you can feel that "John and I" are now together looking into this!

And all this he refers to - in the last sentence of the chapter - as being "honest - honest to God and about God - and to follow the argument where it leads."

Regrettably, he put forth no argument. An "argument" is something with premises and proofs put forth. He has put forth only his feelings. He made extraordinary claims. He gave no evidence at all, extraordinary or not.

Conclusion: The chapter titled "Reluctant Revolution" is neither reluctant, nor a revolution. He has only introduced what he wishes us to believe in common with him.

1. A false problem - that traditional Christianity is leading to atheism.

2. A ludicrous solution - that we must destroy God, Christianity and the New Testament in order to save them.

3. A historically proved false claim - that a secularization of God, Christianity and the New Testament will aid in that*.

While nothing he was setting out to prove in this chapter is in any way proved he will now - you may be sure - carry on from this point as if those points have been proved. The old, "I already talked about that in the last chapter!" trick, where since it was talked about, it must have been proved and you just missed it.

You missed nothing. No proof was there. Let those who disagree highlight the "proof" and show it to any who doubt Robinson, that they might be educated!

*The Deists tried a form of this in the late 18th century, where religion was ditched and God made into a remote and unacting agent. It ended with the members going down one of two paths. Either to eventually rejecting those teachings to embrace a more literalist/fundamentalist Christianity, or to continue to hold fast to those teachings and descend to agnosticism and atheism. The early 19th century Restorationist movements owe much to those who were hungry for more than the Deists and less fundamentalist faiths were offering.