Mere Christianity, or the fine art of practicing what you preach...

[SidneyCarton]

I originally posted this in May on my Blog, The Loadstone Rock
http://loadstonerock.blogspot.com

Strap In Folks, This is going to be a very long post...

In recent years there have been a spate of books written by men such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seriously, if not savagely criticizing religion, and Christianity in particular. While the harsh criticisms of Atheism are nothing new, these recent arguments stand out, particularly in their open advocacy for absolute intolerance for religion in general. It would seem that these men take their inspiration from the French philosopher Diderot, who stated that true freedom would not be possible until “the last King is strangled in the entrails of the last Priest.” Indeed, no one is overlooked in the vitriol directed at believers, with Harris in particular advocating attacks against not only the fundamentalist extremists, but the moderates as well, for tolerance of the moderates only serves to defend the extremists.

Although I find these sentiments somewhat appalling, I cannot help but note that to some degree modern Christianity has brought such abuses upon itself. Consider for a moment the quotes of some of the most influential leaders of the modern faith:

“We’ve rewarded laziness and called it welfare. You no longer look to God, you look for a check in the mail. In the bible, the bible says ‘The man that does not work shall not eat,’ I still think that ought to be the law in the United States of America. If you don’t want to get off of your blessed assurance, STARVE! I don’t care!” STARVE! I don’t feel sorry for you! GO TO WORK!”
-Pastor John Hagee, on welfare

“I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
-Pat Robertson, in reference to Hugo Chavez

“And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.”
-The Late Jerry Falwell, Regarding 9-11

"You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord."
-Another Gem from the Late Reverend Falwell

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."
-Pat Robertson on the banning of the teaching of Intelligent Design in Dover, PA

These of course are only the tip of an iceberg of hatred, intolerance, willful ignorance and greed that pass for Christianity today. While there are numerous Pastors, Priests, Bishops, Reverends, etc., who go about in silence doing good for their communities every day, there are far too many fools who spew forth this vile disgusting filth from their pulpits every Sunday in the name of Christ. Considering the nature of these statements, and the influence of the men who stated them, is it any wonder that many have begun to question the sanity of those who profess a belief in Christ? Indeed, to consider the statements of the three evangelists quoted here in context with many of their fellow preachers and the opinions of their parishioners, one gets a rather peculiar view of Christianity today, a Christianity that has altogether nothing to do with Christ.

On the contrary, this new faith seems to base itself wholly on enemies and antagonism. There is antagonism against secular liberals, who seek to limit the influence of the church and its leaders in government, as part of a grand conspiracy against American Christians. Antagonism against Muslims, who are seen as the pawns of the Devil and enemies of Israel, thus making them the favored enemy against which the armies of Israel and America will have to fight at Armageddon. Antagonism against Homosexuals, who, in their puerile obsession with sex represent the worst of sinners, through their aberration from the prescribed norm. Notably absent from the doctrine of this new Christianity is any mention of God’s mercy, forgiveness (unless it is offered to corrupt politicians, or scandal-ridden pastors) or love. Indeed, the God offered here is a cold, unforgiving and capricious deity, whose punishments are reserved for whomever steps out of line against his orders of the day. And supposedly all of these arguments are based in the Bible.

So what does the “Good Book” have to say about all of this?

21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
(Matthew 5:21-22)

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
(Matthew 5:38-47)

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the aleast of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
(Matthew 25:31-46)

And Finally…
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

(Matthew 7:21-23)

I know that there is a lot of material here and indeed, I have only scratched the surface of the words of the Savior and his apostles here, yet an interesting contrast emerges. The savior seems far more interested in the way we treat one another than what those who do not believe are choosing to do with their time. While Christ was as intolerant of sin as he was of hypocrisy, his teachings emphasize that discipleship starts with yourself. That the two great commandments, to love God with all one’s heart, might, mind and strength is expressed through the love and care that one shows for ones neighbor. Hence, what one hates, and abhors is not nearly important to Christ as what one does for ones fellow man. If therefore, we do not care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide for the widows and the orphans, we are but hypocrites who will be denied recognition by our Savior at the last day, for we had only the profession of belief, and not the acts that prove our devotion.

Lest anyone mistake my meaning, I do not say here that Christ excuses sin in return for good works. Indeed, the Savior’s injunction against Adultery is far more strict than any injunction given in the Old Testament, for it traces the act to the thought, and forbids the thought, requiring far greater discipline than merely refraining from the act itself. I merely mean to illustrate that what is required of Christians is more than a profession from belief and a rejection of sin, there are actions and behaviors that define Christianity, and these actions and behaviors are sorely lacking in these modern innovations in the faith.

