D***ed if I do, and D***ed if I don’t
The media has a tendency to portray Christians in one of two ways: 1) The belligerent, hellfire and brimstone, abortion clinic bombing types, and 2) The embezzling, caught in adultery, child molesting priest types. We can dismiss this portrayal as merely the media’s constant desire to focus on only the most sensational stories, or we can admit that they are providing a service. The reason these instances make the news and are disseminated into public opinion as typical of Christians all over is because ultimately, people want to see Christians (and by extension, Christianity) fail. The two ways a Christian can fail in society’s eyes is by claiming to be holier-than-thou, or by being not holier-than-thou. Let’s analyze that claim a little further.
When a Christian claims they have been chosen by God, it comes across as incredibly arrogant. After all, what makes him or her so special that God would choose them? And yet, the Christian has the audacity to tell the non-Christian that they are going to hell! What about the Crusades? What about the Spanish Inquisition? What about the Salem Witch Trials? If Christians are so holy, why did they do all those things?
When a Christian admits to the sinful failings in his or her own life, it comes across as hypocritical. If Christianity is the redeeming of people from sinful lives, why are they still sinning? Why don’t they practice what they preach? What incentive is there for me to become a Christian if their faith has no power to make them look more like Christ? Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
The way this boils down then is the non-Christian recognizes that a Christian’s claim to be holier-than-thou is falsified by their actions, but if a Christian claims not to be holier-than-thou the non-Christian recognizes that they should be if what they believe is true. In other words, there is no position that a Christian can take with regards to their status before God and mankind that is satisfactory to a non-Christian.
Ultimately, every charge the non-Christian levels is fundamentally true. We cannot deny the black spots in our history, nor can we deny our own personal failings. However, while the truth of these claims is not disputed, nevertheless, Christianity endures. It endures because the issues pointed out by non-Christians only focuses on half of the Christian story. A Christian is holy not by his or her own actions, but by the actions of another on their behalf. We are given perfection not because we ourselves are perfect, but because Jesus gave us His perfection. So the failings of Christians through the centuries should be expected because no Christian was ever personally perfect, in effect they are simply borrowing the perfect status of Jesus as their own.
Again, however, the accusation of the non-Christian is correct in that we should expect a higher level of moral living from a Christian. This is because faith in Christ should be efficacious. The promise of Christianity is that by “wearing” the perfection of Christ as our own leads to God living inside of us. So why wouldn’t we expect Christians to lead lives that obey their own code? Well, we should, but we shouldn’t expect it to be immediate.
Picture this: Your thumb gets severed. You rush to the hospital and the doctor reattaches your thumb and declares you healthy. However, your thumb still looks dead. In fact, it will continue to look dead for some time, because it is healing from the inside out. It is not immediate, and yet the doctor has pronounced you healthy.
This situation is what best approximates life as a Christian. So the failings of Christians should be noted and prove to keep the Christian humble, but the expectations of the non-Christian for immediate behavioral change to the ultimate Christian standard is unreasonable.
Posts
Wow, well written.
I like your thumb analogy. A very good point, too, Mike.
I wonder if a lot of our trouble isn’t in the method of our message. Karl Barth noted the peculiar excitement Christians have about announcing Hell. I think many of the people that have been taken down by the media have been some of the most eager advocates of punishment for all of the sinners. Just like the Pharisees did. It seems to me people respond a lot better, and, indeed, we are more faithful to Jesus’s message (and Paul’s further preaching of that message) when we stick to offering solutions rather than condemnation. The condemnation can and should remain, but it should be implicit in most cases.
I think sometimes it isn’t the holier-than-thou or not-holier-than-thou attitude so much as how we forget that whether we are holier or not all of it comes from grace and whatever fate befalls others, we are just as deserving of it. Both of the camps you describe seem to forget that…
“When a Christian claims they have been chosen by God, it comes across as incredibly arrogant. After all, what makes him or her so special that God would choose them?” (Mike)
I think the problem here is within the theology of most churches in the faith - they do seperate into 2 aspects of reality - the world and the saved. That simple dividing line then sets in motion attitudes and actions consistent with it - since this is believed as ‘truth’. Oddly enough, in the end those actions help bring home one of the parables in Luke - about the sinner and the righteous man praying. I think this theology helps assure the Christian of their faith but also causes aspects of self-righteousness - and how couldn’t it - you are favored to someone’s elses unfavored status by a simple (mental) dividing line.
