A guy named Saul finds himself in dire straits. His business has gone bust and he's in serious financial trouble. He's so desperate that he decides to ask God for help. He begins to pray: "God, please help me. I've lost my business and if I don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well. Please let me win the lottery."
Lottery night comes, and somebody else wins it.
Saul again prays: "God, please let me win the lotto! I've lost my business, my house and I'm going to lose my car as well."
Lotto night comes, and Saul still has no luck.
Once again, he prays: "My God, why have you forsaken me? I've lost my business, my house, and my car. My wife and children are starving. I don't often ask you for help, and I have always been a good servant to you. PLEASE just let me win the lottery this one time so I can get my life back in order."
Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open and Saul is confronted by the voice of God Himself:
"Saul, meet me halfway on this. Buy a ticket."*
When I think about the reasons why evangelical Christians are making so little progress changing our culture, I always think of this story. We want to transform the world but never even take the first step to achieve that end. We never even “buy a ticket.”
According to the Barna Group, approximately 14-16 million adults in the U.S. -- 7% of the population -- are evangelicals. We have an enormous amount of resources at our disposal. We have a large influence in politics and alternative media. What we don't have, however, is a significant impact on our culture.
So why are we so ineffectual? Why have we not transformed the world in the same way that Christians in early times have done? The reason why is simple. Unlike those who have come before us, we are not disciples, we are not saints.
As the Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says,
Saints love true peace. They also hate false peace, peace based on lies. Saints hate violence and intolerance against sinners. But they also hate tolerance of sin. Saints love sinners more, and sins less, than anyone else does. Both of these eccentricities puzzle people and often offend them.**
Indeed, these traits probably offend us Christians most of all. We don’t want to love sinners and hate sin. If we are “conservative” we want to judge sins. If we are “progressive” we want to forgive sin. What we refuse to do, however, is hate sin.
(As for the sinner, we don’t hate them. But we don’t really love them either. Mostly we tolerate them and call that love. We are more concerned about the behavior itself than the person in need of love that lies behind the actions.)
So what would happen if we truly hated sin? For one thing we would want to eradicate it from our lives. Most Christians harbor two types of sin. We have the habitual sins which we justify as “small vices.” Nobody’s perfect so we can’t expect to be either. Therefore we tolerate just a “little sin” as the price of being human. According to our bumper sticker catechism, “We’re not perfect…just forgiven.”
The other type is the “Break in Case of Glass” category of sin. These are usually the Big Ones that take the pattern of “I would never do X…unless...”
“I would never justify having an abortion…unless I find out my teenage daughter is pregnant.”
“I would never commit adultery…unless I didn’t love my wife anymore and filed for divorce.”
“I would never bear false witness…unless slandering my coworker would help me get a promotion.”
“We want to be good,” says Dallas Williard, “but we are prepared, ready, to do evil--should circumstances require it. And of course they do 'require' it, with deadening regularity.”
Our concern for the moral decay in our country is justified and should never be ignored. We shouldn’t abandon our struggle against the culture of death or the degradation of marriage. But we should not forget the impact we could have if we would simply change our own lives. Can you imagine how the world would change if American evangelicals simply stopped doing evil?
Yet, curiously, we don’t. And why not? Christ has set us free and removed the shackles of our sinful nature. So what is it that's stopping us? Nothing less than a complete lack of desire. We simply don’t want to stop sinning. We don't want to stop doing evil much less actively work toward becoming more like Christ.
As the 18th century Englishman William Law explains in “A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life”:
It was this general intention that made the primitive Christians such eminent instances of piety, and made the goodly fellowship of the saints, and all the glorious army of martyrs and confessors. And if you will here stop, and ask yourselves, why you are not as pious as the primitive Christians were, your own heart will tell you, that it is neither through ignorance nor inability, but purely because you never thoroughly intended it.
The reason we are not disciples is because we have no intention of following Christ. If we did we could transform the world. It’s really that simple.