Indeed, nowhere does the Savior argue that his followers are to hate sinners, treat them badly or attack them. Nor did the Master, who explained to Pilate that his kingdom is “not of this earth” advocate the violent overthrow of nations in order to establish his will. Indeed, under such circumstances his statement to Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, after Judas’ betrayal should be instructive: ”Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53) Should we doubt for a moment, that God is unable to do his own work if he so desires it? And isn’t it presumptious of us to automatically assume that whatever Foreign Policy decision that we make as a nation is automatically endorsed by God? If 12 legions of Angels can be summoned at any moment to do his bidding, it must be assumed that their inaction means that God intends the situation to continue to play out according to his will. Those who wish to contend this issue would do well to remember Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Finally, the Lord’s position on charity should give any who think neglect of the poor is acceptable pause. Nowhere in the beatitudes is “Blessed are the Greedy” mentioned, nor “Blessed are the Tax-cutters,” but serious emphasis is given toward those who serve their fellow man. To quote a masterful summation given in the Book of Mormon, “…when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” (Mosiah 2:17) If we are to serve God, we must serve his children, our Brothers and Sisters here on Earth. Being disciples of Christ does not makes us better than our fellow men, it merely gives us a greater responsibility, to live our lives with such kindness and goodness that those who know us will glorify God, even if they do not believe as we believe, or agree with our faith. It is the duty of every Christian to lift those around them through their good works, to be a shining beacon of the love of Christ, even if those around them do not comprehend it. None of us are justified in lording our beliefs, faith or works over others, in the prideful delusion that such makes us better. In light of the parable of the sheep and goats cited above, it becomes clear that the way we treat our fellow man directly affects our eternal salvation.

Jesus Christ taught a doctrine of love, hope and discipline. He taught us that God loves all his children and his Sacrifice for each and every one of us showed the immeasurable worth that he placed on every human soul. As such, he expects his followers to do as he did and recognize the immense value of every soul and treat each person they meet as the child of God that they most definitely are. We would be well advised to do so, lest his pointed condemnation of the Pharisees befall us as well: “…the Publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” (Matthew 21:31)

It is said that when the Greeks converted to Christianity they made it a philosophy. When the Romans converted they turned it into a government. When the Europeans converted they transformed Christianity into a culture, and the Americans turned it into a business. Such is the nature of our current problem, as leaders in the faith have been willing to say anything in order to gain more money, effectively preaching for mammon or "filthy lucre" in the name of God. These activities have effectively bankrupted the faith and left us open to the scorn and well-deserved mockery of non-believers. While I am not a fundamentalist by the modern definition, I do believe that the only way for the faith to survive this current crisis is to return to the fundamentals of Christ's doctrine. Perhaps Saint Francis of Assisi best defined the qualities to which a Christian should aspire in the prayer attributed to him:

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

Amen.

[aspergris]

1. i get so tired

fwiw, when articles citing religion and the bible reference "thou shalt not kill".

Note that is the King James (and many other translations), but it is NOT textually accurate.

The actual texts PRE TRANSLATION read "thou shall not murder". Feel free to Google this. Language experts are in complete accord.

It's a small point, but it drives me crazy because it is repeated like fact that the bible says "thou shalt not kill" when it clearly doesn't

[SidneyCarton]

2. Apologies, it was the version I had on hand.

Your point is well taken, though in the context of the scriptures I cited the change seem minimal to me. Perhaps I am mistaken?

[aspergris]

3. Hey, it's not a big deal

and I like your article in general, it's just so oft-repeated, especially in war and death penalty debates, and it drives me crazy for that reason.

It's just that because of an accident of translation, we have to constantly put up with references to "the bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL" in all sorts of arguments.

Also, thou shalt not KILL clearly is directly contradictory to literally scores of cases in the old testament where man is either TOLD to kill by god, or it is written that it was just that he did kill. So, it's clearly erroneous in that regard as well.

I accept that there is no clear case to be made for OR against the death penalty (imo) based on old testament readings. One can argue pretty effectively either way, so it just chaps my hide when the "thou shalt not kill" canard is extracted.

But don't get me wrong. I liked yer article anyway.

