Pastor Klaas Hendrikse
On 5th August, the BBC News website carried a report by Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Pigott on the ministry of Pastor Klaas Hendrikse, the controversial Dutch Protestant minister and author of the book Geloven in een God die niet bestaat (Believing in a non-existent God). Hendrikse has been known to the Dutch media for several years, and an attempt in 2009 by the Protestant Church of the Netherlands to discipline him for his non-conformist views was dropped.
The article centres on Hendrikse’s liberal beliefs, particularly his atheism and Hendrikse’s theology of refusing to accept Biblical narratives as historical fact.
Hendrikse’s views are not isolated. The BBC report cites a Dutch university report which claims that one in six clergy in a number of Dutch church denominations don’t believe in God. Rather than being unusual, Hendrikse’s beliefs are not atypical within liberal Christianity; liberal “wings” can be found in all the main Christian denominations in the UK and non-denominational groups such as Sea of Faith and the Progressive Christianity Network are growing. In my own liberal religious denomination – the Unitarians – many members claim to be atheist, as well as some clergy and lay leaders of Unitarian churches and chapels.
In a video interview embedded into the report, Pigott attempts to quiz Hendrikse on his beliefs:
KH: His [Jesus's] existence for me is not relevant…The story about Jesus has nothing to do with his physical existence.
RP: But it’s a central feature of Christianity that Jesus did exist, He was the Son of God and that He was resurrected from the dead because He was the Son of God, and that that process – his death on the cross – was designed specifically by God to liberate everyone from their sinfulness. That’s the central tenet of Christianity, surely, and you’re saying that’s not necessarily true.
KH: That’s correct: it’s a misunderstanding of what Paul said.
RP: That makes you no longer a Christian, surely…
Pigott’s exchange is problematic in two ways:
Firstly, his attempt to arbitrate what is “Christian.” Pigott’s rundown of atonement theology may well be a fairly conformist one. Yet the language of the narratives and the ways fundamental Christian texts are interpreted, such as the Bible and the traditional creeds, make a definitive definition of Christianity for all people usually called “Christians” extremely difficult.
There are many liberal believers who would struggle with Hendrikse’s idea that God and Christ do not exist and would share a theology of atonement not dissimilar to Pigott’s. But also there are Christians who would not identify themselves as theologically liberal, but would still struggle to see eye to eye with all of Pigott’s quite evangelical interpretation of the Christian gospel.
Rather than explore Hendrikse’s beliefs in a mode of inquiry, Pigott opted for an offensive strategy, borrowing for his interview the tactics more associated with religious zealots and fundamentalists, creating a dichotomy of atonement evangelical Christian, or liberal atheist non-Christian, which is naive and false.
Secondly is the distance applied to the issues. The subject of the report may be a preacher in the Netherlands, but the subject’s theologies are being engaged with in the UK, too. Is it too boring to report on liberal religion in the UK (when it doesn’t involve homosexuals or women clergy)? Will viewers and readers be confused if liberal religion is associated with socially conservative, morally reactionary Brits, instead of liberal Dutch?
Liberal religion in the UK may look more boring on the outside (though I don’t think it actually is) but exploring its existence here makes it more complex, because of its immediacy and close proximity to British political and social issues. Serious coverage of liberal religion would reveal more than just a few mavericks, but a number of significant, organised groups of people of faith. The lack of common belief among religious liberals (or religious radicals, as some would prefer to be called) makes it difficult to categorise them into soundbites. Robert Pigott could have done worse than to point out that worldviews akin to Klaas Hendrikse’s are to be found not just at the fringes of the UK’s religious landscape, but included in the life of mainstream religion.
Klaas Hendrikse seems to have much in common with Don Cupitt. I’d agree that this type of theology isn’t limited to any specific brand of ‘religious’. But the instinct of religious liberals is towards openness of ideas, philosophical challenge and dialogue. I think this has fostered a reputation, be it positive or negative, among those who would either admire or hold such approaches in contempt.
I think the challenge for liberals, conservatives or confused bystanders is to recognise that atheism and a belief in God is not mutually exclusive. I’ve found it frustrating that some atheist religious liberals cringe at ‘god’ language because they feel it’s either excluding towards them or implying, or presuming, group theism. The reverse situation also occurs, as in this case, where people question the integrity and standing of someone believing that God is something different to what they’d think appropriate.