“there is no position that a Christian can take with regards to their status before God and mankind that is satisfactory to a non-Christian.” (Mike)
I think there is a stand we can take that is accepting and forgiving of the people without the teachings. I think we have to set our ’status’ aside for working within humanity. Is not the goal of our faith to help people become more ‘whole’ as human beings? I think if we put the focus on the aspects of Christ that include anyone and everyone as accepted then we will also behave the same.
I hang around with a lot of people that are not Christian but are good people. I notice my role is not to be ‘perfect’ as an example but to offer advice when asked about my faith or what values I have gained via my faith. I never deny the fact I follow the teachings of Jesus - to me they are not offensive - but very helpful. I come from that angle and I notice people are willing to listen. However, I also am quiet involved in the betterment of their lives also - not just in word, but also in action. That’s what people need to see - that this faith has a real working aspect to it - and isn’t just about ‘talk’ all the time. Maybe this is an answer?
“So the failings of Christians through the centuries should be expected because no Christian was ever personally perfect, in effect they are simply borrowing the perfect status of Jesus as their own.” (Mike)
The failings of Christians throughout the centuries is based on theological beliefs and views of God - and they were likely in error. I think bad theology creates bad practice.
Something worth addressing is this idea we ‘borrow perfection as our own’…this is similar to living vicariously through someone else? I am not sure that is the way it is. Jesus may have been perfect - but that does not mean we will be - but that’s not the goal anyways. ‘Treat others how you want to be treated ‘ is the goal. I think our faith is all about developing our relationships with one another and helping to develop change where it is needed (making situations healthier that are not so healthy). I am not sure I buy into the idea of living vicariously through Jesus’ actions - when I am most definitely responsible for my own.
“but the expectations of the non-Christian for immediate behavioral change to the ultimate Christian standard is unreasonable.” (Mike)
I agree - change takes time. We need to grasp a new value then put it into practice to see how it works. Being a peacemaker will not happen over-night - this is going to some serious work and determination (and leading by God). I see that with most of the values in the faith - we change from being a bruised and battered image of God to the image that God wants us to portray…it takes a lifetime.
societyvs,
The orthopraxy that you discuss here is in no way opposed to conservative (specifically reformed) theology. I wholeheartedly agree that right belief will inform right action.
“That simple dividing line then sets in motion attitudes and actions consistent with it - since this is believed as ‘truth’.”
The word “holy” means “set apart.” The purpose for holiness on earth is that it would be a means to bless others. The parable in Luke that you mention applauds the tax collector, who had the same doctrinal beliefs of the Pharisee. The problem was the heart, not the belief. The Pharisee’s holiness was not a “good” or “righteous” because it was a selfish holiness, it was not used to bless others, but to set himself above others. This defeats the point. It is not the belief that we receive the righteousness of Christ that causes poor practice, but a jacked up, unrepentant, and selfish heart.
Also, communities by definition must have boundaries to exist as communities, otherwise they have lack identity. Having standards of belief for a community’s members does not imply exclusiveness.
“That’s what people need to see - that this faith has a real working aspect to it - and isn’t just about ‘talk’ all the time. Maybe this is an answer?”
Absolutely! To use a very over-used phrase: it is a both/and, not an either/or. Right belief lived out for the betterment of others…
Now, that gets into the question of “What is right belief?”
Well, the imputed/bestowed righteousness of Christ, this clean slate that makes us “perfect” in the sight of God, is VERY important to living for others. Yes, it can be twisted and used to abuse others, but I do not believe that those people really understand the full implications of that belief. IF we understand how amazing and how huge of a gift that really is… then all we will want is to bless others by loving and serving them as Jesus has for us.
