Religious Implications of Atheism

Paradoxical and Orthodox Christianity

After the second century, Christianity began to divide, split into orthodox and heterodox. But both of them began to lose (not in theory, but in practice) the Christian paradoxicality. Of what the paradoxicality? When the ruler is like a servant, when Christians have everything (property) in common and they seem to have one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32) and love for one another (John 13:35), not a human for the sabbath (or the tradition of the elders), but sabbath for a human (Mark 2:27), etc.

Paradoxia (as opposed to orthodoxy or heterodoxia) is like the calcium in bones, which gives them strength. If the calcium is washed out of the bones, the bones break easily. Likewise, in Christianity, with a lack of practical paradoxia, it becomes fragile. It is no accident that atheism developed, first of all, in Christian countries.

The antonym of paradoxicality is orthodoxy—proven, traditional. “Orthodox” literally means “following the dominant tradition.” Paradoxicality and orthodoxy are two opposite paths. The first corresponds more to Christianity, and the second to paganism. The source of all the differences between them is the opposite attitude towards God and the spiritual world in general.

According to the Christian concept, God creates a human in his own image and likeness, i. e. in the act of creation the potential possibility of overcoming the ontological and spiritual abyss between the created and the uncreated is laid. The connection of the Creator with the creation can be so close that even the Incarnation of God in definitive and final form in Christ took place, i. e. real union of God with human nature. God believes in human and is ready to accept even death on the Cross for human sake. He encourages a human to establish a relationship of mutual love (characterized by freedom, selflessness and self-giving). These are relations of free individuals that cannot be subordinated to any formal scheme.

On the contrary, paganism is characterized by the fundamental ontological and spiritual alienation of human from any deities. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus said that the gods would never agree to accept a real human body. Even the material body of a human was considered by the pagans as a punishment, as a prison of the soul. Similar views were also in Hinduism, where deities took only ghostly forms (avatars), not uniting with matter in reality. Thus, a human seems to withdraw into himself, because the gap between him and the deities is insurmountable in principle. In addition, paganism seeks the possibility of either protecting a man from deities, or gaining their patronage for ‘a bribe’ (an offering), or by using some magical action to make the deities serve humans. The ideal of paganism is to “catch God” and make him fulfill the desires of man. To achieve this goal, a special religious system of methods, means and ways is being developed. Therefore in paganism “orthodoxy” is very much appreciated, that is, understandable logical explanations and formal schemes, the ability to achieve the desired result by simply following a known well-technique.

That is why the Gentiles of different countries and nations easily understood each other, because the psychology of idolatry was almost the same everywhere. In the Roman Empire, Babylon and Egypt the profession of non-local religions by foreigners was tolerated, provided that they honor traditional local (state) gods. Only Christianity was persecuted everywhere, because from the point of view of the Gentiles it undermined the fundamental principles of any religion. Indeed, the New Testament says that the religious worldview (in the pagan sense) is fundamentally wrong.

But unfortunately, in historical Christianity the pagan approach and the Christian actually coexist in parallel. This is not surprising, because the Old Testament also abounds with examples of the facts that, despite all the divine revelations, people often inclined to paganism. This is a very big and important topic. For brevity, we confine ourselves to only three aspects: views on theology, worship, and the organization of the believers’ community (the Church).

Firstly, the intellectual cognition of the mysteries of the reality does not necessarily lead to understanding the mystery of God himself. If we cognize the material world by the methods of science and philosophy, then this will only lead to other questions. But a purely logical conclusion about the existence of God is not enough for the Christian faith in him. If an atheist loses in a dispute with some very clever believer and will be forced to recognize correctness of Christianity, the logically correct conclusions will not let him touch the reality of God and to go through any religious experience. This phenomenon is practically non-formalizable. A human can only feel that he knows about God personally, from his own experience, but not by hearsay, not by logical evidences, not forced by any authority.