But I think this has always been the challenge of religious language, religious experience and ritual observance. ‘God’ has never been owned or been limited to one specific world view and I think the church, in this case at least, recognised it would be futile to have a war over language and meaning.
The worlds religions and various schools of philosophy have always grappled with interpreting and applying meaning. God is a work in progress intellectually, experientially and spiritually. I think the key issue is that many religious traditions and individuals within them assume that everyone else holds to the same meaning and belief as they do. This is reinforced through the security of shared rituals, practice or language. I’m sure many would be shockingly surprised at the real divergences among them.
” Atheism and a belief in God is not mutually exclusive” ?
Can someone explain this please?
KK
Hi KK,
I can’t speak for Leigh, but I think the point being made is that belief or non-belief in “God” is not an either/or matter. I think it’s more like a continuum from personified traditional Christian concepts, through pantheistic/spirit-based views, to total atheism and no belief in a spiritual “higher power”.
I reckon members of most Christian and Christian-based congregations, apart from the most conservative, would between them have quite different ideas about the nature of God.
The word ‘God’ has many different meanings and conceptions. For example, it is possible for the statement ‘God exists’ to express many different propositions. This could be a conception that’s humanistic, naturalistic, mystical or supernatural. The God of philosophers like Spinoza would likely to be different to that of fundamentalists for example.
What’s needed is the recognition that various propositions exist and can contradict others. Religious liberals have been advocates of the individual, and communities, working out what God means to them. This is, for me anyway, essentially part of the spiritual challenge.
For each different concept of the term ‘God’ there will be an acceptance or rejection based on that specific idea. In this sense the attributes of theism, and therefore atheism, is distinct from other beliefs and conceptions that define God. Blanket approaches to atheism can therefore be rejecting a God that others don’t actually accept for example. Unless its explicitly expounded then how could it be known?
That is why I see God and atheism as not being mutually exclusive. I think Klaas Hendrikse and others like Bishop Shelby Spong would also accept this position.
Just because a blind person can not see color, does not mean it does not exist. Blind people may acknowledge color exists, though it is not something they know subjectively. Many in this current age have been blinded by God’s enemy. But … whenever the heart turns to the Lord, the (blinding) veil is taken away!
How does your analogy with blind people fit with different views of God, and different ways of understanding what the Divine is?
To take your analogy further, those with sight can sometimes not appreciate the many shades and tones of colour. We see the same thing, such as God, differently. It’s because our viewpoint – our perspective – is different, but not necessarily wrong because of that.
“Colours” do not exist! – It’s all a matter of how the mind interprets the information received by the eye.
We recently obtained a new carpet for an area of our church. A Sunday morning conversation revealed that most of the women saw it as “brown” whereas most of the men saw it as “grey.”
The issue of labels is what confuses the situation and raises the level of paranoia. I agree that the style of reporting was intended for a certain type of audience, to shock the reader and gain publicity. The use of politically igniting words such as ‘liberal’ and ‘atheist’ automatically create a reaction in people, consciously or not, which distorts the meaning of what pastor Klaas Hendrikse was trying to explain as the basis of his views. Some people shrugger at the words and immediately inside them red lights are flashing; others embrace revolutionary thinking.
Unfortunately there was no room for readers interested in learning more about the actual congregation and what they do. Organised religion has reached a point where a large population of people are turning away from the church, not because they want to turn away from religion or their different beliefs, but because they feel that the church does not cater for those who want to understand their own beliefs or the churches teachings, as a personal journey or in seeking a deeper meaning.
Due to the very complex nature of individual- and, what is labelled as church- beliefs, we need a set of new terms to express them in order to move away from such reactions. A person, who does not follow organised religion, can still be spiritual. Though, here is another problem term as it has been hijacked by popular culture to produce images of psychics, witch-doctors and other new-age pagan religions. But great issues no not necessarily need equally great solutions, they may be quite simple. The determining factor is how they are conducted and how they will be perceived.
