Jesus the Humanist
FreeChristians

The human Jesus was an itinerant preacher with no place to lay his head. He suffered and was treated with contempt, but nevertheless had authority on earth to forgive sins and to decide what is right. On his death, however, he became the exalted Lord of all, who reigns with God in heaven, and who will come again to judge the quick and the dead. It appears that the public was not ready for the Human Being that Jesus knew and to which he called others to relate. . . . But the apocalypticization of the gospel nevertheless served an important purpose. It held the urgency of the Human Being’s “coming,” as it were, in suspension, preserving the potential of the Human Being for future generations. (Walter Wink’s "The Human Being", p.188)

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELLED: One Man's Journey To A Compassionate Lifestyle.

God In Us - Anthony Freeman

Article in Humanism Today: Religious Humanism: The Past We Inherit, the Future We Creat

Theism and Religious Humanism: The Chasm Narrows, printed in Christian Century, May 21, 1975

Religious Humanism: An address delivered to the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, 2000

The Case for Christian Humanism - R. William Franklin and Joseph M. Shaw

With God in Human Trust - Kenneth Cragg

"Judge for yourselves what is right" Jesus Christ

The main points discussed in this page are:

1. Religious and Secular Humanism
2. Why Christians fear Humanism 
3. Human vs. Inhuman 
4. Humanism vs. Theism 
5. Jesus the humanist
6. One cannot be "spiritual" without being a humanist
7. Conclusion (Humanity is the image of God)

1. Religious and Secular Humanism

 Everyone interested in the subject can start by reading the three Humanist Manifestos (see links below):

1. Humanist Manifesto I (1933)

2. Humanist Manifesto II (1973)

3. Humanist Manifesto III (2003)

For a short introduction to the topic: Definitions of Humanism: Humanism in brief.

Some excerpts from Humanist Manifesto III:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity...

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfilment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all...

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life... Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views...

(Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association—© 2003 American Humanist Association)

More on Humanism:

---

2. Why Christians fear Humanism

Humanism, (especially Secular Humanism) triggers two primary emotions in Christians. Fear and Anger.  Forget about War, Disease, Poverty, Injustice, etc. The biggest enemy of mankind, according to many Christians is Humanism, "the religion of Satan"! In the words of a conservative Christian: "Now we know the enemy. Now the enemy has been identified. We are in a war, and the first thing necessary in war is to identify the enemy. This enemy is Satan and his lying religion of secular humanism. This is not a new war but is only his continuing long war against God, in which he continuously tries to get you to doubt the Word of God. It is the same tactic Satan used against Eve and Adam. It is time for Christians to close ranks, fix bayonets, take up the SWORD of the Lord and say this far and no farther..." 

 Conservative Christians have always been intent on Outlawing Unbelief. Atheism (the denial of theism) has been traditionally viewed as a moral depravity, worse even than murder. Not long ago, atheism was equated with immorality. Secular Humanism, being atheistic, has also been demonized. This mentality still remains (see: 10 Myths About Secular Humanism). Why unbelief or atheism is a moral crime, worthy of death, (or hell), has never been answered by Christian apologists. Their argument that God is offended by humans who do not acknowledge His existence is lame, to say the least. They confuse God with the Emperors of Rome. Perhaps Secular Humanism aggravates many Christians because it articulates what they do not want to accept, that the Theistic Emperor "has no clothes".

Traditional Theism portrays God as an earthly Monarch. This is easy to understand. During Biblical times, people could not envisage God in any other way than a King. The Sky God of Theism, sat enthroned above the earth, demanding blind obedience or else... By using their earthly rulers as conceptual models our spiritual ancestors created the Sky God of traditional Theism. Because Secular Humanism exposes the inhumanity of the Celestial Shylock of Theism, it triggers feelings of anger and fear. When worldviews are challenged, or when they collapse, many people feel shock. To avoid the shock, some resort to denial. Denial leads to fundamentalism. Behind the so-called certainty of fundamentalism lurks the unspeakable agony of a collapsing worldview.

Even though they see that the Emperor has no clothes, fundamentalist Christians refuse to believe it. Some even fear to acknowledge it, lest the Emperor get angry with them for seeing Him naked. We can understand why an earthly Dictator would get angry and offended if his subjects became disillusioned with him, but God too? Not many Christians ever stop to think why God should be so offended by human unbelief as to threaten mankind with calamities and even eternal torments. 

 Really, Why Do People Believe or Disbelieve? And why should someone be blamed for not believing anyway? Extraordinary claims (ie. supernatural) require extraordinary proofs, and not all people agree on what constitutes "proof". Instead of humbly acknowledging the burden of proof upon their shoulders, conservative Christians tend to get all arrogant about their "faith", judging all those unbelieving Thomas's out there as worthy of damnation. They blame the "blind" for not seeing!

Of course, not all Christians think this way. It is mainly the conservative/fundamentalist branches of Christianity that are "in battle mode with the forces of Satan". Humanism is routinely blamed by conservative Christians for the mess the world is in and is cited as evidence that the end is near. For them, Humanism is the religion of the Antichrist. 

Lest anyone is in doubt of the extreme fear and anger felt by Christians towards Humanism, I give some examples in the table below:

Examples with Christian views of
Humanism as a "Satanic Ploy"

  Secular Humanism 1 "...This enemy is Satan and his lying religion of secular humanism. ... tries to get you to doubt the Word of God. It is the same tactic Satan used against Eve and Adam ..."

  Secular Humanism 2 , Secular Humanism 3 , Sinai Strategy , Secular Humanism 4 

  Christian Character - Secular Humanism & New Age , The Root Cause , Into the Arms of Satan 

  Last Days of The Longest War "...attack upon biblical revelation and morality is a tool of Satan called secular humanism..." , Secular Humanism Has Replaced God "in 1933 (and again in 1977), the secular humanists united to overthrow God..." , Myths ... Secular humanism is an optimistic confidence in our ability to use the tools of reason and science... Secular humanists are Satan worshippers. ...

Reading the above polemic material it is obvious why Christians fear Humanism so much. Humanism is mainly associated with Secularism which rejects theism. The knee-jerk reaction of Christians is opposition and fear. That is understandable. When someone's worldview is challenged, defense mechanisms are automatically activated. This also applies to atheists... In fact, ideologies and religions derive their power from the worldviews they construct or adopt. Especially in times of change and uncertainty, people long for security, which religious or political leaders are all too happy to offer.

But there are more reasons why Humanism, (including Christian Humanism), is rejected by conservative Christians.

One of them, is so subtle it is hardly noticed. It has to do with the conscious/unconscious recognition that humanistic ethics are far superior than the traditional ethics held by Christianity. This becomes obvious when we read or listen to Christian leaders or preachers attacking humanistic values like tolerance, freedom, equality, scientific knowledge, and anti-authoritarianism. 