In Judaism (Old Testament prophets), Christianity, and Islam, the knowledge of God is spoken of in terms of “daath Elohim” (Heb. אֱלהִים «Elohim», Strong’s lexicon number 430, דַּעַת «daath», Strong’s lexicon number 1847, cf. Hos. 4:1) ^[48], denoting the highest destiny of human, the meaning and purpose of his life. This is not theoretical (theological) knowledge, but spiritual closeness achieved through love for God and the fulfillment of his commandments. The meeting of the saints with God is described in the Bible as a meeting of two free personalities.

This is probably the key problem of atheism. Atheists take a rational-speculative path, in which they obviously cannot meet God. However, the same problem can apply to religious people if their hearts are not sincerely turned to God (Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6).

And yet it is necessary to emphasize another property of theological calculations—these are just models collected from the data of Revelation. Between the formulated truth and reality there is a link, but not an identity.

Therefore, Christians seek a meeting with God and stand before the mystery of God, and not before the knowledge of him, accumulated by many generations in the past centuries. It is necessary to distinguish the partial Revelation from the fullness of what is still offered to our knowledge, from the vision of God himself. St. Gregory the Theologian in the fourth century said about this, that if we could collect all the data of the Revelation and create from them the most rich and full image of God, if at this moment we foolishly say, “Here is our God,” we would create an idol that closes the vision of the true God, instead of creating a transparent image that would allow us to see through it a reality that is more and more superior to it. ^[49]

In addition, one should take into account the fact that even the holy fathers are not immune from intellectual errors. The famous patrologist Fr. George Florovsky said, that there is not one father of the Church, except St. Gregory the Theologian, who cannot find any not entirely correct statements. At the St. Gregory the Theologian, they are not only because he was too cautious in his writings. ^[50] Therefore it is necessary to evince wisdom and courage and not try to build an imaginary presence of God to fill the horrible emptiness of his absence.

In those countries where Christianity enjoyed the support of the state, attempts to preach it with purely intellectual methods were typical, with the help of the authority of theology. But this approach does not always lead to the desired results. Suffice it to recall that in the atheistic revolution of 1917 in Russia numerous graduates of Orthodox educational institutions took an active part.

Secondly, the liturgical aspect should be noted. Before the beginning of the Liturgy, the most important Christian worship, the deacon tells to the priest very important words, “It is time for the Lord to act”. ^[51] By that time, the Office of Oblation (Proskomide), the preparatory part of the Liturgy, has already been performed, and these words serve as a reminder to the priest that all his further movements and prayers cannot accomplish anything: the time has come when only the Lord will act. In Christianity there is no magic, there is no other High Priest except Christ, and there is no power other than the power of the Holy Spirit. No human effort, words and tricks can transform earthly into heavenly. God cannot be forced to commit something. He responds only to invoking him with a pure heart, that is, when the thoughts of human are pure from all that is unworthy of love. However, in his immeasurable love he descends to sinful people, not forced by anyone, like a father to disobedient children.

In this sense, Christianity really is the end of religion, that is, the end of the system of rituals, prayers, incantations, spells and other tricks in order to force or at least convince God to approach people. None of this is required. The paradox of Christianity is that God became human and through his Incarnation invisible became visible, the imperceptible became tangible, inaccessible became available. There is no rite, ritual or spell that can add or subtract anything to that.

Christian worship is born out of a sense of God’s presence; it is an expression of worship and reverence. It can facilitate the acquisition of a personal spiritual experience of communion with God, but cannot give it in some magical way. Unfortunately, it should be noted again that in historical Christianity there was a lot of deviations towards pagan, magical attitudes to ecclesiastical rites and sacraments.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh said the following about this:

“I know a number of cases where Anglican or Catholic priests simply told a man who does not believe, who, as if in darkness, was in search of: ‘Be baptized and you will be given faith.’ This is a catastrophe. Faith is given, but not simply because the person was baptized. I knew two such people and accepted them into Orthodoxy, but I had to work with them for decades of years to make them out of despair and disappointment that God deceived them. The priest promised them in the name of God: ‘I will dip you into holy water, and you will receive faith.’ Dipped—and exactly nothing happened. In one case it was even worse: the man was mentally upset, he was promised not only faith, but also healing, and there was neither healing nor faith. So one must not promise that the sacraments will affect a person automatically. This is not a morphine injection, not a medicine that will work, whoever you are and whatever you do”. ^[52]

Christian sacraments may be valid, but not act, because there is no soil, which would perceive them. You cannot accept the sacrament in the hope that something will happen magically. It is necessary for a person to experience spiritual hunger, striving to God. Then, through the sacraments, something can happen which cannot be achieved by dialectic and dispute.

