Christian Modernity

The Latest and Best

The old fundamentalist creed runs "We have no creed but Christ, no confession but the Bible".  At first glance this has the appearance of a profound truth.  Upon further reflection, it quickly dissimulates into an empty, self-contradictory slogan.

It is obvious that much of evangelical Christendom remains profoundly ignorant of the teachings of the Bible.  This ignorance is celebrated as a strength, which is somewhat embarrassing.  Let's explore the notion, "no creed but Christ, no confession but the Bible" a bit further.

The first thing which is immediately apparent is that this pithy statement is itself a creedal statement. The Latin "credo" means "I believe".  A creed is nothing other than a concentrated, distilled summary of what one believes.  Therefore creeds are inescapable.  Even anti-creeds such as  "no creed but Christ, no confession but the Bible" are statements of doctrine and what an individual or a particular church believes.

Secondly, the statement  "no creed but Christ, no confession but the Bible" represents a profound stubbornness against the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Atheistic Conditioning

Richard Dawkins: Give me the Child and I’ll Give you the Man

Anthony Horvath

Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early.  The Jesuit boast, ‘Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man,’ is no less accurate (or sinister) for being hackneyed.

The above quote comes from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion in the chapter titled “The Roots of Religion.”  I was thinking about that chapter when I heard that Mr. Dawkins was putting out a children’s book.   Has Dawkins decided he needs to get into the ‘indoctrination’ business?

Of course, the word ‘indoctrination’ has taken on a negative air, and is only applied when one disapproves of what is being transmitted—even if one is about the same business.  Dawkins’ real problem is not with the Jesuit’s ‘sinister’ approach.  He admits it is ‘no less accurate.’  His real beef must be with the content the Jesuits presented.

Good!  Then we are all agreed!  ‘Indoctrination’ isn’t ‘sinister.’  Transmitting the beliefs, values, and perceptions of one generation to the next is an important and unavoidable necessity that must take certain definite forms because of the nature of who we are transmitting them too:  children.

Now, we cannot really believe that atheists and secular humanists have every really thought that ‘indoctrination’ was the exclusive domain of the religionists.