That is a powerful motivation, and beats the hell outta “it’s the right thing to do.” It is what is necessary to live out the Golden Rule beyond surface level.
But if this belief does not compel you to love others in the way that you describe, yeah, there is something wrong. But it is not that belief.
“It is not the belief that we receive the righteousness of Christ that causes poor practice, but a jacked up, unrepentant, and selfish heart.” (Brad)
Well that’s breaking it down to individuals - fact is this idea about division is built squarely into many Christian doctrines - and taught as normal. I think the idea of exclusivity is a problem - not that a community holds a set of values and beliefs - but act on certain beliefs in ways that help to divide the believer from the rest of society (or the world - now I speak my Christianeze). We could use example of home schooling, churches on outskirts of cities, not associating with people unless they are ’saved’, etc. This does happen and I think we all know that. But where does that come from - namely when we see a Jesus that hangs out with ’sinners’? Jesus, himself, seems very inclusive.
I think doctrine does cause bad beliefs to exist - namely if those doctrines are problematic. A lot of good hearted theology has helped many a good nation be dominated by those same ideas (ie: South Africa Apartheid or Calvin watching heretics burn - people not like him). Exclusivity is truly at the heart of many problems with the Christian movement - and causes a certain group to love themselves a little too much. I think that whole idea is worth addressing within the Christian nation.
“Having standards of belief for a community’s members does not imply exclusiveness.” (Brad)
I agree but the way certain passages are used - which are also well developed doctrines - does imply exclusivity at the core of our faith…and many people have a tough time understanding the inclusivity. I just have to point to one scripture and we’ll see this all pan out - John 14:6 - ‘the way’ passage. That passage gets used to proclaim one group this and one group another thing. Now this may be so - but our faith stops the process at confession or church attendance and not much more. That is why I bring up the Luke parable - in that parable a tax collector (a traitor of sorts) is seen on the same ground as a religious icon in the eyes of God.
“IF we understand how amazing and how huge of a gift that really is… then all we will want is to bless others by loving and serving them as Jesus has for us.” (Brad)
This is where I totally agree 100%. Knowing the sacrifice Jesus made and God’s love toward us should enable this faith the power to new heights of acceptance, forgiveness, and love.
I would hold it is the belief of the ‘elect’ or the ‘way’ that does develop an inherent divisiveness based on interpretation of those passages/ideas. You’d be quite amazed at how many fellow Christian bloggers have condemned me over the past 2 years (I think 7 or
for stating my interpretation of the ‘way’ passage…for some reason my interpretation does not sit right with them - and I am not sure why - but when I boil it down it has to do with belonging to some group that means more than another.
Though I don’t agree with your assessment of how and why the media portrays Christians how it does, I do very much like the rest of this article. Well said!
“Well that’s breaking it down to individuals - fact is this idea about division is built squarely into many Christian doctrines - and taught as normal.”
Well, a group of individuals who all behave and believe in this way would constitute a “group” or “community.” The issues of hard-heartedness towards the “world” (you started it
) is not dependent on belief alone.
There are also MANY MANY people who hold to the exlusive truth claims of Christianity who do not behave in the admittedly disgraceful way you describe. Tim Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, who started his church and another 50 in the NYC area, has shown that orthodox truth claims (Jesus being “THE” way) is in no way inhibiting people from interacting with and loving the world around them, and in fact it encourages it.
My point is this: There are thousands and thousands of people who have the same exclusive beliefs and yet do not exhibit the exclusive behavior in relationship to those around them. How do you account for that?
“but our faith stops the process at confession or church attendance and not much more. ”
That is a HUGE “missional” failure of the church. While a church may be “gospel-centered” (doctrinally “correct”), they can often not be missional (practically “correct”). Not all churches have this problem, so we cannot apply it generally to all churches with this belief.