Sometimes the pagan attitude to the worship was manifested very frankly. For example, in the rite of the Psalmocatara—curses by the psalms. ^[53] The purpose of the Psalmocatara was to deliver a man into the hands of the devil and call upon him all sorts of calamities even up to his physical and spiritual death. The rite was prescribed to be performed in the temple by seven priests. In this case, priests put on all priestly clothes inside out, and shoes with the right foot put on the left and vice versa. They use unusual black candles. All this indicates that the priests were aware that this whole ritual is contrary to the Gospel and the purposes of Christian worship. Christ would have rebuked them, and said, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” (Luke 9:55 KJV).

Nevertheless, the Psalmocatara, a prayer for evil, in the twelfth–seventeenth centuries was practiced very, very often. Professor of Canon Law at Moscow University A. I. Almazov describes three versions of this rite. ^[54] Later texts of the rank become more occult and practical (in the last edition it can be performed only by one priest and not necessarily in temple). Perhaps the Psalmocatara was a borrowing not only from pagan magic, but also from the Talmudic and Kabbalistic practices. For example, from the rite of the “pulse de Nura.” By the way, the rite of the Psalmocatara is not officially abolished, and there has never been its conciliar condemnation, and if you consider that it was used for at least five hundred years, you can generally talk about its reception, inclusion in the Church tradition and consensus patrum!

Thirdly, we note one more paradoxicality of Christianity in relation to the Christian Church. In a sense, the concept of a Church is very close to the concept of religion (the Church is a religious organization), one can define another. However, there is still no unambiguous and universally accepted definition of the Church, although theologians have written about it for almost two thousand years.

It is easy to say where the Church is, but it is almost impossible to predict correctly where the Church is not. If the definition is specific, unambiguous, then it does not stand up to criticism, because it leaves beyond its scope a set of church phenomena. For example, in the Catechism of the Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret, the following definition is given: “The Church is society of people established by God, united by Orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy and the Sacraments.” But the robber who was crucified to the right of Christ and who entered the Paradise on the same day (Luke 23:43), did not take part in any society, did not even have a concept about “hierarchy” and the Sacraments. And many holy ascetics–deserters hermits tried to keep away from both the hierarchy and the community of believers.

If the definition is broad, multi-valued, then it includes many completely non-church phenomena. For example, Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) said, that the Church is a gathering of people, believers in Jesus Christ. But “even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19), and the followers of the church of satan also believe in Jesus Christ. Another broad definition was given by A. S. Khomyakov: “The Church is the organism of love”. However, examples of love can be found and in non-Christian societies. In addition, it is one thing to talk about love, and quite another—to show it actively. By the way, the Historical Church, shows many more examples of not love than love.

At the same time, God does not belong to a particular religion or confession (Acts 10:34–35). “He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). He does not discriminate, but looks at the heart of a person. A person can be mistaken mentally, but be pure in heart and pray truly, and maybe vice versa.

Thus, all the verbal definitions of the Church are similar to the description of a temple as an architectural work. You can go to it for years, but do not understand its difference from any other building. And you can sit in the silence of an empty temple and feel that this is the place of meeting with God, the place of his particular presence. Similarly, one can understand (or not understand) what the Church is. The definitions of the Church describe it only from the outside, from within it is the mystery of the life of the soul in God, the mystery of meeting, presence and intercommunication. People are attached to this mystery in varying degrees. On the one hand, the members of the Church through baptism are clothed in Christ, through chrismation receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, God does not violently invade human life, and members of the Church have the freedom to sin. Therefore, in the Church there are, as it were, different currents. All people are sons of God by vocation, that is, sonship is already there, but at the same time it is still in the stage of formation, in the stage of building a miracle of mutual love and love for God. This is another paradox: Christians have already achieved the goal, but at the same time only on the way to it, are attached to the eternal Kingdom of God, but are in the temporal kingdom of this world. History and eternity are inseparably united in the Church: everything is already completed, but at the same time it is still in the making.