Humanistic "Situational" Ethics vs Religious "Absolute" Ethics

 In his attempt to critisise Humanistic Ethics, a conservative Christian Theologian achieves quite the opposite: "Humanists are convinced that everything is relative and that nothing is absolute. They apply that basic premise in all areas of life. Applied to morals it results in what is commonly known as the new morality and more precisely as situation ethics. Thesis three of the new Manifesto espouses situation ethics. "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. ... We strive for the good life here and now." What the good life is each person may decide for himself. To the credit of many humanists it must be acknowledged that for them the good life means living on a high moral plain, practicing integrity, engaging in philanthropic enterprises, demonstrating civic mindedness. But it also means that every man is a law unto himself. He may openly flout laws he disdains as unjust. He may scorn God's design for a meaningful sex life. He may freely indulge in open marriage O'Neill style, homosexual or bisexual conduct. He may choose whatever life-style appeals to him. For the situation ethicist, love decides all things. The proper thing to do in any situation is the loving thing..." 

Since not much can be said against "love decides all things", the conservative theologian goes on to say that Christians do that better because they alone have knowledge of what "true love" is. He makes it clear that the source of such confidence is the  Bible, which he accepts as the infallible Word of God: "A Christian might well agree with that (love decides all things) since the essence of God's law is love. There is a vital difference, however. The difference between Christian ethics and humanist ethics lies in the fact that the humanist determines for himself what love ought to do while the Christian lets God inform the heart on matters of love. He knows that "love is the fulfilling of the law" Rm 13:10. God's law is absolute, unchangeable. Every expression of humanism is an enemy of the truth as God has revealed it to us. Its philosophy, its ideals and its ethics are those of unenlightened, natural man who is ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, 2 Tm 3:7..." (Humanism, Its Origin, Nature and Menacing Impact by Prof. Joel C. Gerlach [Delivered to the Dakota-Montana District Convention, Mobridge, South Dakota, June 20, 1976])

Little does Prof. Joel C. Gerlach know that the Bible, does not contain an absolute or unchangeable Law. In fact, Bible ethics are situational ethics, just like humanist ethics. An atheist debunks the notion that the Bible contains absolutes:

 "The assumptions made by the theists are not based on fact. There is no source of absolute morality to be found in any religious document - and to the extent that there is - moral viewpoints differ... The document that Christians rely on is the bible. It is an imperfect document, however, containing many contradictions. Even what material should be included in the Bible and what should be left out is the subject of disagreement amongst the different Christian denominations - who publish different bibles! One of the contradictions that remains is very well known:

• "...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " Exodus 21:23-25

• "...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39

"These two strictures are completely incompatible (and come without clarifying explanations) and it is not possible for a reasonable person to construct a moral code of practice based on them. Even if it is, it is not possible to do so without debate and disagreement. The Bible, then, cannot provide us with an absolute moral code...". Here's another pair of contradictions - both from Ezekiel:

"A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own." - Ezekiel 18:20. Speaking of whores (Ezekiel 23:43-46) "The assembly shall stone them and with their swords shall cut them down; they shall kill their sons and their daughters and burn up their houses." - Ezekiel 23:47 (It is clear that the children of prostitutes are to be killed - in clear contradiction of Ezekiel 18:20. Except, of course: "Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death." - Deuteronomy 24:16. The balance seems to be in favour of killing the innocent: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them (idols, from line 4), for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me" - Exodus 20:5

"...or punishing illegitimacy for rather a long time (probably disqualifying most people now alive): "Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:2... These quotations represent not the serious or sober elucidation of laws or principles - but the foolish exaggeration of some ranting rabbis. We have a rambling hodgepodge lacking intellectual weight or consistency of thought merely designed to satisfy whatever prejudice the writers had about a particular topic. Again, it is not possible for a reasonable person to construct a moral code based on such contradictions - any more than killing the innocent could be part of an acceptable moral code... (Absolute moral standards-- are they possible? by Alan Urdaibay)

Urdaibay gets even more relentless as he adds: 

"Even if there were no contradictions in the Bible there would be further problems. Some aspects of god's behaviour in the Bible are incontrovertibly immoral: "Then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh. He passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, 'If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord's, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering.' So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonistes to fight them; and the Lord gave them into his hand. He inflicted a massive defeat on them... Judges 11:29-33 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her... she returned to her father who did with her according to the vow he had made." Judges 11:34-39..." (ibid)

And the devastating comment: "The terms were acceptable to god - who is supposed to be omniscient and know the future - and so knew what would happen and accepted the human sacrifice of Jephthah's innocent daughter. (The relevant context of this gruesome episode has been explained in full). We would be appalled at this kind of arrangement with god today but would not be surprised to read of such things in a horror story in which the protagonist made a pact with the devil..." (ibid)

And again: "There are frequent references to slavery in Exodus which make it clear that slavery was not only acceptable, but a proper course of action according to god's ordinance: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed (returned to her family); he shall have no right to sell her to foreign people since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her to his son he shall deal with her as with a daughter." - Exodus 21: 711 & "When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment for the slave is the owner's property." - Exodus 21:20-21" & "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18 (It would appear that the girls were to be raped and kept as slaves)... It is impossible to square an acceptance of slavery with any acceptable moral code... It is unequivocally clear that the god of the bible did not disapprove of slavery (or the killing of children, or even human sacrifice - see quotations above) on moral grounds. If this had been the case it would surely have been rejected. (ibid)

And again: "God clearly acts in an immoral manner towards children: "Thus says the Lord of hosts, ...go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." - 1 Samuel 15:2-3,... & "You shall not bow down to them or worship them (idols, from line 4), for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me" - Exodus 20:5..."

"It requires no special moral sense to understand that children cannot be held responsible for what their parents do or believe. Yet this last quotation is part of the first of the Ten Commandments. (It is no surprise that Christians are selective about which 10 Commandments they quote from, since those in Deuteronomy 5:1-21 are more benign these are normally the ones quoted with the slavery bits omitted here also)..." (ibid)

And the punch line: "There is no suggestion that present-day Christian groups hold theses atrocities to be morally acceptable - even though the bible says they were part of god's ordinance. However, the fact that these ideas have been firmly rejected means that what was once morally acceptable to Christain teaching is no longer so. It is therefore the case that Christainity does not contain a fixed and inviolable moral code. It is a variable code in which even god's ordinances - as supposedly spoken by god at Mount Sinai - can be ignored or varied. The idea that Christian morality is fixed in some way is untrue..."

In addition the bible is clearly not so perfect a document as to resist the schism of Christianity into a large number of different groups each claiming a truth and declaring the other versions of Christianity to represent an untruth... It is a fact that the whole history of the church has heaved with religious conflict and bloody disputes (wars) over doctrine involving a large number of breakaway groups and 'heresies', besides ruthless infighting. There are far too many of these to consider discussing them here. The stablity of the church is an illusion..."

"It is clear then, that Christianity in general has simply chosen to ignore much of the bible upon which it is based. It is equally sure that Christianity does not have an unchanging moral code. Something that was wrong in the past can be right now, and something that was right in the past can be wrong now..."

"It seems reasonable to argue that what was suitable for a group of primitive Israelite tribespeople is not suitable for the life we lead now - or indeed for much of the intervening period. The bible is, in fact, almost laughably inadequate and superficial as a moral document and discusses no moral question with any clarity or depth - plenty of nice things are said here and there but do not rise above the platitudinous. It seems incredible that such a thrown together mishmash has had such importance in western history. We need to develop a sophisticated moral response to the issues that face us today that were not dreamt of in biblical times, and seek solutions which are appropriate to our conditions..."