[SidneyCarton]

4. Thanks, I appriciate it.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. It is a shade-of-difference argument

In Hebrew, it's the difference between lo tirtzakh and lo tirog (or tirak). Both mean "don't kill", but the first version, which is in the Decalogue, is the more grammatically active version.

So it's not quite "don't murder", but it does allow for lawful killing. I'm not even sure the Hebrews then had a specific word for murder as an unlawful, deliberate act of killing.

Then again, the Hebrews were never quite as literalistic as later cultures were. Their prohibition against graven images was steeped in the observation that words and reality often didn't mesh. Later (until about WW2, in fact) many Jews feared getting photographed under the assumption that photographs were graven images. Religion in our culture is very literalistic. To the Hebrews, it was an agreement; to our age's true believers, it's a legal code with no room for nuance.

The difference in the Hebrew original is often pressed into pro-death-penalty and pro-war service by the Religious Right. They aren't keen on the nuances of other cultures' religions and languages, either.

--p!

[BurtWorm]

6. You don't really need a "Good Book" to know how to be good.

Why is it that so many who claim to live by the precepts of the "Good Book"--people like those you cite--are so bad? Is it really because they aren't reading the book right? Or is it because the book gives them the excuse to cite some external authority for their principles and actions? I think it's clearly the latter (and certainly not the former, if it can't be both).

[cosmik debris]

7. How True!

I live next door to a church and they are the worst neighbors imaginable.

Once I did a bible search for every reference to the word "neighbor". I emailed the list to the pastor. His response was briefly "it is not our problem and you can't tell us how to be christians". So I just responded that I would assume that they were following the golden rule and that I would treat them the way they treated me. It worked for a while, but not for very long.

Ultimately he fell back on their devotion to their religion as an excuse to be unpleasant neighbors.

[Evoman]

8. What does he do that makes him a bad neighbour?

[cosmik debris]

9. Long story

It started when they asked for a zoning change so that they could build a day-care center adjacent to my back yard. I didn't challenge the request because I think we probably need more day-care centers.

Instead of building a day-care center, they built a huge parking lot with lots of mercury vapor lamps adjacent to my back yard. Because they don't control access to the lot, teenagers use it for many things including a public restroom. In the easement between the lot and my yard the installed electrical outlets and sewer taps so that they could park tour buses there and sometimes they run their diesel engines for hours.

I got tired of the litter blowing into my yard so I built a chain link fence. Now the man who does their mowing uses a side-discharge mower to chop up all the litter that accumulates along the fence. He blows it into my yard in a thousand pieces.

I can live with most of the events they hold in the lot, but at xmas they go ape-shit crazy with a drive thru orgasm of virgin birthitude. You know the story, lights, noise, litter, and traffic, all right there in my back yard.

Yes, I've discussed it with them many times and I always get the same response: an apology, a promise not to do it again, and a lecture on how hard they are trying to serve Jesus. (they just got a new sprinkler system to serve Jesus. Jesus likes green grass.)

Anyway, their apology rings hollow because their promise is always broken.

[knitter4democracy]

17. *snarfgle* That's funny.

Jesus likes green grass. :D Hey, considering He grew up in a desert, maybe, but I think He'd get more pissed at the waste of water.

You should say something to someone on the zoning board. I know the one where I grew up and the one here look less than kindly on anyone who gets a variance for one thing and then turns around and uses it for something else.

[SidneyCarton]

11. The difficulty here is that the book in question does not excuse them,

It condemns them. It may indeed allow them to cite external authority, but if the book in question actually comes from said authority, as they claim it does, then they cite external authority in vain, as that authority, if indeed existent, will not justify them either.

[BurtWorm]

13. How do you know it condemns them?

How do you know it isn't you who's reading it wrong?

[SidneyCarton]

14. Because I alone am the fount of all truth!!!!111!!

I kid. In truth you bring up a good point, dead letter, regardless of its source is open to interpretation, no matter how outlandish. One need only look at Justice Scalia's interpretations of the Constitution to see the proof of these things. That said, the scriptures I cited, combined with the Epistle of James, which is a worthy read in this department as well, tend to be pretty unambiguous as to the duty of those who profess a belief in Christ to care for the poor, be humble and avoid hypocrisy.