Picture the revival we would have if we had five more John Wesleys. Think how the “evangelical mind” would be transformed if we had ten more Jonathan Edwards. Imagine how a handful of Augustines would affect the world of blogs. If twelve Jewish men from a backwater Roman province can change the course of history, what could we do with 14-16 million disciples?
If evangelical Christians truly want to change our culture we need to do more than argue, protest, and pray. We need to become disciples of Christ. Once we commit to becoming disciples, there is no limit to how God can use us. If we would just buy the ticket, the whole world would reap the windfall.
*Anecdote courtesy of Snopes.com
**Peter Kreeft, "How To Win The Culture War" (pg. 101)
Dear Mr. Carter:
Yes, but ...
I recommend to you the ideas of James Davison Hunter on evangelicals and cultural renewal. Our think thank had him out for a few events recently, and I am intrigued by his ideas, some of which you can hear on a recording of an address he gave to the board of the Trinity Forum [pdf] some time ago. I can send you a copy if you email me at gstrauss@wrf.ca or gideonstrauss@gmail.com.
This is probably the most honest article I've read on this topic. Finally we don't here the ridiculous, "oh we love the sinner but hate the sin." You nailed that fallacy right on the head. Often times Christians don't bother to tolerate the "sinner" either. I know, I know, they aren't "real" Christians.
You also hit the fallacy of condemned behavior--except when it suits the preacher. Almost every anti-abortion advocate would drive their daughter to a clinic for an abortion posthaste if they became pregnant from being raped by a psychotic homeless person. Remember, there can be no exceptions...
I always love the politically charged "culture of death" description of non-dogmatic Christian behavior. I'm expecting Darth Vadar to walk in off stage with menacing music playing. Just think of all those poor Okinawan elders living a non-Christian "death"-style to the near pubescent age of 105.
Lastly, even by Christian doctrine, no person will stop all sinning. I'm assuming that's what you mean when you ask Christians to "stop doing evil." Again, you chose the more charged description of something that could be as innocent as eating fish on friday--before Vatican II.
Good post today. There are many variables that contribute to this problem of evangelicals and culture. One of them, I believe, is how evangelicals engaged culture again starting in the 1970s (after nearly 50 years of being in the wilderness as a result of our battle with modernity).
I think one of the negative consequences of this reengagement has been that evangelicals began to look to politics and political processes as solutions to cultural--and spiritual--problems. As a result, our witness as "changed" people doesn't ring as true since our first recourse for changing culture is through the fallible means of politics.
When nonevangelicals are asked what they think of when they hear the word "evangelicals," many of them will respond with something related to politics--abortion, gay marriage, support for the war in Iraq, etc.--instead of the characterstics that should define us as followers of Christ.
I'm not saying that involvement in politics is wrong; it just seems as if we've become identified by our politics instead of by our faith, thus limiting our impact and role in shaping culture.
I always remember the old truism, 'its easier to die for Christ than it is to live for Him.'
Recently began reading your blog. First time commentator.
I think your post is, for the most part, right on. I certainly believe that within the evangelical community at large, there is a disturbing lack of intellectualism and discipline, combined with a tendency to want to mirror the fallen world in areas such as entertainment. Evangelicals have created a "Christianized ghetto," where Christian rappers (for example) work out of a Christian music industry, and leave the larger music industry to fend for itself. There is a stark reluctance by many in American evangelicalism to engage the culture, to become separatists of sorts.
But where I differ with you is when you ask "Can you imagine how the world would change if American evangelicals simply stopped doing evil?"
You then go on to answer, saying "Yet, curiously, we don’t. And why not? Christ has set us free and removed the shackles of our sinful nature. So what is it that's stopping us? Nothing less than a complete lack of desire. We simply don’t want to stop sinning. We don't want to stop doing evil much less actively work toward becoming more like Christ."
I think your answer is part of the problem. It's not Biblical. Paul in Romans chapter 7 and verses 18 and 19, laments over this very issue. He says, "For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing." Paul then goes on to give the reason for this. In verse 20, Paul says, "Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me."
Christ did free us from the bondage of sin, but that freeing works itself out via process called sanctification. And sinners, even as believers, we remain. And we will not be free of it until the day of glory. So, I believe that saying that the only reason that evangelical still sin is a complete lack of desire is only part of a more nuanced reason.
