Critique of religious Christianity

Modern theologians such as Barth and Bonhoeffer have put forward the idea of ‘religionless Christianity’, this is a new form of Christianity that attempts to return to a pre-modern view without the ecclesiocentric position but rather a new Christocentric view after the “world come of age”. Barth believed that contemporary Christianity was too exclusive and based on a human construct that appealed only to the upper and middle classes. Barth began to realise that the Church itself had become swept up in the Enlightenment’s philosophical zeitgeist and lost its understanding of the life and work of Jesus Christ, and that salvation was a result of Jesus’ grace alone.

Here are some of my own criticisms of the religious Christianity that Barth and Bonhoeffer are trying to deconstruct. These arguments are by no means ground-breaking; nor are they necessarily entirely original. Never the less I hope any readers find some value in them, either as Christians or not. 

Christianity and wealth: It is impossible for a Christian to maintain any type of wealth while subscribing to Christian teaching, as accumulation of money is done by serving a master other than Jesus Christ. Once this money is acquired, it then becomes the master, as people rely on their money rather than on Jesus’ grace. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Mathew 10:25

Catholic non-Christians: The institution of Roman Catholicism has a dark history of corruption and wicked deeds that led to the protestant reformation. It has only been in recent times that Roman Catholicism has begun to develop its positive action in the world through liberation theology and other ideas of Christian thinking, weighing more heavily on orthopraxy than orthodoxy. This emphasis on orthodoxy is in any case untrue to Christianity; even to this day it allows the catechisms and the Pope to overpower human suffering. The Pope’s of Catholicism have always been held by followers in a regard as if they weren’t intrinsically sinful, even going as far as to consider the Pope as God’s representative on Earth, this is a negative attitude as Christianity has only one representative in Jesus Christ.

Philosophical apologetics: These are not normally convincing to those outside religion although within religion these arguments do hold some authority as ‘proofs’. However anyone convinced by these, or even someone who uses them to strengthen their faith, is wrong to do so as these arguments generally point to a deist or generic idea of God. More-so they appeal to rationale rather than grace, they do not represent the personal figure of Jesus Christ, they surmise a God through reason alone which leaves one not with God, but theistic idealism. “A God that would let us prove him would be an idol” – Bonhoeffer.

Easter: Our society has an overzealous attitude towards Christmas and for little reason other than hedonistic materialism, while Easter is given comparatively little regard, this is astounding when one considers that the founding of Christianity is based on this event of God’s humiliation on the cross and his resurrection. However both these events serve to celebrate the life and death of Jesus Christ the lord and saviour but this is insignificant as Christians should do this every day.

The moral God: Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to put focus on a God that is ultimately just. Kant believed that humans, as moral agents, were proof not only of God but that it was what God wished of us. However this view is essentially stating that it is possible for humans to emulate God, and that we can know what God categorically is; which is impossible for a God that is unknowable. It is not unreasonable to expect any kind of being that we consider “God” to be in the very least moral, however these are attributes from God the father, humans do not attempt to become all powerful, or all present, why then should we see this as a reason to be moral? To follow God’s example of morality is only possible through God as the known, the Word of God in Jesus Christ.

Man as God: The atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (possibly as a response to a similar point by Hegel) believed that the idea of God was nothing more than a projection of a hopes, fears and desires into an imaginary metaphysical reality. Thus God’s being was nothing more than human self-consciousness. What does worship or prayer mean then? When believers express the Love of God we are really professing love of ourselves.

Saved by grace: Barth’s theology is strongly based on a Christocentric view that has little or no need for an establishment; instead it is fitted entirely around a focus of Jesus, the saviour and God’s anointed Son. It is by his grace alone that we can be free to know God and to know of God. By his grace humanity, which is wholly undeserving of salvation, will be saved. However if Barth is correct in asserting that Jesus’ grace the genuine spirit the Son, there would be no doubt of his legitimacy.

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer.