YOUR SAY: Sorry, Dr. Cummings, but you are anti-Christian
As the writer of the "Open letter to Telegraph columnist Dr. Bill Cummings," published Oct. 4 (tinyurl.com/opz4ll8), I thank him for his response, published Nov. 1. I believe it has "thrown further light on these matters than which there are none others so important," as I hoped for in concluding my "letter," and exemplifies the "healthy and stimulating" dialogue that Cummings has called for in the past. I did not call him Satan in disguise, and he did not dismiss, ridicule or ignore the points I raised but responded thoughtfully and at some length. (I also thank Philip Lengel for his response, inspired by mine, published Oct. 25.)
It is thus with reluctance that, after having read more of Cummings' writings, I am forced to take the position, not out of any animosity but simply in the interest of clarity and truth, that not only is he not a Christian but, as others have called him and as uncomfortable as it is to have to say, that he is anti-Christian as well.
In his reply to me, Cummings makes three points. The first is to once again make the case against biblical literalism. But I think this is something of a "straw man," a straw man being a position that is easily refuted and that someone props up in order to knock it down and feel that he has proven something. While biblical literalists may be Cummings' most vocal critics, I believe that in today's world they are a distinct minority of Christians — yes, even in Middle Georgia. Except among the most fundamentalist denominations, how many Christians believe that the six days of creation actually lasted 144 hours as we reckon hours, or that the biblical "serpent" that introduced sin into the world was literally a talking reptile, and so on? I dare say not many. Yes, Cummings, these kinds of stories are symbolic, meant to express deep truths rather than record literal history, and the sooner that issue can be put aside, the more productive the discussion can be.
(Obiter dictum to Cummings: Perhaps using the word "symbolic" would draw more sympathetic reactions than "mythical," which many people simply take to mean "bogus" and nothing more.)
Cummings makes short work of my discussion of questions and answers, in which I maintained that the important thing about questions is what answers, if any, they lead to, by telling us that "I no longer exercise my 'answer-prone' Catholic priesthood. I'm still full of questions." Actually I'm full of questions, too, but I remain convinced that questions without regard for answers are pointless, a waste of time and "make as much sense as an Easter egg hunt without the eggs." Far better to spend one's time going fishing, watching football or doing almost anything else than contemplating idle questions that lead nowhere.
In Cummings' third point he touches tangentially upon the most important question I asked, which was "whether there are any parts of Christianity that you ... believe might be true." "I am not certain of my faith ...," he writes. "I think that's the beauty of faith — it is not certainty, and yet we can live by it." But the question that remains unanswered, and what in fact remains completely murky, is what or who does he believe in? (I use the words "believe" and "belief," he uses the word "faith," and we must leave aside the question of the difference between the two, if any, which is beyond the scope of a newspaper column.)
Cummings' column published Oct. 18, whether it was written with my letter in mind or not, actually provided a more substantive response than his Nov. 1 reply to me and two other critics, albeit by telling us some things he does not believe rather than anything he believes. That column was headlined "The anti-Christian columnist," and he finds that label laughable. But its appropriateness has nothing to do with his asking questions using the Socratic method, as he protests in that column, and only indirectly to do with his search for the historical Jesus, as he likewise protests. It has to do with his beliefs or nonbeliefs, as expressed in his own words that he has published for all the world to see.
In that column, he tells us that he has been "an active proponent of the Judeo-Christian ethic" for many years. But merely believing in or being an active proponent of this ethic does not make one a Christian. People of many faiths, and of no faith, believe in the moral precepts that Jesus taught — which, as Wade Stooksberry pointed out in a recent letter, amount to "be nice," though of course multifariously applied and much more eloquently expressed. Those precepts are certainly not unique to Jesus. Many great moral teachers throughout history have pointed in the same direction. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," while Confucius said "Do not do to others what you would not wish done to yourself." Jesus said "Love one another," while Buddha said "Cultivate a boundless heart toward all beings." Jesus said "Sell what you have and give to the poor," while the Koran says "Expend in alms of what you love." Jesus said "Love your enemies," while Zarathustra said "Pardon those who have done you wrong." And so on.
What then sets Christianity apart? It has been well said that Christianity is a belief not in a principle but in a person — that Jesus was God in human form (the Incarnation), that he died in expiation of our sins (the Atonement), and that he rose from the dead (the Resurrection). And it has now become clear from Cummings' own words that he believes that the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, at least, are frauds. And surely no one who rejects these central doctrines of Christianity has any right to call himself a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. He may believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher, or even the greatest moral teacher, and even seek to live by his words, but that does not make him a Christian. (I cannot find anything in Cummings' writings to indicate whether or not he believes in the Atonement, but the betting line from here is heavily against it.)
This is the first of two parts. The second part will be published Thursday.
David Mann is a freelance writer based in Macon.
This story was originally published December 1, 2015 at 9:47 PM with the headline "YOUR SAY: Sorry, Dr. Cummings, but you are anti-Christian ."