"There is nothing so dangerous as someone claiming to be always right because that is certain to lead to them being wrong - at least some of the time. Fortunately, driven by secular influences since the Renaissance, Christianity, at least, has given up much of its barbaric past and improved its claim to be able to represent a moral standpoint (at the expense of ignoring the bible). It should not be allowed to claim the present as its own, however, but must disappear or continue to change. The fear, of course, amongst many Christians, is that much further change would lead to its disintegration, and they may be right..."

"Besides these arguments, it is universally the case that it is impossible to write down a dozen words on a piece of paper and have two people unequivocally agree on their meaning. It is even more the case that two people from centuries apart in time would have very different views. There is little doubt that any current member of any clergy alive today would be horrified at the moral viewpoints of their forebears centuries ago. Those forebears lived in mental worlds we would find virtually incomprehensible and barbaric. As a result, effectively, they believed in a different religions from believers today. That religious institutions show organizational continuity from generation to generation should not disguise the fact that they are very different now from what they were in the past, just as our individual forebears were..." (ibid)

I quoted extensively from Alan Urdaibay's essay because he completely demolishes the myth of absolute (or perfect) morals in the Bible. It is situational ethics all the way...

How Humanistic Values are attacked by Christian apologists

Gerlach denounces Humanism with the following words: "The postulates of a humanistic life-view are primarily two, confidence and tolerance. Humanists have an unshakable confidence in man's ability to shape, change and improve his world. In other words they substitute faith in man for faith in God..." (See: "Humanism, Its Origin, Nature and Menacing Impact")

Because Gerlach's views reflect the conservative/fundamentalist mindset, I will quote some of his arguments followed by a brief commentary. He singles out confidence and tolerance as the two postulates of the humanistic world view. Now, how bad can confidence and tolerance be? According to fundamentalist Christians, they are so evil, they can cost you eternal hell! 

We will see that these two primary Humanistic values, confidence and tolerance, are rejected by conservative theologians like Prof. Gerlach, because they undermine their theistic worldview. 

1. Confidence (to think for yourself)

The Sky God of traditional theism, wants humans to feel helpless, worthless, incompetent and dependent. He is like a deranged parent who does not want his children to grow up. What else but deranged is a parent that undermines the self-confidence of his/her children?

Self-Confidence covers a lot of areas. One is confidence in your mental abilities, "to think for yourself". Fundamentalist Christians are blissfully unaware of the logical difficulties in their arguments over self-confidence. First they say that humans are incapable of thinking for themselves what is best for them, and then they say they are certain that their own belief system is the only "truth". But if you are incapable to think for yourself, how can you possibly be certain that you have correctly identified the truth? While they accuse Humanists for having self-confidence, they themselves exhibit the most extreme form of self-confidence, ie. to claim to be beyond deception and to be certain about knowing the truth. The irony is very clear...

As 19th Century feminist Susan Brownell Anthony said: "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

 Gerlach is typical of fundamentalist thinking when he says: "The Scriptures compel us to go all the way back to the beginning for a proper understanding of the origin of today's humanism . It all began, according to God's record of history, when Eve determined to cut loose from God in the hope of freeing herself from dependence upon her Creator in favor of independence. For her a humanistic thought process was the inevitable consequence of entertaining in her mind the validity of the question, "Yea, hath God said?" Why not think for yourself? Why not strike out on your own? She did and she also struck out, - for the whole human race. The first exercise in humanism resulted in a catastrophic fall of fateful consequence for all men...." (Humanism, Its Origin, Nature and Menacing Impact)

One of the clearest signs of cult behavior is the renunciation of rational thinking. Victims of mind-control are made to feel incapable to think for themselves. So the cult does the thinking for them. When fundamentalist theologians tell Christians not to think for themselves, they are basically programming them to accept the authority of their religion (for who else can tell you what to think than your leader who knows the will of God?). This is blatantly inhumane. It is no wonder the Christian religion is guilty of much inhumanity. It is no wonder that Humanism is seen as a deadly threat to Christianity. While Christianity seeks to de-humanize the person, Humanism seeks to re-humanize.

 Gerlach, who wants certainty at any cost, exhorts Christian teachers and parents to protect children from thinking!  He says: "Surely nothing suffers from the menacing impact of humanism as does THEOLOGY. Biblical theology is characterized by a confident "thus saith the Lord." Humanistic “religion" is characterized by a skeptical "what saith the Lord?" Every expression of humanism is either a subtle or a crass undermining of the authority of God's Word.... Certainly not all or even a majority of the products of humanism's schools are disheveled, uncouth and rebellious. Many are neat, clean, respectful and law abiding. But there is one thing they all have in common. Their attitude is characterized by what Dr. S. Becker (quoting Christian Duquoc) likes to call it the inflation of uncertainty and the idolatrous worship of the question.". Nothing is nailed down for them. Everything is up for grabs. And that leaves them in a quandry. No wonder they are what they are. Helmut Thielicke calls the humanist whiz kids the "undisciplined generation." Any teacher with Christian convictions will nod in approval to that... As Christians who are convinced that the Bible is a reliable, inspired, infallible book of truth, and a trustworthy guide in all matters of faith and life, it is self evident that as parents and teachers our task is to settle doubts in the minds of our children not raise them. We do not teach eternal truths with open ended questions designed to make children think and thus to find out the truth for themselves. That approach may sound innocuous, even useful from a motivational viewpoint. But it's not what our Lord had in mind when He told us to speak as the oracles of God teaching men to observe everything He has commanded us..." (Humanism, Its Origin, Nature and Menacing Impact)

No comment...

2. Tolerance

Humanistic values like tolerance are specifically attacked by Christian apologists because they expose the ethical deficiencies of their own belief system. With the exception of liberal Christianity, all other forms of Christianity are blatantly intolerant. This is why they oppose the humanistic concept of tolerance. 

Gerlach attacks Liberal Christianity because of it's humanistic values of tolerance and free thought. In fact, as he points out, Liberal Christian movements like Unitarianism and Universalism were at the forefront of the Humanist movement: "In America two separate movements, both religious, have promoted the development and the spread of humanism. They are Unitarianism and Modernism. Following World War II the Unitarians who believe that man is too good to be damned united with the Universalists who believe that God is too good to damn anyone. They could find no compelling reason for not compromising their one doctrinal difference in the interest of merger. In recent years 
these people have promoted humanistic associations in larger cities and have provided the impetus for the drafting of Humanist Manifesto II. Modernism has been much more influential in fostering humanistic ideals than has Unitarianism, particularly during the last fifty years. Modernism in America traces its origin back to liberalism in Germany at the end of the last century. Schleiermacher initiated it by substituting pious God-consciousness for written revelation as the source of truth..." (Humanism, Its Origin, Nature and Menacing Impact)

Ever since the enlightenment, and especially since the "Humanist Manifesto" was first published in 1933, Christians have added "Humanism" to their list of "antichrists". As a result, the term "humanism" has been loaded over the years with negative connotations by Christian apologists. 

The Humanist movement is not strictly anti-religious. There has been a strong religious humanistic tradition in Europe, especially in liberal forms of Christianity like Unitarianism and Universalism.

