Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and an atheist. Jensen is clear regarding his orientation toward a higher power: “I don’t believe in God.” While that statement is sincere and the starting point for Jenson’s spiritual belief system, it has no bearing on his desire to be part of a church. In the article entitled, “Why I am a Christian (Sort Of)” Jensen says; “I don’t believe Jesus Christ was the son of a God that I don’t believe in, nor do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don’t believe exists.” If this was all that was said, this blog would never be compiled. But Jensen also choose to join the membership of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin. Why? Jensen explains that he joined the church as “more a political than a theological act.” “Standing before the congregation of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, I affirmed that I (1) endorsed the core principles in Christ’s teaching; (2) intended to work to deepen my understanding and practice of the universal love at the heart of those principles; and (3) pledged to be a responsible member of the church and to the larger community.” Jensen went on to claim: “So, I am a Christian, sort of. A secular Christian. A Christian atheist, perhaps. But, in a deep sense, I would argue, a real Christian.”
The political motivation behind Jensen’s move is openly acknowledged. “So, my decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act. As a political organizer interested in a variety of social-justice issues, I look for places to engage people in discussion. In a depoliticized society such as the United States where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely talk about politics and its underlying values? Church is one of the few places where such engagement is possible.”
The larger and more important question is how any church could justify accepting an atheist to join the church? In his article, published in the March 12, 2006 edition of The Houston Chronicle, Jensen explains,
“the pastor and most of the congregation at St. Andrew’s understand my reasons for joining, realizing that I didn’t convert in a theological sense, but joined a moral and political community. There’s nothing special about me in this regard, many St. Andrew’s members I have talked to are seeking community and a place for spiritual, moral and political engagement. The church is expansive in defining faith; the degree to which members of the congregation believe in God and Christ in traditional terms varies widely. Many do, some don’t, and a whole lot of folks seem to be searching. St. Andrew’s offers a safe place and an exciting atmosphere for that search, in collaboration with others.”
Jim Rigby, pastor of St. Andrew’s, a church affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA), explains his rationale:
“Neither the church nor Jensen views his membership as surrendering anything, but instead is an attempt to build connections. Such efforts are crucial in a world where there seems not to be a lot of wood to build the bridges we need. And the shame is, while we fight among ourselves, the world is burning.”
In making his case, “why we let an atheist join our church,” Rigby, like Jensen, connects church membership to political activism. “In my ministry, I have had to live in two worlds,” Rigby explains.
“I have spiritual friends who are trying to celebrate the mystery of life and activist friends who are trying to change the world. Somehow these two enterprises have been separated, but I don’t believe either option represents a complete life. A political spirituality runs the danger of giving charity instead of justice, while atheistic humanism runs the danger of offering facts instead of meaning. This divide between spirituality and activism is a betrayal of the deeper roots of both.”
What about the church’s confession of faith? Constitutionally, both the pastor and the church are accountable to the denomination’s revised confession of faith? A confession that, though significantly weakened by revision, still, we should note, requires belief in God. Rigby explains, “If God had wanted us to simply recite creeds, Jesus would have come as a parrot.” The pastor also asks a most interesting question: “Is there still room in the church for Thomas [who questioned the Lord’s resurrection]?” Is Rigby seriously suggesting that Thomas was at any point an atheist? Where is the pastor’s acknowledgment that Thomas’ response to his encounter with the risen Lord was concluded by his own confession of faith: “My Lord and my God.” For, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church is not only a congregation that has accepted an atheist into its membership, it is a congregation that is void of Biblical definitions, spiritual health, and hope for a future.
Questions:
If you were counseling the pastor of this church in this situation, how would you urge him to act? Also, is there a difference between being an attender of and a member in the church?
Citations
Taken from a May 1.06. article by Dr. Al Mouler
Wow! I am not sure where to start. His worldview is completely whacked! He doesn’t understand what the biblical role of the church is, he doesn’t seem to understand that he will stand accountable before God for his stewardship of that church, nor does he seem to take seriously Jesus’ claims of truth as corresponding to reality.
If we grant that his theology is representative of orthodox theology, we would have to try to show him what the purpose of the church is. Mr. Rigby views the church as a place for “connections….to build the bridges we need.” He, along with many of the emergent/post-modern types, seem consumed with connecting to the surrounding communities. To do this, he is willing to eviscerate the message found in God’s word and to completely alter the purpose of the church. I would encourage him to focus on the church in Acts. The church exists to be the bride of Christ and to worship God with fellow believers.
I would tell him that leaders within a church have a duty to handle accurately God’s word and to preach and teach in such a way that those in the body grow. As they grow, they pour themselves into others. Thus, the church grows organically as those who regularly come to worship God in Truth grow and reproduce. Church growth should not come from compromising the very message you allegedly represent in order to “build bridges.”
I’ll stop for now, but I could keep rolling.
I wonder if Mr. Jensen would be allowed to teach in this church?? After all, he is a member….
I guess I shouldn’t be given what we see all around us today both within the church and outside but I’m amazed by this.
I would probably point out to this pastor that not a single person is portrayed in the N.T. has having ‘joined’ the church without first having been converted. (Acts 2:41 for starters).
As harsh as it sounds, I would also urge him to withdraw membership from this person and to personally repent both to God and his congregation for having supported this un-Biblical decision.
First of all the guy is not a christian. However, I think the guy should be allowed to stay. After all it is the gospel that changes lives, and where else is he going to hear it. For years I attended church, took communion and gave god the finger. I have since come to my senses and have repented, but I am glad I was not simply chased off for being a fool.