In Re: to the parable in Luke… You leave out a huge part of the point in that parable… The tax collector, who is most definitely a sinner (as we all are), is also a beleiver. He is in a Jewish Temple, worshipping Yaweh, within the doctrines and tenets fo the Jewish faith. And because Jesus is telling his (Jewish) disciples this parable, there is a contextual assumption (because of both author and audience) that he believes the same exclusive truth claims of scripture as the Pharisee. He is a believer and thus Jesus is not being inclusive with the world, but within the community that is shared by common (exclusive) belief and faith.
“Exclusivity is truly at the heart of many problems with the Christian movement - and causes a certain group to love themselves a little too much.”
“I would hold it is the belief of the ‘elect’ or the ‘way’ that does develop an inherent divisiveness based on interpretation of those passages/ideas.”
I work with a man who has similar pluralistic beliefs, and his ministry is so watered down and… powerless. If Jesus is not the only way, then why does belief matter at all? If Buddhism leads to positive life change, what’s the point in believing in Jesus at all?
As far as I can tell, there are two different kinds of Christians that fall within the explanation you have given:
1.) Those who are apathetic and uncaring towards the world, and…
2.) Those who are openly avoiding/hostile towards it.
The former is (mostly) a negligence from pastors to rock Christians out of their selfish, western-individualized, consumeristic culture (I’m somewhat opinionated). That is caused by Western culture, not exclusive Christian belief (or maybe poor pastoral leadership in some cases).
The latter is a Christian fundamentalism that seeks to avoid pain, conflict, and suffering by hedging themselves inward. I don’t claim to understand it, at all, but would say that they do not believe the key distinction of their exclusive belief to be lived out IN SERVICE and BLESSING to “all the nations.” It is not an end in itself, but a means for blessing. I am willing to bet that this is the key distinction that they miss in their doctrine.
“There are thousands and thousands of people who have the same exclusive beliefs and yet do not exhibit the exclusive behavior in relationship to those around them. How do you account for that?” (Brad)
Agreed. But many do. How do we account for them is the real question? I am not concerned with the healthy but the sick.
On a much deeper point - when we get to heaven and we still hold these views (namely about hell and seperation) - then we’ll account for what these exclusive beliefs truly mean.
My friends have raised points about believing this doctrine and holding to exlcusivity to the Nth degree - when we stand before God. If you see someone being dragged off to hell (because they never confessed) and you know them - do you say something? Do you argue with God? At some point we have to stand before the courts of the Living God - what we need to be able to do is defend our beliefs.
“In Re: to the parable in Luke… You leave out a huge part of the point in that parable” (Brad)
Actually upon further review of this comment - your making an assumption. Just because they are both Jewish and have the right to enter the temple does not inherently mean they hold to the same principles or even the same doctrines. It is very clear they hold differing levels of religious concern (pharisee vs a tax collector - like comparing an accountant and a Catholic priest). I am not sure they truly believe alike nor need to - all they need to acknowledge was their ‘lack of ability to help themselves’. And yes, tax collecters back then were very frowned upon - seen as traitors - so for this one person to get the same respect as a ‘Pharisee’ was quite monumental as an idea. It rather destroys te idea of building orthodox walls.
“I work with a man who has similar pluralistic beliefs, and his ministry is so watered down and… powerless. If Jesus is not the only way, then why does belief matter at all? If Buddhism leads to positive life change, what’s the point in believing in Jesus at all?” (Brad)
Powerless - how so? Wouldn’t the unity of humanity be the greatest achievement of God? If not, what is?
Belief matters because what you are is what you believe - I would contend however certain beliefs don’t matter - like what we think about something may not matter because it does ‘nothing’ (ex: God is 3 in 1). I am under the belief, from the gospels, that the dostinction between getting to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ is based on what you do (since action shows your real beliefs) - not so much - on what you confess or alone believe. I am willing to be contended on this issue - however - it makes sense.
Why does Jesus have to be the ‘only way’ in order for you to believe in God? I do hold to the idea Jesus is (taught) ‘the way’ - in that what he teaches us about God will either bring us closer to God - or if not heeded - lead us farther from God. But I still the importance of Jesus without some exclusive ‘path’ claim - although I’d say there is an exclusive path claim just not via vicarious faith in a person as that path.