The main issue for Christians is Secular Humanists, since they reject religion and the supernatural, including God. To understand why Secular Humanists are  opposed so much to religion we must recognize that religion has been guilty of many inhuman acts throughout history. Secular Humanists however seem willing to accommodate for religion, as long as it doesn't stand in the way of human progress and freedom: "In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration. We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species... The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality..." (from Humanist Manifesto II)

This is where the problem lies. Christians feel threatened by Humanism because they sense that their religion does not measure up with the moral and ethical standards set by the Human Manifesto. Since denial is an easier response than taking up the challenge for reform, many Christians have simply rejected the Humanist Manifesto, and by extension, the Humanist movement, as anti-Christian. 

So Humanism is seen as a deadly enemy of Christianity. 

Like, St. Paul, many Humanists would reply: "Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"...

 3. Human vs. Inhuman

No one explains the difference between human and inhuman than Wendell Krossa in his article series on "Horizontal God". The following ones are a "must read":

• 1. God And Control

• 8. What It Means To Be Human

• 12. Redefining God As Human- Part 1

• 13. Redefining God As Human- Part 2

• 25. Joshua Versus Jesus

4. Humanism vs. Theism 
      "Be compassionate as God is compassionate" Jesus Christ

I quite deliberately set humanism as opposite to theism because in its very essence, theism is a set of inhuman abstractions.

Above all, theism is inhuman because it portrays God as an authoritarian figure, a vertical authority, up and above people, demanding blind obedience and seeking "His own glory". The theistic God is inhuman because He is a religious God. Fortunately for all of us however, God is not religious: "God simply does not inspire anyone to become religious, nor even moral. He inspires people to be human in any way they choose. He desires only love, tolerance, freedom, forgiveness, and sharing in normal daily life. Remember, spirituality is the drive to be human. Spirituality is humanity being expressed in normal, daily life. It has nothing to do with religion or separation from normal life. There will be no front rows or back rows, no bigger or smaller mansions, and no first, second or third places in the next life. There will be no positions that reflect more reward or opportunity for some above others. The parables of Jesus about God's scandalous generosity to all, obliterate all such base human ideas of strict payback justice and reward. If we seem adamant about the things that we are stating about a reality that can not be seen, it is because we know that reality of God can not be inhuman in any way. What we are denying is inhumanity in any form. This universe exists for love- to know love and to express love. Therefore, we can be adamant about what is not love..."

The development of theism as a conceptual framework for the reality of God has been an unfortunate accident in the history of mankind. The good news is that this accident is being recognized, and theism exposed for the inhuman abstraction that it is. With theism out of the way, we are free to enjoy the wonderful reality of God: 

"God's reality will be a truly human existence in the sense that all true humanity originates with God. God, as the supremely human God, then inspires people to replicate that humanity here in this life. That humanity is the image of God in us. It is loving, forgiving, tolerating, sharing, serving, and treating all others as equals..."

 "There will be no hierarchy in God's reality, no domination or control of others, and no subservience or oppression. There will be no relating of superiors/inferiors or dominance/subservience. Religious views of a mythical heaven have a many-tiered hierarchical reality with God at the top, angels in the following strata, and creatures below. This replicates the power structures of brutal human societies. And projecting such brutal ideas onto God, enables people to justify their domination of others here in this life. But such vertical relating does not exist in God's reality..."

 "Some 3 billion years ago life made a choice for predation, competition and domination. This was not some inevitable necessity for existence, it was simply a free choice to prey on others for nutrients. It was one option among others. The result was the harming of others with the consequent competition, fighting, isolation, rejection, and misery that comes with a predatory lifestyle.

 "After predation entered early life, it became the dominant reality of all life. We have been enslaved to this brutal reality ever since. The whole animal hierarchy developed out of this early choice, with the stronger dominating the weaker. This reality of domination moved on into early emerging human existence also. Emerging humanity with its god consciousness and true human consciousness should have opted for a new reality of equality, but instead opted for the continuance of the dominant feature of surrounding existence. Where emerging humanity should have introduced a new view of God as truly human, they instead created views of gods as animals, relating vertically to followers, dominating and oppressing. Early views of gods were created to reflect and validate the domination of animal reality, instead of encouraging the emergence of genuine human reality as free and equal..."

 "So early human society was structured to embody continuing animal features- competition, domination, and oppression of the weak. There were rulers, patriarchs, kings, and more recently, leaders. It all embodied the worst features of animal existence. Christian mythology regarding the future life continues to project this animal-like hierarchy onto God's reality. They have developed ideas of a future multi-tiered hierarchy of position, power and control. But it is simply not true. All the hierarchy, powerholding, domination and control that emerged from animal existence will be obliterated in God's reality..."

 "Jesus introduced a radically new view of God as serving, not ruling or dominating. He revealed that God inspires people by example and by invitation not by coercing command or by threat. He revealed God as truly human, relating to people in a horizontally oriented manner.

 The first response of many religious people to such suggestions of God as not dominating but serving is often- blasphemy! They feel God is being somehow degraded and dragged down to the level of sinful humanity. But arguing for a future of equality in relating does not affect God's transcendence. God is always qualitatively different from his creation. However, he is not above in the sense of distance or superiority, which is an animal concept. There is no simply no superior/inferior in relating with God.

 God is infinitely 'better' than his creation, but God relates to all in freedom and love as an equal. It is an issue of relating horizontally, not vertically.

 God's transcendence is also seen in that God has more true reality than any part of his creation. He has more true humanity than any person- love, generosity, patience, tolerance, and all the truly human qualities. This makes God transcendent along with all the other mystery that makes God, God.

 And what makes God transcendent is also what makes the new reality we will enter, truly human. In that reality there will be no more of the old animal existence and relating. There will be no competition, no fighting others for more or better opportunities or power. There will be no free enterprise capitalism with its few winners, many losers. There will be no winning and losing at all with the human God. The competing, fighting and domination of animal reality has led only to enmity, jealousy, bitterness and isolation and has destroyed the truly human values of love, unity, and cooperation..."

 "No. All the animal relating and other such features that Christianity tries to project onto God's reality only distort freedom, equality, and love, just as Christian beliefs in eternal punishment distort forgiveness, mercy and love..." (See: It Gets Much Better by Wendell Krossa)

Theism is inhuman because it extrapolates inhuman images to the idea of God. Lest I be misunderstood, I quickly add that theism is not the only definition of God. While traditional theism is dying before our very eyes, new, better concepts of God are emerging. The interesting part is that these new ideas are not altogether new but have existed as a minority report our religious traditions. So theism is not the only definition of God. We can let go of theism, without denying the reality of God. In fact, when freed from the shackles of theism, we can make much better sense of our experience of God. We can gladly let go of theism, especially since it has been quite an inhumane conceptual framework. As retired Bishop Spong explains, "Theism is the historic way men and women have been taught to think about God. Most people think theism is the only conceivable way to think about God. The primary image of God in the Bible is a theistic image... One can find other images of God in the scriptures, but this is the predominant and the familiar one...  So dominant is this theistic understanding of God that if one rejects theism, one is thought to be an a-theist. An atheist is defined as one who dismisses the theistic concept of God and, since theism exhausts most people's definition of God, an atheist by definition is one who rejects the concept that God might be real..."

"So when one is confronted with the question, "Can one be a Christian without being a theist?" it opens vast doors for further thought and theological speculation... This question becomes askable only when one lives in a world that has rendered the traditional theistic view of God inoperative. We may not like to confront that reality, but in a real sense, this is what the post-modern world forces the contemporary religious community to face. The Supernatural Being that we have traditionally called God has increasingly been rendered impotent by the explosion in human knowledge over the last five hundred years..."

