What is A Christian Deist?

[driver]

This is an essay written by Brother John.


What Is A Christian Deist?
A deist is a person who believes that God designed and created the world and governs it through natural laws that are inherent in everything. These natural laws can be discovered through observation, experience, and reasoning.

Deism is a religion based primarily on nature and reasoning, in contrast to other religions that are based on alleged "revelations" that come through some "supernatural" means. Deists believe that human beings have "free will" and have responsibility for choosing how they live in relation to natural laws that govern the world.

It is sometimes said that deists believe that God created the world, set it in operation, and then took no further interest in it. But this idea comes from a misunderstanding of an old analogy that compared God to a "watchmaker" and the world to a "watch." This old analogy was only intended to say that from the "intelligent" design of a watch, it is logical to infer the existence of an "intelligent" watchmaker. Likewise, from the "intelligent design" that is seen in the universe, deists infer the existence of an "intelligent" maker, called "God."

Christian Deists believe that God does take an ongoing interest in the world and humanity but God does not control the world or humanity. Human beings are "free agents in a free world." A "free agent" is someone who has authority and ability to choose his/her actions and who may make mistakes. A "free world" is one which ordinarily operates as it is designed to operate but failures and accidents may occur.

Christian deism is opposed to the doctrine of predestination in which everything that happens is thought to be "the will of God." John Calvin was a proponent of the theory of predestination in which God allegedly determines everything that happens, whether good or bad. For example, this theory is heard when a person is killed in an automobile accident and someone says, "God must have a purpose in this." Christian Deists reject this kind of belief.

Christian Deists believe that it is never "God's will" for anyone to be sick or injured. Christian Deists believe that anything that is destructive to human life is "bad." These bad things may be caused by accident or by human action. For example, a respiratory illness may be caused by an accidental infection or may be caused by a person choosing to smoke cigarettes. God does not make a person sick or well. Our health is partly within our own control and sometimes beyond our control. God gives our bodies and minds certain natural powers to heal many illnesses but God does not directly intervene to heal by some "supernatural" action.

If God directly intervened in human events, we would no longer be "free agents in a free world." We would be like puppets controlled by God. Such control by God would cost us the very thing that makes us individual human beings -- our freedom to think and act for ourselves.

God can indirectly intervene in the world through human beings. For example,God can heal through the efforts of physicians and nurses. God can care for the poor through charitable persons and through programs designed by compassionate leaders and legislators. According to Jesus, our mission is to create the "kingdom of God on earth." God can work through each of us if we will follow God's law of love for each other. We are God's representatives on earth if we do God's will. Each of us can contribute in some way toward the development of the Kingdom of God on earth.

Christian Deists believe that Jesus was a deist. Jesus taught that there are two basic laws of God governing humankind. The first law is that life comes from God and we are to use it as God intends, as illustrated in Jesus' parable of the talents (money). The second law is that God intends for human beings to live by love for each other, as illustrated in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan. (Note: The parable of the talents is explained in the essay "How Can You Love God? The parable of the good Samaritan is explained in the essay "Love Your Neighbor.")

Jesus summarized these two basic "commandments" (or laws) of God as "love for God and love for neighbor." These two commandments were known to Jesus from the Hebrew scriptures but Jesus expanded the definition of "neighbor" to include everyone. "Love for God" means having appreciation for God as the creator of the world and the source of human life. "Love for neighbor" means having appreciation for the value of every human life. These are not laws or "truths" that Jesus received through some supernatural "revelation." In his "parable of the sower," Jesus taught that the "word of God" is known naturally because it is sown "in the heart" of everyone.

Even the apostle Paul, who was a Jew, recognized that God's laws are known naturally by everyone. Paul wrote, "When Gentiles (non-Jews) who do not have the (Mosaic) law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the (Mosaic) law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (Romans 2:14-15).

In his teachings, Jesus used examples from the natural world and from human nature to explain basic truths about life. In his parables, Jesus spoke of mustard seeds, wheat, weeds, fishing nets, pearls, vineyards, fig trees, salt, candle light and sheep to illustrate his points. Jesus also used illustrations from human nature to teach basic concepts such as repentance, forgiveness, justice, and love.

Jesus believed that it is God's will for people to love (appreciate) God and to love (appreciate) each other. God should be loved (appreciated) as creator of the the world and as the source of human life. We should show our love (appreciation) for each other because happiness comes to us as we live in harmony, or unity, with each other. Christian deism is based on appreciation for all creation and on appreciation for every human life.

Christian Deists do not worship Jesus as God and do not believe in the theory of atonement that claims that Jesus had to die as a sacrifice to pay the "death penalty" for humankind and save them from the "wrath" of God. Christian Deists do not view God as a whimsical tyrant who sends plagues and pestilence to punish people on earth and who plans to torture people in "hell" in the future. Christian Deists reject these superstitious ideas as products of human hatred and a failure to recognize God's natural laws of love for others.