I could be wrong - and likely am on parts of this - but it is honest concerning the gospel teachings of Jesus. I guess I do not trust othodoxy and pre-written doctrines as verifiable fact and without question - when they are most definitely in question. So far thought - in general - I agree with most of the people on this site outside this one glitch in the matrix.
Societyvs,
“Why does Jesus have to be the ‘only way’ in order for you to believe in God?”
If you look at my video called Oh Lordy, Lordy, it explains why Christianity is exclusive in its claims. For additional background you might even check out the New Testament in Five minutes video. Both address this issue, and I thought they might be helpful to the discussion.
“How do we account for them is the real question? I am not concerned with the healthy but the sick.”
Fair enough. And I would say then, that it is not the belief in exclusive truth that is the difference, but the purpose of that belief. Those who we would agree are “sick,” more than likely do not see the purpose as to “bless the nations,” but to “comfort themselves.” Again, it is not the exclusive truth claim, but what we do with it that is the difference.
“do you say something? Do you argue with God?”
Haha… that’s a great question. Honestly, I don’t know. I will definitely ask Him, because I believe we have the freedom to question and wrestle with things like this, as long as I am looking to Him for the answer. I don’t know that I’d argue with Him, but that is because I believe that His explanation will be sufficient.
“Powerless - how so? Wouldn’t the unity of humanity be the greatest achievement of God? If not, what is?”
The greatest achievement of God would not be the unity of humanity, but the reunion of humanity with Him. That is far more important. If humanity is unified, yet pursuing idols and false Gods, what is the point? If we’re all together on a sinking ship, we will still drown…
“So far thought - in general - I agree with most of the people on this site outside this one glitch in the matrix.”
And I can totally see that. I think that many of our honest questions and struggles will be cleared up through God convicting us and/or our experiences in life. Thanks for the stimulating discussion!
Thanks Mike - I will check into them if I get the time to do so. However, I am well aware of how that John 14:6 passage can be used for exclusivity - I have been throughout the church environment - I am just questioning some aspects of it.
“Again, it is not the exclusive truth claim, but what we do with it that is the difference.” (Brad)
You know - you’re likely right on this point - however nagging thoughts in the back of my mind from times of colonialism and slavery just won’t let this debate die/be forgotten. I actually agree with your premise about ‘it’s how we use what we know’.
“I don’t know that I’d argue with Him, but that is because I believe that His explanation will be sufficient.” (Brad)
Well Abraham did - for Lot and his family. Moses did. Jacob did. There is quite a little library of great people within this faith that did - maybe this is part of maturity? Maybe this is normal? I am not sure but the idea sure intrigues me.
“The greatest achievement of God would not be the unity of humanity, but the reunion of humanity with Him” (Brad)
What’s the difference - He created it all including us and our many cultures? I fail to see how God would not want the unity of humanity with one single teaching ‘treat others how you want to be treated’ (hangs all the Law and Prophets). Doesn’t that teaching alone point us to the path to God? Maybe the path to God is trodden with some good hard work here in developing great working relationships with all the people we meet.
“If humanity is unified, yet pursuing idols and false Gods, what is the point?” (Brad)
See this point is very interesting to me - because it would make it seem idolatry is the problem - when in fact - idolatry was only a problem because of it’s questionable behaviours asked by other gods (ie: wilfull demands to break the commandments of God). The problem to me doesn’t seem to be someone’s faith - but what someone’s faith asks of them in the way of doing ‘evil’.
“If we’re all together on a sinking ship, we will still drown…” (Brad)
What will make the ship sink? This is an honest question - what one worships or what one does with their faith system/worship?
“I think that many of our honest questions and struggles will be cleared up through God convicting us and/or our experiences in life. Thanks for the stimulating discussion!” (Brad)
I tend to agree but then God convicts a lot of people of a lot of weird things which vary person to person - community to community. Is God also culturally sensitive?