"We once attributed to the will of this deity everything we did not understand, from sickness to tragedy to sudden death to extreme weather patterns. But today sickness is diagnosed and treated with no reference to God whatsoever. Tragedies, like the crash of the TWA Flight #800 or the rise of the AIDS epidemic, are investigated by this secular society without reference to the will of God. That was certainly not the case when ancient tragedies, such as the black death or the bubonic plague, swept across the world. When death strikes suddenly today, we do autopsies that reveal a massive coronary occlusion or a cerebral hemorrhage as its cause. We do not speculate on why the external Deity, the theistic Supreme Being, might have wanted to punish this particular person with sudden death. Even what the insurance companies still call "acts of God" are today thought to be completely explainable in non- theistic language. We chart the formation of hurricanes from the time when they develop as low pressure systems in the southern oceans and we mark their paths until these weather systems are broken up either over land, after unleashing their fury of wind and water, or in the cold and heavy air of the extreme northern parts of our hemisphere. No weather man I know of refers to this phenomenon of nature as divinely caused to inflict godly punishment upon a wayward region, people or nation..."

"At least one English theologian, Michael Goulder, saw this shrinking conclusion of the theistic God destroying his faith. He became an atheist when he came to the perception that the God of traditional theism "no longer has any work to do." This God no longer explains mysteries, cures sicknesses, directs the weather, fights wars, punishes sinners, rewards faithfulness. Indeed, the idea of an external supernatural Deity who invades human affairs periodically to impose the divine will upon this world, though still given lip service in worship settings, has nonetheless died culturally. If God is to be identified exclusively with this theistic understanding of God, then it is fair to say that culturally at least God has ceased to live in our world..."

"Christianity has been shaped by traditional theistic concepts. Jesus was identified in some sense as the incarnation of this theistic God... Jesus was portrayed as a sacrifice offered to this God to bring an end to human estrangement from the Creator. Theologians talked of original sin, and "the fall" to which it was asserted the cross spoke with healing power and in which drama of salvation the shed blood of Jesus played a central role. But in a world that has abandoned any theological sense of offering sacrifices to an angry Deity, what could this interpretation of the Cross of Christ possibly mean? In a post-Darwinian world, where creation is not finished, but is even now ongoing and ever- expanding, the idea of a fall from a perfect world into sin and estrangement is nonsensical. The idea that somehow the very nature of the heavenly God required the death of Jesus as a ransom to be paid for our sins is ludicrous. A human parent who required the death of his or her child as a satisfaction for a relationship that had been broken would be either arrested or confined to a mental institution. Yet behavior we have come to abhor in human beings is still a major part of the language of worship in our churches when we speak of God. It is the language of our ancient theistic understanding of God. It is also language that is doomed first to irrelevance and later to revulsion. The real question then becomes, "Can Christianity be separated from ancient theistic concepts and still be a living faith?"

"It would surprise many pew sitters in our churches to know how deeply this debate already rages in the theological academy. In this world of scholarly dialogue God has not been spoken of as an external Supernatural Being who periodically invades the world in decades. Yet the experience of God as a divine presence found in the midst of life is all but universally attested. Jesus as a revelation of this divine presence is the heart of the Christian claim. The normative language of theism by which this experience has traditionally been processed and transmitted is, however, today all but universally rejected by the academy.

(See: "Can One Be a Christian without Being a Theist?" by John. S. Spong)

Elsewhere, Spong writes: "If horses had gods, they would look like horses! That elementary insight is never fully embraced when human beings talk about God. We arrogantly suggest we can speak of what God actually is, when all we can do is describe our experience of God. This theological delusion prevents us from facing the fact that our "gods" look very much like expanded human beings... The God thought of as a supernatural being is normally conceived of as a male figure living above the sky. We portray this deity sitting on a throne, keeping record books on the basis of which he judges the people. This supernatural being also acts to protect the people in danger. There are no atheists in foxholes, we say. He also is thought to enjoy human praises, to hear human petitions and to grant boons to petitioners. To do so, this Deity is sometimes said to act in miraculous, invasive ways. It is so obvious in these incidences that believers have simply expanded human qualities in order to reach an understanding of divinity..."

"But is theism the only way to understand God? I do not think so. Throughout western history a subterranean minority voice has always been part of Christianity which has never spoken of God in supernatural or theistic terms, as a superparent, or a divine Mr. Fix-it. That tradition is called mysticism. It sees God in the words of Rudolf Otto, as the "mysterium tremendum," the inexplicable presence, the symbol of transcendence, otherness, the emerging life force that produces an expanded consciousness... This mystical understanding of God calls its adherents out of childishness into a radical new maturity. It manifests itself in a human willingness to accept responsibility for our own actions, to see ourselves as lives through which the power of the divine can enter and shape human history. If one listens, one can hear echoes of this understanding of God even in the New Testament. Paul speaks of the God "in whom we live and move and have our being." The Johannine Christ is made to say "I have come that you might have life and that you might have it abundantly... Those of us who are disciples of this Jesus call ourselves "The Body of Christ," which means that we are called to be agents of the life, sharers of the love and enablers of the expanded humanity revealed in his being. Perhaps the time has come for men and women of faith to recognize there is no divine supernatural being who inhabits the sky. There is only a divine presence deep in the heart of life, bubbling up in each of us, waiting for the opportunity to emerge in the expansion of our being. So I turn inward to meet God, and the God I find there is the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth. When I give that God away, I become a revealer, indeed a bearer of God in this world. In this sense we human beings are the workers of miracles. We are the persons through whom that holy presence we call God enters life and invites others to enter that which we call the realm of the divine. The incarnation of God, a phrase that we once used to speak of Jesus, becomes now expanded to include the incarnation of God in each of us. The Reformation of Christianity, the delivery of this faith system of yesterday from the irrelevance to which the knowledge expansion has doomed it, must start here, where passive dependency is removed from religion and where we come to understand that in our expanded humanity God is revealed. It was that experience that forced the first Christians to say Jesus is Lord. In and through his humanity, so full, so whole and so free, the holy and transcendent God was met. A Reformation Church will be built on that conviction..." (The God Beyond Theism, by John. S. Spong)

Just like every definition of God is man-made, so is theism. By rejecting theism, I merely reject a man-made concept of God. The problem is not that theism is a man-made idea. All ideas of God are man-made. That is the only way human beings can relate to God! I do not reject theism because it is a man-made concept, but because it is an inhuman concept. 

Theistic images of God tend to be inhuman because they set God above from humanity. These images denigrate humanity in order to elevate God. The result has been an inhuman God, who has inspired all sorts of inhuman acts. 

Theistic images of God demand that God always comes first. When people believe this, they can be led to act in inhuman ways. One of the documents that ordered the Inquisition persecutions by Pope Innocent IV was the inhuman "Ad Exstirpanda" with the Latin words: "Soli Deo Gloria", meaning, "Glory be only to God". 

When people accept the authoritarian theistic model, they fall prey to the various infallible "authorities" that claim to reveal this God's "commandments". The worshippers of the theistic Sky God say things like: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". 

Theistic worshippers, if convinced that God has commanded them to act in an inhuman way they will blindly obey. In their scheme of things, "Soli Deo Gloria" is the only thing that matters.

