I think that it is worth keeping in mind that there are, if I may paint with a very broad brush, two groups critical of Christianity in the US right now.
The first group is comprised of people who are strongly steeped in positivism. These people do think that they have access to reality, to the Truth and that Christianity, and all other religions are wrong. This is the group that holds up Dawkins as a poster-child. While many in this group haven’t taken up the cause with the same furvor as Dawkins, who elevates atheism to a religion all its own, they more-or-less agree. Dawkins is a caricature of this movement but, like most extremist activists, since he is the most vocal he has also become its symbol.
The second group is more amorphous, comprising of what I will call ‘hippies’ for lack of a better description. They are strongly anti-establishment and believe in a plurality of realities. They may also be "spiritual but not religious’. You know the sort. These are the people that associate Christianity with the “Man” and think that any high-handed comments from above represent an attack on their individual sovereignty, which they value quite highly.
So I don’t think of it as a double-standard so much as I think there are two distinct groups with different goals/aims.
My view is that the most anti-Christian group out there are those who’s foundational value is that all spiritual truth is relative and therefore any claim to absolute truth is primitive and misguided (Christianity simply being the most accessable target for them).
I can totally understand that view, even though I think it is based in sentimentality rather rationality and I don’t think it any more tolerant than the traditional alternatives. What I can’t understand is why such people would like Dawkins. It would seem that their only commonality would be to detest Christianity.
Xunzian, no offense, but you left out a group, from a certain perspective.
There are also those who greatly admire Y’Shua, and the Bible, but despise the bastardisation of both by people who are more serving institutions and agendas of control, than being enablers of growth.
Some of these people, have no beef with Christianity; it’s the people who call themselves Christians, who exhibit none of the behaviors exuded by Y’Shua and none of the ones outlined in the Bible.
But from my perspective, all people who hold theistic faiths are more-or-less equivalent. It is always easier to see the divisions within a group you are part of than it is to see the divisions in an outgroup.
I do think that the group that you’ve described is the most popular in the west and furthermore, I think that there are hypocrites in that group that use Dawkins as though he were one of their own while neglecting his monodominant view.
But that ties into Mastriani’s point. After recent events, need I mention the hypocracy of some Christians? It’s the same idea, both sides have their hypocrites, and both sides have their (pardon my french) assholes who don’t know what the hell they are talking about but use what (little) they know to further their aims.
I agree and I’m not defending Christianity, I’m attacking the inconsistancy of some atheists. On the subject of hypocracy, my view is that almost everyone is a hypocrite to some extent. No one lives up to the ideals of who they think they should be and we often project an idealistic image of ourselves to others. A failure to recognise this is true hypocracy.
I think we should put this into perspective. The Micah quote that Jesus makes talks of a “visitation†of Judah, since according to the opening statement in the Book of Micah, he prophesied in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, who were kings of Judah. When this “visitation†has come the wildest confusion would come upon Judah, and their evil would then burst forth without shame and without restraint, and everything will be turned upside down.
Jesus was apparently convinced that the day of judgement was just around the corner, and presumably the time of the “remnant†of Israel would be over and a new covenant would take its place. In this way you could interpret the destruction of the temple as that day of judgement, which may have been in “Matthews†mind when writing. It certainly came to the mind of those reading the Gospel. However, Paul certainly wouldn’t have seen it that way.
I am amazed that you assume these things that are all but clear. I only see the possibility of a judgement of Judah, or Judea, since it was the last “remnant†of Israel and had fulfilled the prophecies about rebelling against God – but this almost always means first and foremost the leaders of the people. If you remember, he tells his followers to make sure they read the signs and flee sufficiently in advance to avoid the wild confusion.
This is supported by the fact that an opinion is becoming widespread that what has widely been translated as “the Jews†actually should read “the Judeans†and points to the role of the leaders in Jerusalem in killing Jesus. It should never have included everybody who is called a Jew. Therefore, what you are making into global issue seems in context to be a local issue.
Well, I’ll tell you what I think. I don’t believe that the majority of Christians can speak out adequately! I believe that the majority make themselves seem hypocritical when they try to speak out! I believe that the defence of the truth is far more effective through example than by speaking out, but that this is perhaps not as satisfying. A humble community, who chooses to do things right in an atmosphere of corruption and vice, is by far a better witness than Christians protesting on the street.
The use of brains, mouths and energy reminds me of a different emphasis made by Christ (rendered as an interpretation of the Aramaic), “You shall love Lord your God with the core of your being, and with your inner-self and with all your instinct and intuition, and with all your life.†I find that loving in this sense means that I have more to do than just stand about telling people about the Gospel. The fact that the command to love ones neighbour in the same way as one loves oneself also gives me enough to do, including speaking out against injustice and social immorality, but that does make us dissidents in this world.
