The impossibility of atheism II

In the face of such criticism I do not defend religion. Indeed, the gospel contains its own criticism of religion from which it would set us free. Karl Barth reminds us that it was the Church that crucified Jesus, it was the good and religious people that nailed him to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is also the crucifixion of religion and properly the end of all religion. It is only out of the zone of destruction produced by the cross of Christ that a new thing could arise that would stand as an accusation against religious violence.

There is a crucial distinction that must be made here between the gentle Galilean and violence committed in his name. While Mahomet was a warrior, Jesus submitted himself to evil men to enable them to do their worst. It is nonsense to say that Christianity is inherently violent, if anything it is passivist. Certainly we all abhor violence perpetrated in the name of religion but let us think a bit more deeply before we label all religions as inherently responsible for the violence done in their name.

Properly understood, Christianity is deeply humanist, it is directed towards the well being of humanity. It understands that the human heart often chooses the wrong things, things that make them less than human. The heart, as Luther said, is a factory of idols. Christianity is iconoclast, it would destroy all of the idols that we would trust in to secure our lives. This is why it is essentially antireligious. The controversies of the early Pauline churches were to do with being set free from crippling religious affiliations. The truly free Christian could eat meat offered to idols, did not have to be circumcised in order to be a member of Christ, were free of the self justifying aspects of the law. They were the ones who were freed from religion, which was their offence both to the Judaism of the day and to the Roman authorities.

While the humanists cherry pick the events that appall us all they ignore the social triumphs brought about by Christianity: the abolition of slavery, the care of the poor and the sick, the establishment of centres of learning in the great monasteries, the social justice movement in the 20th century. The list goes on and on. Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?