Mere intentions cannot make us holy! They are necesary, as is the working of the Holy Spirit, but alone cannot accomplish what you say it can. Paul, the most radical saint for God, struggled in much the same way.
Joe:
You've made an interesting and heartfelt post, and one that will no doubt spark a response in many evangelicals. I don't really have a dog in this fight, so perhaps I shouldn't say anything at all. But - in the way of feedback from an outside perspective - I will offer a few comments.
As usual, my main comment is: you're wrong.
Specifically, I think you're wrong about why evangelical, or just conservative, Christians haven't seen more of their preferred programs and rules enacted, and wrong about what would happen if Christians started to radically live up to their creed.
As to why Christians haven't been more successful changing the parts of American culture they don't approve of, I think the answer has nothing to do with how well they're modeling their own beliefs, or whether they're being "good enough" Christians. Probably most Christians (like everyone else) could do a better job living up to their own ideals, but that isn't why people don't adopt those ideals. The answer, I think, is much simpler: the bulk of society doesn't want to buy what you're selling. We want a society that is open and accepting about sex, has few limits on gender roles, accepts a variety of possible family and relationship structures, offers an unfettered range of speech and print and music and video media, treats all religions with respect and tolerance, and does not allow religious dictates to determine our lifestyles, political system, social structures or scientific worldview. It's not just liberals who want these things - though it's liberals you have to thank for making them possible; almost everybody exposed to freer and broader possibilities in the various avenues of life winds up appreciating that diversity of choice, and usually choosing some part of it beyond their previously limited horizons.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm when they've seen the big city of personal autonomy? You can't - and the experience of society with the attractions and freedoms of modern life proves it. It's not like people don't know what you're suggesting, or what the changes in recent generations have been. They just like the new ways better - even with the risks and confusions that attend them. Anybody at any time could live like a conservative Christian, even if they weren't Christian - they just don't want to. Even most Christians don't want to live the rejectionist straitjacket life you're pushing on them. Society has seen the ferment and excitement of allowing freedom in lifestyles, social roles, artistic expression, and every other part of life, and they like it. They have tasted the gratifying liberation of personal autonomy and freedom of conscience, and they aren't giving it up for any single point of view, Christian or otherwise. They've chosen this life and won't go back.
Even the controversial or deleterious parts of society have their supporters, and most people aren't willing to give up as much freedom in all areas of their lives as would be necessary to stamp out the few practices they disapprove of. Thus we have Internet child porn because we aren't willing to give up the Internet itself, we have [name your phobia] sexual behavior because we aren't willing to allow our own sex lives to be dictated or stigmatized, and we have high divorce rates because we aren't willing to allow ourselves to be trapped into unfulfilling relationships. A majority of the population wants each of those freedoms, and will accept the attendant risk and responsibility that they entail; the vast majority wants the general freedom that makes all of them possible (and inevitable). They've been making their choices ever since Christianity became non-compulsory, and each new freedom was accepted with open arms. The more freedom they got, the more they wanted and the more eagerly they explored its possibilities. The verdict is in.
Second, the result of Christians trying harder - either to convert "sinners" or to model a true Christian life - is not likely to be as dramatic as you think. The reason the early church grew so rapidly was the same reason many evangelical movements grow - an appealing message under the right social conditions in an untapped population. It had little to do with being saintly or devout - they were just good salespeople in a virgin market. (If church growth rates are an indicator of "saintliness," then arguably the Mormon church is more saintly than mainstream Christianity, while Catholicism and Protestantism have had differing levels of saintliness in different times and regions of the world. A better explanation is that growth in each case is just a question of the conditions of the times.) Those days are gone. Obviously some methods of evangelism are going to be more effective than others, but I suspect the best you can hope for in converting Americans today is to be one of many proselytizing movements in a crowded market.
If you hunker down and concentrate on living a conservative Christian life as honestly as you can, you will win admirers but few converts. Some people may be attracted to that lifestyle because they see it brings certain benefits, but the effect will be incremental; most people will be too attracted to the wider benefits of a freer lifestyle and will simply go on doing their thing while you do your different thing.