Considering the words of Pastor Hagee and Reverends Robertson and Falwell, I would be most interested in their justifying their vitriol (of course in the case of Reverend Falwell that could be difficult.) with direct quotes from Jesus out of the New Testament. I think Hagee in particular would have difficulty doing so. Certainly there are sections in the Pauline epistles and the Book of Revelation that might better fit their rather maniechian view of Christianity, but context is key for understanding Paul's writings, and Revelation is a sufficiently dense book, filled with deep and disturbing symbolism that without access to the writer of the book, or his alleged source material (God) I would be very careful in interpreting it according to current events.

[ironbark]

10. Now >THAT’S< what I came here to see!

Thank you Sidney…you have restored my faith/hope/expectation that there still remained in the US a reservoir of progressive Christian sentiment.
I’m an Australian agnostic but I say without hesitation- “God bless ya mate! Nice balanced and meaty post”!

;-)

There are a dozen points of entry in what you have said but I want to pick up on
two themes- “make me an instrument of Thy peace” and “ let me sow love”. My interest in instruments of peace stems in no small part from living in a (predominantly) Christian country right next door to the worlds most populous Muslim nation (Indonesia)…. reconciliation and peace between these two religions is a pragmatic concern. “let me sow love” becomes then an injunction worthy of exploration because what may be “loving’ to my Christian friends’n’neighbours may well be an anathema to many Muslims (ie- Many Australian football clubs who ‘love’ their kids/players take their end of season trip to Bali and many of the Balinese ‘love’ the resulting income….and some extremist Muslims loathe and hate the extremist drunken football player behaviour enough to want to blow themselves and all things Western right up).
The world shrinks, my neighbour is not the same as yesterday, identifying, understanding and loving my neighbour becomes increasingly complex.

.

So…” to return to the fundamentals of Christ's doctrine” – ‘love’ and the ‘sowing’ thereof.
So- “What is this thing called love”? ;-)
There was some debate here a while back as to what ‘love’ might be and if/how its existence could be verified. Most local atheists and a few Christians went with- “It’s an emotion, verifiable by experience and brain scans”.
I think I stood almost alone in advocating M Scott Pecks definition- “Love- a preparedness to do for others”. This definition makes love (more often) something done rather than felt and allows the possibility of love being preformed in the absence of any positive emotion or even in spite of negative emotion.


“….and the Americans turned it into a business. Such is the nature of our current problem, as leaders in the faith have been willing to say anything in order to gain more money, effectively preaching for mammon or "filthy lucre" in the name of God.”

Yes…indeed….and raises in turn the question- Has America and/or Western capitalism been turned into a religion?... and an evangelical one that is exported to the developing word?

I know I’m chewing up some bandwidth and raising issues tangential to your OP…but I’m wondering what ‘sowing love’ might look like in the context of international/interfaith relations (imagining a Democrat Govt or a Christianity not “preaching for mammon”).?

If you can endure…the following scenario puts the how to be “instrument of Thy peace” and “ let me sow love” in the context I have in mind-
The Bosnian war is often portrayed as an inter religious war. According to a number of accounts (academic and first hand) it may have become so but did not start out as such. The region enjoyed remarkable interfaith peace for some seven hundred years. In recent times the multinationals arrived seeking cheap labour at the same time satellite TV arrived. "filthy lucre" was to be made by some while ‘Dallas’ raised the expectations of all. Traditional crafts/manufacture died out and for the first time in several generations there was a large pool of unemployed young men….young men on the street divide on ethnic/religious lines and begin gang turf war. Some one gets killed and the dads/uncles get involved…..hey presto- religious civil war.

Even from this detached distance we are potential players in their conflict and I’m left wondering what we collectively/lovingly/do to be ‘instruments of peace’?

Thanks again for your great post.

[SidneyCarton]

12. Thank you for your comment.

As I once pointed out to a friend, many of the atrocities laid at the feet of religion, have political sources. Religion is used as an accelerant to make a conflict all the more pointed and brutal, as it deals with peoples core beliefs and fears. For this reason I truly believe that a firm boundary between religion and politics must be preserved.

As Otto von Bismarck once stated, "Politics is the art of the possible." It requires compromise, argument and a fair degree of pragmatism. Religion in many ways is the "art of the impossible," requiring faith, and an intractable unwillingness to give in on principle.

When these two institutions are mixed, politics becomes intractable, and therefore unworkable (hence the Bosnian mess, among other things), and as I attempted to show in my post, Religion becomes denigrated to the point of meaninglessness.

[raccoon]

15. Great post. I'd rec it if I could. nt

[SidneyCarton]

16. Thank you, I appriciate your post.