Christian Deists consider themselves to be disciples (students) of Jesus because Jesus taught the natural laws of God. But Christian Deists recognize that Jesus was only human. Jesus had to struggle with his own times of disappointment, sorrow, anger, prejudice, impatience, and despair, just as other human beings struggle with these experiences. Jesus never claimed to be perfect but he was committed to following God's natural laws of love.

Jesus called for people to follow God's laws (commandments) so the "kingdom of God" could come "on earth as it is in heaven." As Jesus preached the "gospel" (good news) that the "kingdom of God is at hand," the Romans viewed Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary seeking to liberate the Jews from Roman rule. Jesus refused to stop preaching his "gospel" even though he knew that he was risking crucifixion, the usual Roman penalty for revolutionaries. Jesus called for his followers to take this same risk, "If a man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it" (Mark 8:34-35).

After his crucifixion, Jesus' cross became a symbol of commitment to establishing the "kingdom of God" (obedience of God's laws) on earth. Christian Deists are committed to following God's natural laws, as summarized in the two "commandments" to love God and love our neighbor.

[Dad]

I see that Wikipedia now has an entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Deism

It needs work if anyone has the time and know-how.

[cclendenen]

I see that Wikipedia now has an entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Deism

It needs work if anyone has the time and know-how.

I have contacted John Lindell. He had the time, and I have the know-how.

[FJunior]

I've been out here for a while - reading the works of John white Chadwick and William James potter, two American Unitarians from the XIX's linked with the intelectual/religiousn "movement" known as "Free Religion" or "Free Religious Movement".
Reading this nice piece written by Brother John, and learning from him that "Christian Deism" is a concept much "open-minded" than I think it was, I think i would include some new guys in the Christian Deist list -as Kierkegaard, for instance. And i am quite sure about William Potter too, as after the middle of 1880's I read in noe of his sermons he believed in direct intervention.
And what about Theodore Parker? I don't know many of his works, but definitively seems to me to be a no-direct-interventionist God Believer too... I must do more research about them.
Nice article, nice post.

[trekker]

First, a bit of context on my part. I was saved when I was 12 in a Baptist church and then spent the next 30 years in conservative Christianity. I'm 51 now. About 6 years ago, I had a spiritual meltdown where I had to admit to myself that I didn't believe in miracles, that the Bible is the words of God, that God as portrayed in the OT was the same one who created the universe, and that God could not punish people in hell. Yet, I was still drawn to the reality of God and to the two commandments of Jesus.

I looked into what is called progressive Christianity for a while, trying to find some way to still "believe in Jesus" without all the supernatural and superstitious baggage. I learned a lot from that flavor of Christianity. And many of the ideas from Brother John's website ring true in my heart and mind.

But here is my problem: Jesus, as portrayed in the scriptures, does indeed seem to be either God or a theist. Paul and John portray Jesus as divine, as what Christians call the Second Person of the Trinity. And Jesus, even in Matthew, Luke, and Mark, does miraculous things, teaching that God does intervene in human affairs if prayers are asked in the right way. Jesus portrays God as very much being "in control" as a king (hence the kingdom of God) and intimately involved in our lives on a personal level - notions which, it seems, most deists reject.

I know that Brother John and many progressive Christians assert that there is a human Jesus, perhaps a deist Jesus, behind the so-called mythology that the gospel writers wrapped him in. But the thing is, how do we KNOW anything about what that human Jesus believed or thought? People in the Jesus Seminar and critical scholars involved in searching for the "historical Jesus" readily admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find the REAL Jesus behind the scriptures. Essentially, all we really have is the "Christ of faith", the miracle-working God-in-the-flesh. This is the only Jesus that the Church has handed down to us. So what right to we have to say that they were wrong? Upon what basis?

I know that we can claim, using reason and with a high degree of assurance, that Jesus was a man, just as we are, and that he had no special powers and that he taught the two Great Commandments. This kind of Jesus makes sense to us. But this Jesus (the only-human Jesus, the non-miraculous Jesus, the deist Jesus) is NOT the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus of the gospels. Don't we have to accept all of what the gospels tell us about him or reject all of it? If not, what filter do we use to arrive at the "true" Jesus? Aren't Christian deist (or progressive Christians) simply picking out the parts about Jesus that they want hold to? Is that the right approach to deal with him? If so, why?

[iDeismFounder]

Trekker, if I might make a couple of reading suggestions. First, Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Gospels, removing the miraculous to get to the core teaching of the human Jesus. Deepak Chopra also wrote a book called The Third Jesus, which also attempts to filter out the miraculous to hone in on the man and his teachings.

[trekker]

Hi Dave. Thanks for the recommendations. I understand that approach. I've read many of Spong's and Crossan's books on the "historical Jesus" or the "demythologized Jesus." My question is: what right do we have to do that? I mean, all we really know of the person of Jesus comes from the scriptures (unless one is a mystic, which I am not). If we take the "Jesus of the gospels" and then erase or ignore all the miraculous, then what we are left with is something less than the Jesus of the gospels. The non-miraculous Jesus may be more in accord with our understanding of humanity, but it is no longer Jesus, Jesus as the Bible portrays him to be.