If you try to make a more concerted effort at proselytizing (with or without a more sincerely Christian lifestyle), again you will win some converts but at the cost of annoying even more people. Again, most people simply don't want what you're selling. And it's not because they don't know generally what Christianity is about, or what conservative Christians' complaints about America are. They just don't share those concerns, and don't want to live the way you advocate. To imagine that proselytizing harder is going to win over very many people is to imagine that if they only knew what you had to say then they'd accept your message. That's very condescending, which is just one of the things non-evangelicals object to about evangelicals.
Do you like getting calls from Amway salespeople? Do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are doing you a favor (other than by amusing you) in trying to convert you? Would you be happier if conservative Muslims passed laws that you could only read Islamic literature, buy Islam-compatible products, and were prohibited from going to work on Islamic holidays - and then filled the TV, newspapers, and radio with statements that you were a "sinner" and were "caught in Satan's trap" for daring not to agree with them? Or would you, perhaps, find that a little annoying, a little constraining, and a little insulting? Would you think, perhaps, you could make up your own mind on that matter, consider the alternatives on your own, make your own decision about your lifestyle and faith commitments without someone showing up on your doorstep, shouting at you on a street corner, or passing laws to coerce you into adopting their position?
Evangelical Christians are Amway salespeople with even more inflated egos. Nobody wants to be proselytized, and nobody is impressed with a proselytizer's self-righteous justification that "it's for your own good!" You don't believe that when non-Christians proselytize you. Don't be surprised when I tell you that non-evangelical Christians don't believe you when you tell them the same thing. And the harder you try, the more you will just annoy people. You'll get some converts, sure, and you will reconfirm the non-converts that much more strongly in their determination not to let you run their lives.
14 million evangelicals trying to remake the world will not bring about a tidal wave of conservative Christianity. It will just be like 14 million Jehovah's Witnesses on 14 million doorsteps - you'll piss off a lot of people simultaneously, but not accomplish much.
The world has grown too wide for any one worldview, and people's choices in life have become too numerous to imagine that an overwhelming number of them will make the same choice about anything. The general propositions large numbers of people do agree on - the value of personal liberty, the desirability of choice, the good in freedom across the board - make them less likely to agree on any one answer to any particular question. Since the answers you're advocating tend to be somewhat constraining, and to denigrate large ranges of possible choices people might make, you have to fight not merely the particular choices they have made but the availability of alternative choices in general. Without compulsory power, that's a doomed strategy. I think evangelicals - like all radical contrarians - are simply fated to be niche competitors in a crowded market.
I've actually had students say outright that something like this is true of them. "I don't think pacifism is correct, but I might change my mind if I had family members fighting in Iraq" or "I'm against war, but I might change my mind if I had family members die in 9/11". That sounds morally insensitive to me.
Why have evangelicals and /or Baptists not had enough of an 'impact' on our culture? Joe are you rip-roaring drunk or what’s going on with you? Are things very different in Harris County compared to Austin or Florida where I've lived?
I got up this morning and turned on the news to see a discussion about religion in politics; and by religion they didn't mean Islam or Wicca. I signed onto the web and the first thing AOL had on the welcome screen was a story about the ex-lead singer of Creed and his great faith in Jesus, followed by story on Christian Rock Bands. Several folks had sent me love-mails from their faiths-possibly from this very Blog- asking YVWH for my forgiveness, offering to pray with me, and threatening me.
By the time I get in my car and turned on the radio to hear more religious pandering from my politicians followed by a report on a Baptist charity collecting donations for a firemen injured in a fall, I’ve already been witnessed to and threatened about a dozen times by evangelicals.
On the way to work I drove past at least 20 churches with various signs outside: "Are you happy? Learn How to be", "Christian Singles- Wednesday Nights", "Bingo and Christian Fellowship" "Think Jesus :555-0366", "God in your Marriage". I also passed a Christian Coffee house and a Christian Youth Rec Hall.