Thus, Christianity is paradoxical in every point, but on its historical path it is closely intertwined with its opposite—orthodoxy, which is a consequence of the impact of sinful origin and paganism. However, it should be noted that here the term “orthodoxy” has no relation to the name of the Greek Orthodox Church, which appeared due to the Great Schism of 1054, but applies to all confessions and to the whole history of the Church, including the Old Testament.

St. Cyprian of Carthage said that the custom without truth is only an old misconception. ^[55] Therefore, a thoughtful interpretation of the whole church history is necessary. It is necessary to separate the good from the bad (Matt. 13:48) and to assess the apparent apostasy of historical Christianity from Christ and the Gospel. A good example is the history of the Israeli people, written in the Old Testament. Everything is frankly portrayed there: the people as whole and individual personalities in one form or another very often adopted paganism adopted the customs of idolaters. Nevertheless, God did not leave them, which is repeatedly emphasized in the Bible. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehend two ways, paradoxical and orthodox, and correcting the approach to spiritual life accordingly. Until it happens in the Church, there will be a terrible contradiction between words and real deeds.

God versus Religion

Any criticism of Christianity as a religion must be preceded by a preamble that it has two components: the “religious” and the “personal” (personal experience). We must say that the “religious” component for centuries been influenced by political, social and cultural factors.

Studying the historical path of Christianity, many theologians have tried to isolate its “personal” component and critically consider the “religious” one. As a result, the output beyond the religious system of some essential part of Christianity in theology is widely spread thesis “Christianity is not a religion”.

For example, the Greek theologian Ch. Giannaras in the book Ἐνάντια στὴ Θρησκεία (Against Religion) carries the idea that Christianity is not a religion; and occurred in the history the transformation of Christianity into a religion is a distortion of its essence. The same idea was expressed by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. ^[56]

German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer formulated the concept of “religionless Christianity.” He believed that “to be a Christian does not mean to be religious in some sense . . . but means to be Human” (to realize the human vocation).

An influential Protestant theologian Karl Barth has also denied that Christianity is a religion. In his thesis “Christ—the end of religion” by religion is meant any attempt to reach God “from below”. Ontological chasm between God and a human can overcome only God, and precisely in this sense the event of Christ (as action of God). Through the Incarnation God overcomes this abyss (in Christ God does for the people something that they are fundamentally incapable), because all human efforts are not enough. Similar ideas were close and to Thomas Merton—an influential American Catholic theologian, poet and Trappist monk. He was very impressed by the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and by books of Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

Throughout the twentieth century, many theologians discussed that “Christianity—is not a religion,” “Christianity—the end of religion,” “Christianity—is the trial of religion” and other theses with the same meaning. In fact, even in the Old Testament, there was a very ambiguous attitude towards religion. The Old Testament righteous (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others) did not belong to any religion. Moses spoke as a messenger of God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 3:15), and not as a representative of any religion.

The first affair of Moses was a struggle with the Egyptian religion, the isolation of the Jews from any influence of religious cults of other nations. For the same purpose served and all the laws of Moses and his precepts about the liturgical rites, and so on and etc. Externally, it was very similar to the cults of other nations, but the purpose was different.

The fire can be stopped with help of an oncoming fire. The best (and sometimes the only) means of combating with forest fires is ignition on the opposite side. ^[57] Moses established religious rules in order to the Jews as soon as possible moved away from the Egyptian paganism. Over four hundred years of living in Egypt they are firmly assimilate the local religious paradigms. If Moses had acted in any other way, for example, would be talk about non-religious relationships with God following the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then no one would understood him. In the New Testament, the apostles abolished the entire complex religious ritualism of the Mosaic Law as unnecessary (Acts 15:19–20). However, people, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament history, still often in practice tended to magic and pagan rites.