I have sometimes wondered whether believers who have this attitude might not be surprised at the end of time, and suddenly find themselves in the position of the one who hid his talent saying, “Lord, I knew you, that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter; and being afraid, going away, I hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have yours.â€
I know many evangelical Christians who are like this with regard to witness. At the time I left the group I was with, I tried to make them aware that their whole energy was put towards conversations about the Gospel. Some even told me about “almost conversations†which they nearly had. I was the one who went out on the street and I had a natural ability to reach people, but the conversations are not one way. People ask you, given that they accept the invitation, how binding is your discipleship? What is the next step? Who will accompany them? Who will attend them in the first weeks? Who will visit them?
I went back with the names and addresses of these people who I had reached and proposed that the older community members visit the older people and the younger accordingly. I suggested that we invite them into the homes or put on an event to get to know each other and start with personal witness. The reaction was that these people had to “kindly†come to the next evangelisation. They couldn’t “simply†be invited into the living room, “after all, we don’t know them!†I was just amazed, since I was talking about people who were going shopping, neighbours of the members of the Christian community.
I talked about this to members of other communities and had to hear them say that I had to understand them, after all, completely unknown people, “whether they say they want to hear the Gospel or notâ€, had to be invited to a neutral building like the Church before they were to be invited home. They said that they first of all wanted to check that their interest was genuine …
Talk about double standards …
I am quite comfortable with a stern God, but I see Christ being stern with the “righteous†first of all. He warmed to people who showed even the beginnings of faith, but condemned those who refused to see that the Sabbath is an institution for humankind, and not just some restriction which had to be adhered to. It isn’t “heel†submission (following at God’s heels on command) but a healing and healthy compliance that he was seeking.
The context here is that the epistle addresses the question whether the Mosaic Law is binding for Christians and is designed to counter the position that men cannot be justified by faith without the works of the law. The situation is widely believed to be that Jewish Christians were telling the Galatians that they had to become proselyte Jews before they could become followers of Christ. This contradicted the very discovery of Paul, by which the new Covenant was based on faith alone.
The argument is that the New Testament had a different dynamic and is based upon the law written upon the hearts and souls of mankind. The attempt to make believers go back to the Old Covenant would, in its consequence, block the whole momentum of missionary development. No wonder then that Paul reacted so harshly, especially having already made the demonstration with Barnabas in Jerusalem. He had thereby received Peter’s statement, “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.â€
I agree that Jesus’ primary focus is on the salvation (and judgment) of the Jewish people. However, the concept of God judging non-Jewish nations is found throughout the OT and NT, especially the book of Revelation. And Jesus specifically commanded that this be part of the message his followers tell others.
Acts 10
39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
I’m not as far from your view as you think. Like you, I believe that much of modern evangelism is actually counter-productive. Our difference of opinion seems to be simply whether one responds to this by either limiting our speech or finding a new means of communication. Unusually for me, I find myself being the optimist in this discussion; I think effective verbal communication of the gospel can be accomplished.
Thanks for sharing that story Bob, it gives me a better appreciation of where you’re coming from. It’s only fair that I share a part of my story, because it might help you understand where I’m coming from too.
First, with regard to your story, I have to say, as part of the evangelical community I’ve seen the behavior you describe first hand and it disturbs me too. I think there are 2 problems here.
(1) The gospel message.
For evangelicals the gospel message has ceased to be a relational message; “come and share in the rich life of Jesus and come and share in the rich life of his church”. Instead it has become a transaction, “come and receive the rubber stamp of Christianity”. There are some theological reasons underpinning this change, but I think it’s more likely that modern consumerism with it’s product and marketing strategies is to blame. Sadly, most Christians are under the impression that evangelism has something to do with salesmanship, “closing a deal” or “pushing a product”. This makes most Christians uncomfortable so they simply stop. Those who are more comfortable with sales take over and the gospel message becomes a product.
(2) The Christian ghetto
The exclusive focus of Christian teaching on personal morality added to the proliferation in Christian branding (Christian music, clothing, coffeeshops, bookstores, vacation destinations etc…) has the effect of isolating Christians from the real world. The teaching on personal morality over every other topic makes Christians literally scared of interacting with anyone who thinks differently. Heaven forbid that you’d invite a gay couple over for dinner! The Christian branding creates a safe but unlimately artificial environment for a Christian to live. The proliferation of church activities meanns that even well-meaning Christians actually have no available time to interact with their neighbors.
So here’s my story. I realized all this a few years ago. At the time I was a good church goer, involved in all manner of church activities and highly regarded in my own church. I moved to a different state and started attending a new church that had a primary focus on evangelism. I didn’t have the first clue about evangelism, but I was up for any challenge. The interesting thing was that the pastor of this particular church simply refused to organise any evangelism projects for the members, and there were literally no church events outside of the sunday service. We were simply told to interact with people around us and see where God would lead us.
I can’t begin to descibe how liberating this was for me. At first I literally didn’t know what to do with my time, since there were no meetings or church activities to attend. But over time I met some neighbors and started to do the things that “normal” people do and go places where normal people go. The Christian ghetto was gone, and I began to make deeper relationships with people who don’t know Christ, people who didn’t want to know Christ, and some people who were struggling with life and what they believe. I haven’t done anything extrodinary but I’ve seen God move profoundly in the lives of these people around me simply by taking the time to be with them. I’ve also learned a lot from other people that I would have missed otherwise.