Thanks for your thoughts, Sian. I agree that there is a major issue with terminology and “divergent discourse”, where various terms – often quite technical or academic – mean very different things to different people. This is compounded in the UK by the declining cultural memory and collective knowledge of the language of Christianity. I agree that the reporting in the BBC article was intended to provoke a reaction, yet most religious liberals know the thinking of people like Hendrikse has been around for decades, if not centuries (as explained here by the blogger The Pluralist). I’m not sure how we would resolve this, but it is clear from Pigott’s report that in the media there is a lack of understanding and a reluctance to discuss liberal strands of religion (other than being more tolerant of homosexuality, female clergy, etc).
Thanks for the replies, they have helped & I think I understand the point.
Is there a danger of defining the word ‘God’ so broadly that it becomes meaningless? At one end of the spectrum ‘God’ is the supernatural creator of the universe, at the other end we have pantheism, or something we might vaguely called ‘spiritual’, and which would be consistent with paganism and animism.
Where does this leave Christianity? If we take the supernatural out of the story, Jesus becomes an ordinary man who today we might call a charismatic, and who simply taught that we ought to be nice to each other.. I have no problem with this, but at what point does this flavour of Christianity become Humanism ?
Thanks again
KK
Thanks, Kevin.
I appreciate your view on the definition of God becoming “too broad”. On the other hand, I would argue that any attempt to define the nature of God is reductive, including applying gender and human character traits. I appreciate, however, that some people need a very “human” God-figure in order to engage with spirituality. Therefore I believe that accommodating different views of the Divine ultimately provides a wider platform for understanding God and how Godliness relates to humanity.
The view of Jesus you describe is actually a quite “traditional” Unitarian one, which avoids association with the conventional Christian trinity. I on the other hand would be reluctant to “take out the supernatural” from the story, but instead consider the incarnational element of the story of Jesus (which includes the idea of Jesus as God in human form) as one of a number of ways that God is present among human life.
KK,
God has always had the capacity to be defined broadly. This has been done by institutions themselves, often contradicting each other, or at the very least its been a personal challenge for the individuals in those places.
I would say it’s very possible to be a very devout member of most religions and never be formally asked to ‘define’ or explain what God, the scriptures or rituals really mean. Most of the successful religions have, consciously or not, succeeded by keeping these types of beliefs, forms and structures implicit of meaning. (at least for it’s followers).
This can cause individuals and groups to develop different ideas, even within tightly controlled religious groups, because they each conform or maintain unity by keeping outward forms (i.e rituals), or language.
Ideologically loaded sermons can be taken or moulded to an individuals particular beliefs. This doesn’t necessarily require mental gymnastics because they accept that the source of their beliefs can be interpreted varyingly. (The Anglican communion comes to mind)
Each religious strand or philosophical tradition has, for the most part, at some stage attempted to grapple with outlining how they see or define God. In the western religious landscape we’ve been exposed to a religious history that has taught religious supernaturalism to the masses, possibly not always for pure intentions, and tied this heavily to its teachings about the nature of God.
I would argue that the nature of God, and virtually all other beliefs, have evolved by becoming established and then being changed over time.
Christianity, in itself, is an evolution of ideological thinking and belief away from Judaism. We know that Judaism has also changed over time, with the Gospels even acknowledging various divergences of belief. For example, the Sadducee’s did not believe in an afterlife or any form of punishment or reward after death.
Judaism did not necessarily enforce a specific conception of God beyond oneness either. Nevertheless Jewish conceptions, as now, do accept varying approaches that are not necessarily in tune with Christianity. Hinduism is probably one of the religions that is most tolerant of various views towards the number of Gods (if any), and the nature of God. It could be wondered if the description of Brahman, or any manifestation, is beyond the natural world. Were deities an easier way for people to convey or explain a philosophical problem, devotion, need or quality?
If a person sees religion as a response, or indeed a need of the human experience (cultural, communal, spiritual) then scripture, God and everything else could be seen as a process of human development and history. How we see or relate to ‘God’, the world, nature and each other is then a matter of developing humane and ethical relationships.
To see religion, and God, as primarily an engagement of building relationships with each other, formulating ethics and meaning pushes it into the forefront of the daily human experience. As each experience is subjective then we can expect these relationships to be a process of engagement and debate that varies across time.
