Open Path

THE LAST CHRISTIAN

By: Adrian Gibb

14th October 2084

I am the last christian!

Ron died this morning, so I am the last! Of course, nobody knows this. Maybe a decade ago you could declare yourself a person of faith, if you were brave enough, but not today. It would be, almost literally, insanity to do so. Not that Ron or I would have been thrown into jail or tortured for our belief, but we would be seen to be as deranged as those, in my mother's youth, who declared themselves to be Julius Caesar or abducted by aliens. We would be ridiculed, mocked, perhaps even ostracised, and I have a career and a reputation I don't wish to lose. No I can't declare myself a christian, even though I am the last, I just can't, can I?

You see, though I hate to admit me, I have started to ask myself if maybe I am deranged? How can my belief, on an intellectual level, be tenable, if literally the rest of the world has abandoned it? How can I still hold my faith to be true and real when I am the only one who feels its reality and truth? My faith, once adhered to by the majority on this planet, is now like a river in drought. Its shell still stands, its structure can be seen, and what it once was is obvious, but the life has ceased to flow through its walls, and it crumbles, thirsty for droplets of purpose. I have to face facts, Dawkinsism is the philosophy of the world now. Faith is dead, everybody else can see that, by I still pray. Why?

I hate myself for my wishes! I wish I didn't read the gospels and tingle with inspiration. I wish I didn't see Jesus as the face of God, and believe in an empty tomb. I wish I didn't feel the presence, the real and tangible presence of the limitless divine when I pray, or watch a sunset, or give my last five dollars to a homeless man. I hate myself for wishing that the love I feel caress me when I think of a man who lived over two thousand years ago would go away. I wish these things. I wish they could just leave my mind, and that science and logic and reason and all that the rest of humanity feels comfortable with would satisfy me. But it doesn't! And my wishes remain just that. Hateful wishes.

So what do I do? Do I accept the will of the masses and reject my faith, a faith that lives though I wish it to die? Do I declare my faith, with pride, with strength, and suffer the consequences? I would no doubtedly lose many of my clients, my boss, an ardent Dawkinsite, would probably sack me, and some may even suggest I have lost my mind. But so what, that doesn't matter right? I may be the last one, I may be the only one, but that doesn't mean my faith is not real! Right? It would be worth it! Even if I lost everything, it would be worth it. But would it? What if I am wrong? What if I am deranged? What would I be right, me, worthless me, and the rest of the world wrong? The numbers don't add up, do they?

So tell me, dear reader from who knows where, or when, what should I do? Please tell me, what would you do?

What would be your three great reforms?

Being raised in Australia the heavenly sport of cricket has played a large part in my life. One of the most famous of our commentators is someone called Ritchie Benaud, famous as a player, even more famous behind the mic for close to half a century. He was asked once what makes a great player and he replied something like, "I would say 90% of people can identify problems, only about 10% will try and come up with solutions!". To this end, I thought I would ask the question above. Let me explain:

I was recently having a conversation with someone about the failings of organised religion and was challenged to come up with three great reforms, effective immediately, which I thought would radically help the Church. I pondered over this, and this is what I came up with. These are my three great reforms!

1) SEPARATION: The figure, teacher and meta-physical presence of Jesus, as discovered in and through the NT, should be immediately separated from the doctrine and dogma of the church developed in the name of Jesus. One can and should be a follower of Jesus without necessarily being a follower of a particular church.

2) EMPHASIS: Emphasis must be placed on the NT or 'Greek Bible' over the OT or 'Hebrew Bible'. Within the NT emphasis should be placed on the words and teachings of Jesus above all and any other apostles. Within the words and teachings of Jesus emphasis should be placed upon the Golden Rule and the Greatest Commandment above all.

3) INCLUSION: There should be an immediate rejection of any exclusivist dogma relating to salvation, whether based on a person's faith (or lack there-of), race, gender, political orientation or sexual orientation. All peoples should be, and already are, within the embrace of the loving Jesus.

So there you go, that is what I came up with. Of course there is more I could have included, but that is the point, challenged me to come up with those I found most important. Now if you want to critique my reforms, please feel free to do so, but I would really love to hear your own reforms.

If you could, how would you broadly change our faith, and make it better?   

The Trinitarian Paradox

By: Adrian Gibb

Hello again everyone,

Often people ask me how I can be so passionate about the unique place that I believe Jesus holds in our collective history but still hold to a pluralistic mindset. I have, over the years, realized that a possible answer to this question, or at least a tantalizing opportunity to reflect on it, can be found in what I call The Trinitarian Paradox!

Like many Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity has been to me, at times, confusing and contradictory. I would say, gladly, that one can be a Christian and NOT be a Trinitarian. But for me, the Trinity is something I accept in this sense, I believe that when Jesus walked the earth he did so as a reflection of, or a revelation of, the limitless Divine. The Divine showed his/her/it's face then, so I accept that whatever the limitless Divine is, Jesus is part of that make-up. Once this acceptance is made, that Jesus and the limitless Divine are inexorably linked, then one reaches the conclusion, well at least I do, that WHENEVER the limitless Divine has revealed itself throughout the history of humankind, in whatever form and to whatever degree, then Jesus, too, was so revealed. A pluralistic outlook follows on from this for me. Each and every faith, each like the blind man reaching out and touching the famous Brahmic elephant, is interpreting and developing a faith to reflect their truth of their encounter with the Divine, yes, but also their encounter with Jesus. 

So is this a possible paradox? If you are Trinitarian then you must accept that, if the Divine has revealed itself to all people, then Jesus has been revealed too. Exclusivists would then argue that all humakind has an obligation then to be an adherent of the Christian Church. But this Church is a faith built up around the figure of Jesus. The paradox then is this, all faiths, as reflections of a Trintarian Divine, are, in a way, followers of Jesus!

This is how I can hold that Jesus was the ultimate revelation of the Divine, but that every faith's truth should be as respected and validated as the Christian Church.

What do you think? Does the Trinitarian Paradox exist?

When does the ice break?

By: Adrian Gibb

Hi everyone! Wonderful to be on board as a blogger and looking forward to posting all my ramblings which, hopefully, strike an accord with readers.

The first question I would like to ask on this blog stems from a discussion I had with an Anglican Rector a few years ago. We were talking about Bishop Spong, and his views on the Resurrection. This Rector suggested that Spong was on thin ice already, questioning centuries of doctrine and dogma, and he was concerned at which point the ice would break! At which point, in essence, should he cease being described as a Christian? So I thought I would conduct a bit of a Geoffey Robertson Hypothetical here, and ask you readers to imagine the following:

1) You reach the conclusion, through your searching, that you do not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin birth.

2) You also decide that the miracles and healings described in the NT are probably not literal realities.

3) You are disinclined to believe that Jesus was God incarnate when he walked this earth.

4) You accept that there may have been a spiritual resurrection of Jesus in the minds and hearts of the disciples, but do not believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ.

5) You reject the notion of the NT being literal in any way, and see it as rather a collection of accounts and epistles by fellow followers of Christ's message.

6) You reach the final conclusion that Jesus was simply a man, engaged in a relationship with God that we can all achieve, who had a message of peace, love and social justice that resonates with you.

7) You thus decide that Jesus should have no more power or religious credence than Buddha or many of the Vedic sages.

Okay, now, has the ice broken for you? Have any of these things made it impossible for you to call yourself a Christian? If so, why? If not, why not?

Am looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Adrian Gibb