Allow me to exagerate and offer an analogy. Let's say that, hypothetically, we wanted to discover what Superman was really like. We read all of the comics about him to learn as much as we can. We decide, based upon human reasoning, that he did not come from Krypton, that he couldn't fly, that his powers were no greater than our own, that he was, in fact, human. Once demythologized, all we can say about him was that he was Clark Kent, a mild-mannered reporter working for a major metropolitan newspaper. What we are left with, once all the miraculous and the superhumanness is removed from him, is Clark Kent - but it is not Superman. We have removed everything of Superman from him. So, why then would we insist that this Clark Kent is Superman? We are left with a very believable human being, but we are no longer true to the Superman story.

This is, in a crude way, what I see happening to Jesus in the modern "search for the historical Jesus" approach. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. All I am saying is that by the time we remove all of the miraculous and the divinity from the Jesus of the gospels, what we are left with is a Jesus of our own construct, NOT the Jesus that has been handed down to us. We are left with a very believable human being, but we are no longer true to the Jesus story. Yes, it is analogous to Jefferson's Bible. It is no longer THE Bible, it is now privatized to JEFFERSON's Bible.

Do we each have the responsibility to redact the Jesus story to create a Jesus of our own making, our own Jesus?

[cclendenen]

...
Do we each have the responsibility to redact the Jesus story to create a Jesus of our own making, our own Jesus?

That may end up being the best Jesus you will ever find. More accurately, that may be the best Christ you ever find.

[trekker]

That may end up being the best Jesus you will ever find. More accurately, that may be the best Christ you ever find.

That would really make Jesus "personal," wouldn't it, Chuck?

[iDeismFounder]

Hi Dave. Thanks for the recommendations. I understand that approach. I've read many of Spong's and Crossan's books on the "historical Jesus" or the "demythologized Jesus." My question is: what right do we have to do that? I mean, all we really know of the person of Jesus comes from the scriptures (unless one is a mystic, which I am not). If we take the "Jesus of the gospels" and then erase or ignore all the miraculous, then what we are left with is something less than the Jesus of the gospels. The non-miraculous Jesus may be more in accord with our understanding of humanity, but it is no longer Jesus, Jesus as the Bible portrays him to be.

Allow me to exagerate and offer an analogy. Let's say that, hypothetically, we wanted to discover what Superman was really like. We read all of the comics about him to learn as much as we can. We decide, based upon human reasoning, that he did not come from Krypton, that he couldn't fly, that his powers were no greater than our own, that he was, in fact, human. Once demythologized, all we can say about him was that he was Clark Kent, a mild-mannered reporter working for a major metropolitan newspaper. What we are left with, once all the miraculous and the superhumanness is removed from him, is Clark Kent - but it is not Superman. We have removed everything of Superman from him. So, why then would we insist that this Clark Kent is Superman? We are left with a very believable human being, but we are no longer true to the Superman story.

This is, in a crude way, what I see happening to Jesus in the modern "search for the historical Jesus" approach. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. All I am saying is that by the time we remove all of the miraculous and the divinity from the Jesus of the gospels, what we are left with is a Jesus of our own construct, NOT the Jesus that has been handed down to us. We are left with a very believable human being, but we are no longer true to the Jesus story. Yes, it is analogous to Jefferson's Bible. It is no longer THE Bible, it is now privatized to JEFFERSON's Bible.

Do we each have the responsibility to redact the Jesus story to create a Jesus of our own making, our own Jesus?

Responsibility is the "the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something." What duty do you ascribe to yourself regarding Jesus if it is not to make up your own mind about his story? I believe you already said that you do not accept the divinity of Jesus? If that is the case then what are your options? (1) You may discard Jesus and everything you have been taught about him, in part to an imagined responsibility to his Christian image; or, (2) you can disregard the miracles and magic that surround Jesus and learn what you can from his teachings, guided by your own reflective reasoning process. I don't have the answer for you, save to suggest every person's view of Jesus is a matter of personal conscience.

Whether Superman is a super hero or just a man is simply not debatable. Superman IS real AND he is super! I met him online and his name is Chuck...or at least his mostly mild mannered alter ego is named such

[trekker]

Whether Superman is a super hero or just a man is simply not debatable. Superman IS real AND he is super! I met him online and his name is Chuck...or at least his mostly mild mannered alter ego is named such

I admit that we all see through our own eyes, which sort of means that we somehow find what we are seeking. Nevertheless, I pictured Superman as having more hair.

Great, more deconstruction to do!

[cclendenen]

...
Whether Superman is a super hero or just a man is simply not debatable. Superman IS real AND he is super! I met him online and his name is Chuck...or at least his mostly mild mannered alter ego is named such

Oh, good grief!