This experience is then expressed through religious literature like the biblical scriptures, religious structures, commands, creeds and so on. Much of this writing, history and debate could be seen as a work rooted in its period with many aspects seen as a response of specific historical conditions, ideals and world views. Much else, especially the supernatural, could be viewed as a natural response to a confusing world, allegory, myth, and/or metaphor. Indeed, even the catholic church accepts that many aspects of the Bible were never intended to be taken literally. Myth implies a truth beyond literal truth. God could be seen in this way as well.
I wouldn’t say a change in how we see God would necessarily ‘demote’ Jesus’s work. The same could be said for Buddha and he is not necessarily accepted as divine.( Buddhism isn’t doing that bad for itself and is more liked than Christianity by most, even if its often misunderstood). Maybe it would be better if we actually saw the human potentialities in Jesus as something accessible to us. Maybe seeing a more human aspect to his message would be useful in the scheme of religious history.
I think the church will grapple with this, as it has for centuries over Gods relationship to the trinity, and many other existential questions. Its’s been challenged by science, the enlightenment, academia, literary criticism and so on. Many branches couldn’t cope with it and closed the doors, developed fundamentalist outlooks and denied academic and scientific criticism. Other churches have tried to adapt to the realities but have been held back by various factions and groups inside their denominations. Issues such as racial intermarriage and the treatment of women and children damaged them in the 20th century. The reluctance to accept the nature of homosexuality, a changing world and the inability to develop refreshing and honest theologies is damaging them in the 21st.
I can certainly see where Rev Hendrikse is coming from. I set up a little experimental blog http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com to explore some of these issues from a slightly more explicit atheistic standpoint. I think there is a lot to be gained by reinterpreting Christianity, and learning the lessons (good things and mistakes) from its past, and applying them to life in a secular and tolerant society.
Shane – check out Humanistic Judaism http://www.shj.org/
This Jewish denomination, primarily in the USA, has tackled many of the issues you have explored on your blog. Obviously they have started from a different tradition but it’s an interesting development. The Rabbi who had set up this denomination in the 1960′s, Sherwin Wine, was operating from a noncognitivist theology of god when he coined the idea of ‘igtheism’. He didn’t find atheism or theism particularly useful constructs but he was happy to be termed a humanist. I think he was wise to bypass that atheist/theist minefield. (I prefer the flexibility and inclusiveness of religious naturalism rather than humanism myself).
Robert Pigott wasn’t being naïve. He was simply asking questions to which most people would like to know the answer – that is, how can one call oneself a Christian when one doesn’t even believe in Christ? Merely to believe in human experience and in life’s goodness doesn’t make one Christian; nether does contemplating eternity by making pretty patterns out of grains of rice.
The absurdity of this is truly Pythonesque – not content with novelty vicars we now have novelty Christianity, the modern play-school for adults.This is where Protestantism ends up when you make the rules to fit your beliefs (for the record, I’m not Catholic). “It’s all nonsense, really.” Yet the man still remains part of some vague Christianity which he finds acutely embarrassing .
The atheist shriek of “Where’s the evidence!” is not relevant to spiritual matters and the need for biblical proof should be of no concern to the true Christian.
Religion is about faith. When one loses faith one becomes a Dutch pastor.
You are entitled to agree with Robert Pigott’s interpretation of Christian doctrine, yet it is not a consensus view. Far from being the “novelty Christianity” you describe, liberal forms of Christianity are, for an increasing number of people, the only means by which people can approach Christian teaching and lead a spiritual, Christ-like life.
Moore, I find your own bias distasteful. Piggott is a more honest journalist that you. It is obvious from the way you have slanted this argument that you would rather attend Hendrikse’s church than the one Piggott goes to, assuming he does. You obviously approve of atheist pastors, and totally ignore the fact that it is the biggest oxymoron stupid men have ever invented.
Nichols, I hope you’re enjoying wallowing in your distaste, it clearly merits a comment from you. I am not a journalist, I am a blogger and I write to share my opinions, which means most of it is bound to be biased one way or another. Agreeing with me is not required, however.
You’re right: I have no problem with Klase Hendrikse being an atheist, but I expect he’s more tolerant towards others’ differences than you are.
Happy Easter