Looks like O’Ryan is joining the forces of Hezz-blog-lah! 😉
This is where I predict that Larry and Pat defend that they never said Mr. Jensen souldn’t be allowed IN church, just not allowed official membership.
When i was a member of a litergical church, being a member just ment you showed up 3 Sundays a month.
Correct quiroo! 🙂
Welcome, O’Ryan! Hopefully you’ll stick around long enough to get hit by some shrapnel and catch our blogging gangrene.
Also, I like what the underlining does to your alias, David. Is that “quiroo,” as in “who-roo” from the Latin? But seriously, your next blog header should be Roman architecture with “GVIROO” engraved. That would be sweet.
Back to the topic at hand…my in-church answer is to quote our own statement of faith:
Membership in The Church is definitely a spiritual thing, so a political statement doesn’t cut it for membership in the spiritual Body of Christ. Furthermore,
You can’t be a member of a local expression of a universal Body when you don’t belong to the universal Body. Obviously we believe that membership (not attendance) is contingent upon a real and Biblical profession of faith in Christ.
We also say that the Church “is a body in which each member should find a suitable ministry for His gifts,” but the unregenerate has not received the spiritual gifts with which to minister. Church really has no meaningful function for this person.
So, yes, there is a difference in attending and being a member. Being a member of a local church entails the prerequisite of membership in the universal Church, a requirement obviously unfulfilled by Dr. Jensen.
Back to a more relevant answer for Jim Rigby. His church’s mission statement says plenty. (This is taken from the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church website.)
Um, er…yeah. End of discussion. You can’t counsel Dr. Rigby because his way is right for him, just as our way is right for us. The relevant Scriptures and Biblical doctrines may just not be his way. He’s a slippery fellow, alright–I think Dr. Jensen belongs there.
Really, Dave, my post had everything to do with Pastor Rigby and virtually nothing to with Dr. Jensen. Chasing off Jensen isn’t the answer. His case is merely a sympton of a dead/dying church that embraces nothing and everything at the same time. As young Jeffrey linked for us, their website says it all. Their church has a building and people who profess to believe, but they are not a church at all. Just because you are in a garage doesn’t make you a car.
In order to counsel this guy I would try to talk to him about the concept of truth and probe what he thinks about it and try to show him some of the shortcomings of non-correspondant truth.
You guys are great!
“Presbyterian Church (USA)” Why should any of you be surprised with this kind of thing from this denomination? Pretty much anything goes with this group. Who needs to be a true believer to join a social club anyway? 😉
Never to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) who are folks that hold steadfast to the foundation of our faith and the Word, though the infant baptism still baffles me.
While we shouldn’t generalize apostasy across a denomination, C. A. is right about this being commonplace in the ranks of the PCUSA. Their official site explicitly allows for “Abortion … [as] an option of last resort” (Social Issues) and makes no statement on the infallibility of Scripture, glaring by omission on their Bible page. More issues occur withing individual churches of the PCUSA than do at the denominational level—but it does cause one to wonder why so many socially and Scripturally liberal churches are attracted to the PCUSA. (More information on Wikipedia.)
It is also important to note that the PCUSA itself holds to the same theologically Reformed tradition as the PCA, while in practice many of the churches within it stray from some fundamentals.
Thought I’d weigh in on that since I’ve been doing a bit of research—I visited a PCA church on Sunday. Their theology is good for the most part, their services are just a bit more like “high church” than we’re used to.
Did not mean to have a blanket or condemning statement. My “anything goes” comment was not a good use of words as the PCUSA does still have some standards like not allowing homosexual pastors.
However I think there is no argument that the PCUSA is way far left of center on moral, social, scriptural inerrancy, and allowing non Christian members should not be a big surprise to anyone. The PCUSA is very “PC” in how they deal with specific groups and specific social issues/sin. Bending over backwards not to offend while taking milk toast stances on issues of the day. Just read their beliefs on the web site.
Many liberal and conservative churches today have the same social club mentality anyway. Difference is that the more liberal PCUSA churches will make you feel much more comfortable. If you want to be social and also outspoken on your staunch atheism or alternative sexual orientation you can be assured of little worry of confrontation, healthy debate or even discussion. 😉
I’ll just say:
I live with schizoaffective disorder, and am a complete mess, too disabled to work or even drive because of regular catatonic fits where I can’t move that occur at random. The only thing that keeps me out of a mental health center is having someone that takes care of me at great cost to himself for no reward. I’m not even the only one he’s helped. He also took in a girl from an abusive family and covered all her expenses for six months until she got on her feet, and didn’t ask for anything as payment or any of it back.
He’s the kindest most decent person I know, never asking for anything in return. In fact, I’d be surprised if he even realizes that he’s a particular good person because he just doesn’t think anything about it. Someone needs help, so he helps.
And you know what? He’s an atheist.
That probably doesn’t make sense to you, but it does to me. Because I realize that if a person needs a threat of judgment or promise of reward to be a good person… they aren’t a good person. Christians always go on about how without God, people would be crazy psychopaths that just did what they want, and that’s all I need to know about them. They believe that because that’s what THEY would be without that threat of judgment, and to me that makes them the most terrifying amoral people in existence, poised to go completely psycho the moment their faith waivers. Is it any wonder that they take every opportunity they can to spew hatred at others? Even here you can see people foaming at the mouth wanting to see this man tossed out.
I can’t see that kind of person as someone with the moral high ground. Not after my Christian family literally drove me mad with trauma, and not after an ATHEIST rescued me from a living hell of a life.