I begin with a flight of fancy. If such a chimera as a movement labelling itself “Taoless Taoism” were to appear on the scene, claiming to espouse the “ethics” of Lao Tzu while denying the reality of an essential, harmonizing natural principle (Tao), I would assume it was a put-on. Likewise, it would entirely confound me if there were a sect of Ch’an Buddhism that denied “buddha-nature,” or a “version” of Advaita Vedānta that regarded what is meant by the word “Brahman” as irrelevant, or a Muslim sect that denied the twofold shahada (declaration of faith) that constitutes the first of its “Five Pillars.” Or perhaps, turning to politics, we might conjure up some imaginary ideological antinomy such as “Capitalist Marxism” or “Authoritarian Anarchism.” But you have the idea. These are a few nonsense terms for things that could never actually exist or be taken seriously, along the lines of: “On one bright day in the middle of the night / Two dead boys got up to fight / Back to back they faced each other / Drew their swords and shot each other…” Just as nonsensical are those who align themselves with something called “Christian atheism,” who – with an earnestness that might move some hearts tenderer than mine to sympathy – insist that the contradiction is in actual fact coherent. While the ethical ideal of “Christian atheism” might conceivably be useful (see below) for a range of social agenda, it inherently precludes any real Christian spiritual life. It slams and bars the doors against it. If Karl Rahner was right in famously declaring that the Christian of the future (by which he meant the Christian of today) must either be a mystic or cease to be, then “Christian atheism” is an option for the latter.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Pragmatic Mystic to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.