R. Brinsmead explains how traditional theism generates inhuman acts: "No theistic society has ever been able to create an order of true human equality because theistic religion stands in tension with the horizontal order. The great religions are all based on love of God above us and love of neighbor beside us. The vertical relationship to God of course comes first, and to suggest otherwise would appear blasphemous. When God comes first however, it is not hard to show how the neighbor comes a poor second.For instance, for all the Old Testament talk about love of neighbor, Israel put men, women and little children of other races to the sword apparently in all good conscience. They did this because God commanded it - and God comes first. His will takes precedence over human relationships..."

 "The problem is that every devout theist is committed to follow orders from above. God is the supreme vertical authority. Our relationship to him is represented as a submissive subject, even slave, to the absolute Master... Once the devotee to God is convinced a course of action is the divine will, he will do it at any cost to himself or others: "Ours is not to reason why!"

Under the influence of religion, violence and inhumanity are made into a sacred duty. It is done in God's name. The greatest evils to humanity continue to be done in God's name - in Palestine, Northern Ireland, in Bosnia, in Afghanistan, in Iran. The ultimate cop-out is to say, 'God made me do it,' or 'I was just following orders'... When theists are confronted with the inhuman acts done in God's name they generally respond, 'Oh yes, they did that because they were ignorant of God's will', or 'we have the truth', 'we really know God's will', 'we are the true church'. May God save us from those who are so cock-sure of God's will. The greatest inhumanities are carried out by those who are absolutely certain they are doing God's will.

Traditional theism cannot create a truly human society. That of course includes Christianity. Whenever the great churches have had the power and the scope they have been oppressive. But the social, spiritual and psychological oppression of the little Christian sects is even worse. They are pig pens of human oppression. They are systems of rigid thought control. Inmates think they are surrendering their individuality to God's will when they are in fact being dehumanized by some ridiculous, religious hierarchy which stands in God's place destroying human freedom...

The root of the problem is that inhuman views of God are invariably reflected in inhuman structures and actions. Traditional theism is based on the erroneous premise of a vertical relationship with God -master and slave, ruler and subject, domination and submission. In theistic societies this is the poison in the pottage. All religions create hierarchical societies which are in their very essence inhuman... (The Big Picture - VERDICT Essay 1E The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, by R. Brinsmead )

 As Brinsmead points out, atheistic societies also became inhuman because they rejected transcendence completely, reverting to the animal order of vertical/authoritarian control. 

5. Jesus the humanist

I think that the Unitarian Minister Dr. Gary Blaine adequately describes the humanism of Jesus:

"I believe that it is at the crossroads of ethical ideals and human potential that we discover the humanism of Jesus of Nazareth.  We must begin by recognizing that Jesus’ worldview retained a strong belief in God’s transcendence.  We cannot deny that.  But Jesus’ understanding of God was not so transcendent as to be otherworldly or even dualistic.  Such a view came as a result of Platonic influences on Christian thought.  The Jewish tradition in which Jesus was formed would not allow him to separate God from this life.  The “Master of the Universe” was an intimate reality woven into the structures of everyday experience.  The eyes of God’s presence beheld even the fall of the smallest sparrow, but such a God was always beyond definition and theological formula.  Jesus announced his concern that we “have life and life more abundantly,” without distinguishing between the corporeal and spiritual life.  Jesus never denounced his Jewish heritage, never defined himself as a Christian, and seemed more intent to restore the spirit of life in the Law of Moses.  Indeed, there is not a single word attributed to Jesus that cannot be found in Torah, including the great commandment to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul; and love thy neighbor as thyself.”

          "The context of Jesus’ lessons was most often the world of nature or the human community.  His examples included the lilies of the field, the mustard seed, and the lost sheep.  He reminded us that the Creator is like the Good Samaritan, a woman who searches for a lost coin, or a sower of seeds.  According to the teachings of Jesus, God is more at home in the human heart than all of the skies of heaven.  “The Kingdom of God is within you,” he said.  In fact, Jesus had very little to say about heaven or hell.  He seemed more interested in the lives of fishermen, women, whores, tax collectors, and children – all of whom held very low social status in their culture..."

"The humanism of Jesus begins to emerge in the central importance he gave to human relationships and to the care, healing, and feeding of the human community.  In the mind of Jesus we cannot separate the Kingdom of God from our relationships with one another.  The human heart is the primary arena of sacred activity and is evidenced in the life of the community.  Jesus violated many of the social taboos of his time to promote the radical interpretation he gave to his understanding that God is found in the just and ethical relationships of human communities.

 In Jesus’ day, as in our own, there were many people who went to the scriptures for their interpretation of religion and holiness.  They defined God out of their reading of the Bible and its laws.  They prided themselves in their strict adherence to the many rules and demands of the Law of Moses.  They were like the fundamentalists who are always quoting scripture to prove their point.  Jesus was not a fundamentalist who believed that scripture took precedence over human relationships.

  I am reminded of the fundamentalist seminary student who was dealing with a very difficult personal problem.  He decided he would solve his problem by turning to the Bible.   It had been his habit to close his eyes, open the Bible, point to a passage and learn the Bible’s response to his needs.  On this occasion he closed his eyes, opened the Bible and set his finger on the page.  Opening his eyes he read, “And Judas went out and hung himself.”  Thinking that was not quite the answer he needed, he decided to give it another try.  He closed his eyes, opened the Bible to a new section and placed his finger on the page.  He was not encouraged when he read, “Go and do likewise.”

As I said, Jesus was not a fundamentalist who believed that scripture took precedence over human relationships.  Recall the story in John’s gospel of the woman who had been caught in adultery.  She was brought to Jesus who had been teaching in the temple.  The angry lynch mob interrupted his lesson.  Out of the dust and noise she was thrown down to the stone floor before him.  Her eyes were gorged with fear and panic.  Her body ached from the rough handling, the shoving, and, I suspect, the pinching.  Panting, she fearfully raised her eyes to see the large stones in the hands of her accusers.  Their fingers massaged the rocks in white knuckled anticipation of righteous indignation.

  A shrill voice called out, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.  Now what do you say?” 

  Jesus knew that she was a pawn to entrap him.  Would he rightly interpret the law or blaspheme?  She did not mean anything to these men.  They would use her one way or another.  Jesus squatted down and doodled in the dust of the floor with his finger.  He then said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”  After a long pause there was a shuffling of feet, muttering, cursing, and then the clatter of rocks dropping to the floor.  Soon they were alone – Jesus and the frightened woman.

          “Is there not anyone left to condemn you?” he asked.

          “No one, sir,” she replied.

          “Neither do I condemn you,” he responded.  “Go home and sin no more.”

 I think of the story of the woman at the well in John, chapter four.  She was a Samaritan woman who was a whore, though Jesus politely refers to her as a woman who has had “five husbands.”  In this story the disciples had gone to town to buy groceries.  It was in the afternoon and he was sitting by the well.  Apparently he was thirsty, but had no means to draw water.  The woman approached the well and began to draw her water.  Jesus asked her for a drink.  She was immediately surprised and even stunned by his request.  She asked him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan.  How can you ask me for a drink?”