The struggle against religion in the Old Testament sometimes took very harsh (“inhumane”, as we would say today) forms, but this was due to the exigencies of the situation. During an epidemic of plague or cholera, they do not always act humanely, and at that time, apparently, the situation was even worse. This is evidenced by the fact that despite all the strict measures, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel nevertheless separated and became half-pagans, and the rest of the house of David two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) are often inclined in idolatry.

The Bible repeatedly states that God opposes religion. Deities of any religion will not reject prayers, feasts, sacrifices, burn incense and other religious rituals in their honor. And through the prophet Isaiah, a completely different thing is proclaimed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Is. 1:11–17).

Likewise, no deity of any religion will condone the destruction of its only temple (even by the hands of the Gentiles). The Jerusalem temple was the center and heart of the entire religious life of the Jews. Despite this, God twice allowed the Gentiles to destroy it. God was not worried so much about the destruction of the temple as about the hypocrisy of its servants. There is no such thing in any religion.

On the other hand, the Bible shows that religion opposes to God: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). All the hatred and all the anger that people are only capable of in relation to God was focused in the decision of the Jewish religious leaders to crucify God incarnate. This is evidenced by the parable of the evil winegrowers (Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19) and many other similar passages in the Bible.

To this we can add that in no religion does God say to people: “You are my friends” (John 15:14). And in the Bible this is the main idea, and the main priorities in it are “clean heart” (Ps. 51:10) and sincere love for God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37–40), and not at all religious rituals. Abel and Cain were brothers and made the same (in a religious sense) sacrifice. However, God’s attitude to one and the other was opposite. “The hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21,23–24). This is no longer religious worship, but something more. The main question that God asks man (all of humanity) is, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15–17). And where there is love, there is liberty (including liberty from religion).

It is also important to note another aspect of non-religious Christianity, correctly noted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer: the Christian’s task is to be a real human, that is, to embody God’s plan for a human, to find and realize his true self. It often becomes possible to do this only if a man not looks back at the opinions of others, at cultural, social and even religious stereotypes. The Bible encourages a person to be himself, and not to play a false role (albeit an honorable one) imposed by social or religious paradigms.

For example, King David rode and danced while bringing the ark of God into Jerusalem, like a boy, like a commoner. His wife, Michal, told him that this was a “violation of protocol”, a degradation of the king’s dignity. But David answered her:

“It was before the LORD, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD, that I have danced before the LORD. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21–22).

Likewise, Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector and a rich man, climbed a sycamore tree like a boy to see Jesus (Luke 19:2–4). The head of the tax department is a fairly high rank, and even in that era, such behavior would have caused ridicule of the people. But Zacchaeus, like David, did not think about it, since all his attention was drawn to the Lord.

Some people, being completely turned to God, did not even look back at religious stereotypes. Religious people did not understand this and therefore expelled them from their society. St. Augustinus wrote about this, “Divine Providence often allows even good people to be driven out of Christian society, because of some extremely violent indignations of the carnal people . . . The Father, who sees the secret, secretly prepares a crown for such. People of this kind are rare, but examples are not lacking; there are even more of them than you might think.” ^[58]

And of course, there can be no religion in a baby in the womb. The greatest of all the prophets, John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth joyfully greeted the Virgin Mary, who also bore Christ in the womb at that time (Luke 1:41,44). Naturally, he did not even think about any religion at that moment. In Christian Tradition, there are many more cases when babies express their feelings for God. Therefore, we can talk about completely non-religious and even pre-verbal communication with God. For example, the gospel call “to be changed and become like children” (Matt. 18:3; 19:14) is just about this. The theologians’ formulas “Christianity is the end of religion” and “Christianity is the trial of religion” will be completely incomprehensible to children. If Christianity is defined as love for God, this will be clear to everyone.

It follows from what has been said that in the modern universal meaning the term “religion” is extremely unfortunate due to its abstractness. In any case, it would be wrong to attribute Christianity to religion in some cases.