Now I’ve moved back to my original church but I’ve maintained the same attitude of making time to spend with my neighbors, the parents of my kids friends, and my workmates. I’ve come to see that most people have complex issues that are rarely solved by pushing them to “accept Jesus” for afar. But I’ve also seen that when a Christian is embedded in his/her community we can accomplish a lot of good simply by communicating what we know and what we don’t know about life as humbly and simply as possible. Of course, all this comes at a cost. At church I’m something of a social leper since I’m no longer marching to the same evangelical drum as everyone else and I don’t go to any important church meetings any more. But my life is far richer and God is closer and everything less artificial.
I guess, I’m telling you all this because your story struck a chord with me and we’ve probably been in some of the same places. To be honest, I think most of what passes for evangelism is simply church advertising. True evangelism takes time, energy, and a genuine pouring out of ones life for the benefit of other people. I guess all I’m arguing for is that on top of that we communicate vocally who we are and who God is to the best of our ability.
Anyway, I could say much more but I’d probably just be repeating myself.
Ned, I find it amusing how you seem to think that whatever the matter is, it always has to do solely with Christianity. It’s like you have nothing better to do with your time than to bitch about Christians and Christianity being oppressed… it truely is such a wonderous hypocrisy that you embody.
As for Dawkins, I agree with Mastriani’s post. It is interesting how Dawkins mistakes faith as being part of religious belief when clearly he demonstrated a sort of faith in his atheistic worldview.
Another thing in Mastriani’s post that rang true was the inconcievability of absolute truth and human thought together. Really Ned, if you were truely an absolutist of the bible itself, surely you would not hesitate to kill for a given “justification,” considering that there are things that you must kill in order to be a true absolutist. Can you kill Ned?
Actually we had some homosexual friends over for dinner just recently, and I have a weekly bible study with a homosexual Christian at work. I doubt that anyone is or was uncomfortable.
I’m happy to break bread with anyone, especially if they are paying!
I haven’t read this thread for a couple of days and I’m surprised at some of the posts.
Ned, yours being the most surprising. Oh my yes. It is more what we do that is important. What we say can lead to an understanding of what we do, but it is the doing that is our message, both to ourselves as well as others. Witnessing isn’t a reiteration of some 12 step program (although that is how it is practiced in so many churches), witnessing is seen in how we conduct our lives. Even though we come from entirely different points of view, that is the essence of finding self, finding grace, or any other label one would attach to it. I’ve quoted Kierkegaard a number of times, “Silence is truth”. Most folks miss that message completely. What you have shared is that unspoken understanding and regardless all the words about what is Christian or Taoist or Buddhist pales before that mute understanding. That is enlightenment in anyone’s words.
As for hypocrisy, we’re here. Unless one lives a hermetic existence, the compromises we have to make in any social setting guarantees that we will always be “hypocritical” in some sense. That is duality and is inescapable.
So, doesn’t this necessarily go against your sensibilities? It would seem that you would be adamantly opposed to that sort of lifestyle, or do I misread you?
I don’t work 2.5 jobs because I’m rich Mr. Flanders, but I’m moronically generous, so I’ll treat, just for you.
You have outdone yourself then, you are the enigma.
I think the bible teaches that homosexual practice is immoral, but the bible teaches that gluttony, pride, and adultery are also immoral. I don’t preach at my fat, or boastful friends, although I’ll be happy to give my opinion on the topic if they are interested. I take a similar approach to my homosexual friends, and they seem pretty comfortable making allowances for my strange religious peculiarities. I don’t hide my views, but I see no reason to treat them any less than fellow human beings. As I see it, everyone has sin issues. I see no reason to elevate homosexuality over any other, including the ones that I’m particularly predisposed towards.
It’s a date then!
Wait! Wait! What if I prefer being the evangelical cardboard cut-out? To be honest I think I actually thrive on abuse and ad hoc comments, the more the better. If everyone starts to appreciate my approach, I may have to go elsewhere where I’m truly unappreciated!
Seeing as my previous commentary in this thread hasn’t caused you to feel unappreciated, this should do the trick: that is very spiritually enlightened of you.
Did you have to say “date” … how about it’s two guys breaking bread?
Seeing as I am not one to crush the dreams of another, I will work harder at being invective and patently offensive, for purely altruistic reasons.
Is masochism sin? Not quite certain that I ever read that directly, but it would appear that it is neither a new aberration, nor one that should be morally overlooked.
Why are you being nice to me. I don’t know if I can handle it!
Man, you non-Christians are so homophobic aren’t you!
Good man. I knew I could count on you.
Well, I’m quite averse to pain to be honest. But I must admit I like being the source of heated debate and I don’t like peaceful agreement too much. Too quiet or too boring.
Probably due to the fact that for the first time I am aware of, you represented yourself as a fallible human. I’ll try to stop, it is rather repulsive.
Blame tentative, he’s become a “stalker” of sorts.
I’ll see if I can find a copy of the Q’uran, that should get us back on course, for normal forum behavior.
