YOUR SAY: Sorry, Dr. Cummings, but you are anti-Christian - Part 2

This is the second of two parts, written in response to Dr. Bill Cummings' column published Nov. 1 (tinyurl.com/pmy87j7), which replied to David Mann's "Open letter to Telegraph columnist Bill Cummings," published Oct. 4 (tinyurl.com/opz4ll8). Part 1 was published Wednesday.

Which of Dr. Bill Cummings' words show that he is not a Christian? In his Oct. 18 column, he says that "Many Christians accept the decision of the 325 A.D. Council of Nicaea that Christ was divine, and they believe that the people who lived and worked and traveled with Jesus saw him as God, too. I don't think so. I think they saw him as a man." While this stops short of an explicit statement, surely its meaning is clear enough: Cummings agrees with those he believes saw Jesus as "a man" and nothing more and rejects the doctrine of his divinity, the Incarnation. He then goes on to say, "I'm not impressed by the 'miracle stories' because I know Galilee was full of magicians. ... I know why the early Christians inserted those stories. I want to hear what he said -- without the later additions and redactions and editions." And because he doesn't exclude the resurrection from being among the "miracle stories," it seems clear that he rejects the idea of the resurrection as well.

Moreover, a little research confirms this. In his column of July 27, 2014, he wrote that "I believe the five resurrection stories ... are blatant (and contradictory) attempts by the early Christians to explain how the dead Jesus still lives among us today." And surely the resurrection doesn't merely provide the central symbol of Christianity, the cross, and the central celebration within Christianity, Easter, but is central to Christianity itself, from the exhortation to "take up the cross and follow me" to the metaphor of dying and being "born again." If it is simply a made-up story as Cummings believes -- even if he believes it to have symbolic value, akin to the talking snake and the six days of creation -- then Christianity becomes something very different from, and immeasurably less than, what almost everyone understands it to be. St. Paul says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (Cummings apparently detests Paul, but that is a subject for another time.)

Let us lay to rest once and for all, then, any notion that Cummings might be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. To strip Christianity of its supernatural dimension, to demote Jesus to being merely a moral teacher and to relegate historical Christianity to "additions and redactions" is to reduce Christianity to something that, while it might be admirable, cannot without absurdity be called Christianity. It becomes simply a set of moral maxims and illustrative stories. If he is true to his own words, the closest that Cummings can come to claiming to be a Christian is to say he believes Jesus said some good things.

Of course none of this makes him a bad person (he actually seems to be quite a good person), nor does it necessarily make his writings any less valuable. He is obviously a very astute student of Christianity, and I, for one, will continue to read them avidly and, if past is prologue, will continue to be informed, enlightened and even entertained thereby. Why then is it important to know whether or not he is a Christian?

Is it important because, while knowing that he is not a Christian doesn't necessarily make his writings less valuable, it certainly casts them in a particular light and calls for them to be approached accordingly. I believe that, because he writes so extensively about Christianity and is so knowledgeable about it, many of his readers naturally assume that he is, or at least aspires to be, in some sense a Christian, and that much of the consternation and anger expressed on these pages by his Christian readers arises for the same reason that civil wars are reputed to be the bitterest of all wars. If it becomes clearly understood by all that he is not a Christian, however wayward, attempting to modify the religion from within but a non-Christian simply observing it from without, I believe that much confusion will be dispelled, some calm will be injected, a more dispassionate approach may be taken and a more measured, more productive discussion between Cummings and his readers may ensue. All the cards will be on the table.

But, having established that he is not a Christian, why go further and call him anti-Christian as well? It is because he does not keep his rejection of the central doctrines of Christianity to himself, or share it only within his circle, but publicizes it for all the world to see. And it may be taken as axiomatic that voluntarily presenting one's views to others is an invitation to others to adopt them too -- there seems to be no other reason to do it. All elucidation is an implicit attempt at persuasion. Cummings is attempting to persuade the world to disbelieve in Christianity, and if he should succeed, there would be no more Christianity. And if that isn't anti-Christian, what is?

David Mann is a freelance writer based in Macon.

This story was originally published December 3, 2015 at 10:19 AM with the headline "YOUR SAY: Sorry, Dr. Cummings, but you are anti-Christian - Part 2 ."