 Understand that there are layers of issues here.  First, Jesus was a teacher.  Some might even call him rabbi.  Rabbis were not supposed to talk with women, even in public.  Secondly, Jesus apparently knew that this was a woman of questionable moral stature, which would only strengthen the taboo of speaking with the woman.  But even greater than this was the fact that she was a Samaritan.  The Jews and Samaritans had despised one another for centuries.  The Jews considered Samaritans unclean, even fouler than pigs.  If a Jew married a Samaritan his or her family considered the individual dead and held their funeral. 

 Jesus challenged major issues of law and social custom by asking to drink from the cup of a Samaritan woman of tarnished reputation.  He reached past legalities to embrace the human being with one of the simplest acts of intimacy.  He asked to drink from her cup, to press his lips to the same rim hers had touched. 

 What is more, he dared to touch the issues of a troubled heart.  He had wisely guessed that the choices she had made in her life had not brought her happiness.  She wandered from one frustrating relationship to another, searching for security and peace.  She had been used and abused in the hope of finding a home.  Jesus invited her to drink from the well of life’s richer resources.  He invited her to be at home in the blessing of life that transcended religion, culture, gender, and sexuality.  Neither Jerusalem nor Samaria was the address for her home.  Her new address was her own conscience where she would dwell in the Spirit of truth – about herself, her world, and her values.

 The humanism of Jesus placed emphasis on the human beings and our relationships with one another.  Compassion, even with people who had violated the religious and cultural laws of his time, was the ethical imperative that defined his ministry.  If Law did not serve Love it was necessary for Jesus to sidestep the Law and accommodate Love.

 Jesus was about the business of giving people a new image of themselves.  His constant attention to the marginalized people of society, the pariahs of culture, gives evidence that he believed in them.  That is not too different from the Unitarian Universalist slogan, “The religion that believes in you.”  He offered them respect when the Law had dismissed them as sinners and the chaff of hell.

 I suspect that Jesus of Nazareth might have had some sympathy with the motives of the Humanist Manifesto.  I think he would have agreed that people are indeed responsible for their lives and the condition of their interpersonal and global relationships.  Jesus understood that the ethics of compassion, expressed through our relationships, serves to bring people to the fullness of their talent and potential.  No one can become a self-actualized person in a climate of alienation, burdened by anxiety, guilt, jealousy, fear and anger.

 Jesus’ challenge to the Humanist Manifestos would not debate its tenets.  He would wonder whether humanists were more committed to the ideology of the Manifesto than to the world it seeks to serve.  Humanism has failed if it is nothing more than a philosophy whose only purpose is to debunk faith and religious tradition.  Humanism can be a life-giving agency of affirmation and compassion to women and men who want to live their lives with purpose and integrity.  I believe that this was the agenda of Jesus of Nazareth.

(see: THE HUMANISM OF JESUS © Dr. Gary Blaine First Unitarian Church of Toledo , March 16, 2003)

6. One cannot be "spiritual"
without being a humanist

Humanism, whether secular, religious, or Christian, "is focused on the centrality of the human experience". Without being humane, without respecting the sacredness of human life, there can be no spirituality. If God is revealed through human life and if human beings are the image of God, then there can be no experience of God in devaluing humanity. To paraphrase from the 1st epistle of John, if we cannot love our fellow human beings whom we can see, how can we love God whom we do not see? If we love humanity, if we live in love, we live in God, because God is love, and humanity is the image of God.

Christianity should stop fearing Humanism, even secular Humanism. By embracing Humanism, Christianity can interact with secular Humanism, in ways that will benefit humanity, which is the whole point!

The following is from a Unitarian Sermon on Christian Humanism:

"For much of this century a battle has been waged between conservative Christianity and the so-called “secular humanists.”  The call to battle was issued in 1933 with the publication of The Humanist Manifesto.  Signatories of the manifesto included prominent Unitarians and Universalists such as Curtis W. Reese and Clinton Lee Scott.  The second Humanist Manifesto was issued in 1973 and, again, included a number of Unitarian Universalists..." 

"Our association has taken a great deal of criticism from the evangelical right, branding Unitarian Universalism as atheistic humanism.  In truth, we have encouraged dialogue about both manifestos, and the fact remains that humanists of one stripe or another make up the largest group of UUs.  What our detractors fail to understand is that Unitarian Universalism is committed to the free and responsible search for truth.  The search for truth propels us to full exploration of the issues around us.  We will read them, analyze them, debate them, and be informed by them.  Because we have learned that truth has many voices, we will encourage the humanist dialogue, the Marxist dialogue, the feminist dialogue, and the liberation dialogue, et. al..."

 "Humanism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive perspectives.  In fact four important Christian humanists come to my mind, Thomas More and Erasmus of the 16^th century, Louis Boyer and Jacques Maritain of the 20^th century.  Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong is probably the most recognizable voice for Christian humanism today.." 

 "The roots of Christian humanism are found primarily in the Gospels of Luke and John.  When the early Christian community realized that the second coming of Christ was not imminent they needed to construct a framework for understanding the relationship between the world, culture, and gospel.  Luke speaks to a cultivated public, and John offers a highly intellectual text that is rich in spiritual, symbolic and historical material..."

 "Humanism, whether secular, religious, or Christian, is focused on the centrality of the human experience.  Secular humanism rejects the notion that human beings are dependent on an external or supernatural power.  Its argument with dogmatic and authoritarian religion is its emphasis on a revealed God, ritual, and creed.  Such religion often places itself above human needs and capabilities, and is inherently dehumanizing.  The Humanist Manifesto argues that dogmatic religion inhibits the self-actualization of women and men.  Such inhibitions not only prevent us from reaching our fullest potential, but also deny our responsibility for the condition of the human family.  The Humanist Manifesto II claims, “In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals…We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common.  But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities.” Religious humanism and modern humanism are virtually similar.  Modern humanism is also called Naturalistic humanism, Scientific humanism, Ethical humanism, and Democratic humanism.  Corliss Lamont describes modern humanism as “a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.”  Religious humanism grew out of Unitarian Universalism and the Ethical Culture Society.  Christian humanism is a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of human beings within the framework of Christian principles..." 

"Unlike the secular humanist, the Christian humanist believes that the symbol God can have a proper place within human experience. This also distinguishes non-theism from atheism, which denies that the word can have any positive value or usage whatsoever. Christian humanists tend to reject the traditional definition of God as a supreme, conscious, supernatural being who stands outside "his" creation and may interfere with natural processes from time to time. This view is traditional supernatural theism, and many people, Christian or otherwise, find less evidence for and assurance in model in today's society. Indeed, the existance of such a being has become, consciously or not, secondary to how to behave while living on earth, presently. Whether the Christian humanist defines God as the Creator, the source of life, ground of being, principle of good, transcendent spirit, sum of ideals, or something entirely different, he or she is always aware that the word necessarily points to something larger and is not itself the end-all of being, so to speak. We will refer to this understanding of God as non-theism. It should also be noted that non-theism can encompass pantheism and panentheism, while atheism cannot..."

"Christian humanism draws especially on past and present forms of Christianity to create and renew itself. Christian humanism too is sparked by Jesus the teacher, friend, lover of life and of people. It is challenged by the courageous Jesus, who spoke truth to power, criticized hypocritical and legalistic religious leaders of the day, and advocated care of the less fortunate, including those considered outcasts. It is inspired by the reformer Jesus, who did not seek to abolish the religion but to critique and then renew it, starting with a review of the current image of God. In this way, Christian humanism does not see itself a religion about Jesus, but closer to the religion of Jesus (with obvious modern contextual distinctions). Many Christian humanists find tremendous and varied personal meaning and relevence through the Bible, though they do not regard everything written therein as a literal account of history. Many too find the sharing of bread with Christians and non-Christians a simple but beautiful symbol and prayer for unity among all peoples..."

"Caring, challenging, vibrant community has long been central to Christianity; Christian humanists recognize this as one of the best legacies of their faith. Some do not regularly participate in a local congregation for any of numerous reasons, but most recognize that the mind and heart are more likely to be enriched by participation in some form of community than by proceeding entirely on one's own. For some this may mean membership in a congregation and frequent observance of common ritual; for others it may mean appreciation of nature alongside internet-based discussion groups or less frequent conversations about religious matters. There is great variance in the forms Christian community may take today, although many committed humanistic Christians value their experiences of community greatly..."

"Christian humanism sees itself as much a branch or style of Christianity as a branch or style of humanism; even while it draws from Christian history, it nevertheless also places itself within that history. This is no small decision, given the often dark moments of history associated with organized Christianity. Unlike secular humanists, however, Christian humanists believe that shared (but not dictated) religious faith has the glorious potential to be one of the most profound unifying and liberating forces in existance, and would rather have a hand in creating that than in conceeding Christianity to those with regressive agendas, and trying to make due on their own elsewhere. This is turn leads back to one of the few things that Christian humanists seem to have in common with modern Christian fundamentalists: that the decision to be a Christian must be personal, and thoughtfully and consciously made. The word Christian means little Christ, and the good Christian of whatever theological pursuasion does well to follow the model he or she has found in Christ..."

( Source: THE HUMANISM OF JESUS, )

7. Conclusion
(Humanity is the Image of God)

In conclusion I quote from Brinsmead and Krossa on the reality of God in emerging humanity:

Brinsmead

Next to monotheism, the Hebrew vision of humanity being made in God’s image and likeness was it’s greatest contribution to human thought. It represented an enormous break with nature worship because it set humanity above nature and provided a basis of human equality.

  Humanity Above Nature - In a world given over to nature worship in one form or another, the arrival of this Hebrew faith must have sounded like a total blasphemy which threatened bountiful harvests, regular seasons, successful reproduction and all the bounties of "mother nature". This was not another religion to keep the nature gods in a generous mood. It declared that man was not the servant but the master of mother nature. (Genesis 1:27,28 & Psalm 8) Nothing was a sacred image and likeness of God except humanity.

  Human Equality - This Hebrew vision of humanity also implies something very different to the natural vertical order of domination of the strong and the submission of the weak. It implies a new horizontal, on-the-same-level order of love and respect. Here is a view of humanity which transcends nationality, race, gender and culture. The image of God is neither Jew nor Gentile, African or Caucasian, black or white, male or female, old or young. That which invests humanity with dignity and value is not any racial, sexual, cultural and certainly not any religious identity. It is purely and simply the human identity which bears the signature of the Creator. No vision of an egalitarian society has ever been able to improve on this Old Testament foundation.

Joshua ben Adam’s "son of man" consciousness (so basic to who he was and what he taught) had his roots in this creation Psalm: "When I consider thy heavens the work of thy fingers, The moon and the stars which thou has ordained,  What is man that thou doest take thought of him, And the son of man (Hebrew: ben Adam) That thou doest care for him? Yet thou has made him a little lower than God, And has crowned him with glory and majesty, Thou doest make him to rule over the works of thy hands; Thou has put all things under his feet..."  (Verses 3-6)

  A "son of man" consciousness based on a Scripture like this was the reason why Joshua dared to go to the greatest religious regulation - the Sabbath itself - and put humanity above it instead of under it. (See Mark 2:27,28). Times, places, foods and anything else in the created order must serve humanity rather than being served by humanity.  

(From THE HEBREW VISION OF HUMANITY , The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, Part 7, by Robert D. Brinsmead (VERDICT, November 1998, Essay 1E)

Krossa

 The origin of modern subjective human consciousness... was one of the more significant movements away from animal relating and existence. The emergence of modern consciousness led to the first movement toward freedom to become truly human. Freedom from control (the revolution inspired by the new consciousness) would become the essence of what it means to be human.

 People who work in the field of consciousness, however, are still puzzled at the emergence of modern human consciousness. They are at a loss to explain the reason why it should ever have emerged in the first place. The selfish gene theory of evolution states that human motivation and activity is oriented to the preservation of the self. But the new human consciousness, to the contrary, leads people to act selflessly for the interests of others in true cooperation, sharing, and community spirit. Human consciousness inspires humane response, not the instinctual animal responses that are oriented toward the aggressively competitive pursuit of personal survival and personal advance.

 Also, human consciousness does not promote animal-like domination of others, but rather, it inspires people to relate in equality and freedom. Consciousness is an inspiring and truly humane reality which operates to override the selfish and competitive orientation of animal drives with a new cooperative orientation in egalitarian relationships. It is an entirely new reality moving in an entirely new direction from animal mentality and existence.

And contrary to selfish gene theory, in times of crisis people will often act heroically to help complete strangers, to the point of losing their own lives. Human consciousness apparently breaks through and overcomes the selfish drives that are oriented to personal survival. While selfish gene theory may explain some things about early life development, it can not explain the most important thing about human beings- consciousness, and the unselfish motivations that consciousness has produced.

In making a distinction between animal mentality as competitive and human mentality as essentially cooperative, I am not concluding that this is rigidly true. There is also much evidence of cooperation among animal species which may point to emergent forms of more humane consciousness among other forms of animal life. But the emergence of modern human consciousness has led to entirely new levels of cooperation associated with emotions such as love that only fully conscious beings could experience.

This is not a scientific or academic study, so let me assume that God was involved in granting consciousness to humanity and that God's purpose in granting consciousness was (as suggested by some writers) to lead the human race toward freedom from the selfish and competitive reality of animal relating and existence. I would assume that God's purpose was to set human beings on the way to becoming truly and fully human. I would conclude then that God is responsible for the spark of consciousness and the freedom that it leads to.

Just as an aside, let me say that the consciousness of humane reality (consciousness of inclusion, equality, freedom, serving, and sharing) that God has inspired in humanity is what religious people refer to as the image of God. I would argue that it is God who inspires and empowers truly humane response. All true humanity originates with God and is an expression of the character of God. The emergence of humanity and the emergence of the truly human values of love, freedom, service, equality, forgiveness- this is God revealed in human life. In light of the direction emerging consciousness has taken the human race, I would assume then that the central purpose of human life is freedom; freedom from control and domination to become fully human and to relate in horizontal equality with all others. Many have summed up this freedom and equality in the word love.

Understanding the nature of emerging consciousness is vital to shaping new views of a truly humane God. By understanding what it means to be human, only then can we understand what the originating source of our humanity is like. It is important then to understand the nature of humanity in order to appreciate the humane reality that is God. It has been said that God is the supremely humane God. All true humanity originates with this God and emerging human consciousness is the image of this God in us. Emerging consciousness provides valuable insight regarding the character of the reality that sustains all life. (Article 6: When We First Became Truly Human , by W. Krossa, From the series "Creating A Horizontal God")