Gerald Robinson is an atheist who teaches theology at Toronto’s Trinity College. It will surprise no one to learn that he is an Anglican who attends an Anglican Church of Canada parish where, no doubt, he feels quite at home amongst like-minded clergy.
He has written a book called Theology for Atheists; we can only assume he is angling to become the next ACoC Primate.
From here:
Award-winning Toronto architect Gerald Robinson is an adjunct professor of theology, in the divinity faculty at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College.
He’s a member of the Anglican congregation that worships in Trinity College Chapel and regularly attends services in the chapel. He calls it his parish church, his “go-to” place to worship. So what is he doing socializing with atheists in Scallywags, a Toronto pub?
Robinson is also an atheist who describes himself as an Anglican/Atheist/Christian—a description that must raise many eyebrows. Some will dismiss it as contradictory, incomprehensible.
Robinson says Jesus never claimed to be God, that nowhere in the gospels does he make that claim. Free Jesus from the doctrinal cluttering, and he is still the “greatest teacher the world has ever known,” whose message of peace, love and tolerance is sorely needed by a troubled world.
[….]
In his 168-page book, Robinson addresses such subjects as heavenly warfare, faith or reason, and miracles. He raises such questions as: Can atheists have a theology? Do atheists have souls? Can an atheist be a Christian if he or she denies the divinity of Jesus?
He answers with an emphatic “yes.”
To his credit, he has one thing right:
As an Anglican, he suggests that the Anglican/Episcopal Church makes the lowest demands for conformity of belief and could lead the way.
The way where, one wonders?
“And now for something completely different”? David, this is ever so old as a phenomenon! I was taught by some like that, and it goes back much much farther.
Can one not distinguish between ontological atheism (there is no God) and methodological atheism (ordering one’s life without accounting for the possible existence of God )? Orthodox Christianity, of course, is theistic, both ontologically and methodologically. There is, plausibly regarding intellectual coherence, a position of not asserting God ontologically (and labelling that as “atheist” if you push them analytically hard enough) yet choosing to be guided, re ethics and “spiritually”, by an illustrative narrative, such as the Christian one. A close relative of Deism, perhaps. Throw a ball into many Anglican congregations and there is a good chance it will be caught by such a person, regardless of whether laity or ordained. The question as to whether such a person is actually a Christian, particularly if they have credentials re the doing of good works, is considered impolite. Their Christianity, if it be such, in one more species of a wide genus that encompasses the acceptance, socially if not privately and internally, of a story rooted in the past that likely has fictional components, asserting its creeds as a matter of polite ritual, and basking in the group experience, a derivative of an ancient imperative to the tribal. Within that same genus are the Trekkers and aficionados of Game of Thrones, the Tolkien subcreation, etc. Ultimately, what distinguishes that etiolated version of Christianity from the long-standing traditional and orthodox is The Cross. A reference to the words of the apostate bishop in CS Lewis, The Great Divorce suffices.
“lowest demands for conformity or belief”?- says it all
Yes, I found that line particularly striking as well.
…Although I think there is this unrest among progressives who are really single-issue progressives whenever a story like this comes up. If, for example, I merely want the church to endorse my particular heresy, then all other heresies that are permitted undermine the credibility of what I have achieved in obtaining my own endorsement. So my guess is that there are many people on all sides of the spectrum who are not impressed by this…
The phrase for all this is “taking the p*ss”.
I suppose it’s possible to look at theology from outside, purely as a system. I wouldn’t immediately scoff — God works in mysterious ways to touch our hearts sooner or later.
You know, Vincent, I agree: God is able to use anything to touch hearts. But that doesn’t mean that a school which is entrusted with the mandate of preparing people for Christian ministry should hire someone in this capacity whose personal beliefs are fully out of alignment with that mandate.