I stopped at the cleaners to pick up some shirts and sneezed in the parking lot as I was walking in wherein a nice stranger cast a brief Christian spell on me “God bless you” she said. In the cleaner the cashier accepted my money, all of which BTW was emblazoned with a Christian Slogan, and tendered my change; again each coin was inscribed with a Christian tract, thanked me for my business and blessed me. I don’t think she was talking about Odin (Believe me guys, if the Hominid sequence was on the hundred dollar bill, you creationists would come unglued)
I finally pulled into work and got into my work station where I was informed by my company home-page that an important individual in the history of our company had died and we would be having a one minute moment of silence conducted by a Christian Holy Man at noon. The topic of conversation in the break-room? Last week’s sermon and whether or not to go to Bingo tomorrow night at Church.
On the phone so far today I’ve had two clients invite me to their magic ceremonies this weekend insisting I’ll ‘love the magic ceremonies” (Boy if they only knew). Again I’m confident these are not Hindu ceremonies.
In short, your religion is shot at me from the TV, fired into my retinas from the internet, the telephone, the radio, it’s advertised in the newspaper and on billboards, your religion is hawked by every politician I see. It’s witnessed to me by my friends, co-workers, bosses, and family members. Weekly I have to bow my head at a family gatherings or dinner at a friends house and pretend to cast magic with your deity lest I ‘not fit in’. Everyone from our President down to my boss makes decisions about issues that directly affect my welfare based in large part on your religion. Our culture is historically and inextricably intertwined with your faith, it’s in every sappy thanksgiving play in Elementary school, The Peanuts and other comic strips include it, it’s in the pledge of allegiance. I see it everywhere I go and in everything I do:
Every
Damn
Day
I'm used to it by now. It doesn't bother me. But then you seriously come out on this Blog whining that your religion is not having enough of an impact on our culture and I assume advocating Christians have more impact in my life? I found that simply astounding, as I’m subjected to your religion from every venue while bending over backwards and walking on eggs myself, everywhere I go, not to offend your particular brand of supernatural lunacy.
And yet, DS, you continue to read, and comment on, Evangelical Outpost. It's like you can't get enough!
Anthony,
So, I believe that saying that the only reason that evangelical still sin is a complete lack of desire is only part of a more nuanced reason.
I completely agree. My post was rather hastily written so I should have made it clearer that our lack of desire is not the only thing standing between our present state and moral perfection. My intended point is that we rebel against the very idea of sanctification. We often don’t even get started down that path because we love sin too much.
I also should point out that when I say that evangelicals should stop doing evil I’m not saying that they can avoid all sin. There is a big difference, though, between a mature Christian who is struggling with lust in their heart and one that is willing to commit murder.
DS,
I'm used to it by now. It doesn't bother me. But then you seriously come out on this Blog whining that your religion is not having enough of an impact on our culture and I assume advocating Christians have more impact in my life?
Let's look at the things you mention:
1. On the radio you hear a discussion about religion in politics
2. You see a story on AOL about a Christian singer and Christian Rock Bands.
3. You received “love-mails” from people offering prayer and/or threats.
4. You noticed religious pandering by politicians.
5. You read a report on a Baptist charity collecting donations for an injured firemen.
6. You drove past church signs, a Christian Coffee house, and a Christian Youth Rec Hall.
7. A woman says “God bless you”.
8. The money has a Christian Slogan (?)
9. A chaplain conducts a moment of silence
10. You overhear a discussion about a sermon and Bingo at church.
11. You were invited to church over the phone.
Do you notice what you didn’t include on the list? A face-to-face interaction with a Christian, much less one that makes you say, “Damn, I wish my life were like that.”
Keith, firstly, you have some very good observations. But we aren't selling anything (though as you note, too many evangelicals think that that is what we are supposed to do). Secondly, the reason someone would repent of their sins and take up their cross and follow Jesus isn't any appeal to a particular optional metanarrative. It is because it is true, in the objective sense of 2+2=4. Any other reason, and you have a false convert.
You are sadly quite right, that there are people who believe that Christianity is true, and wish to remain in rebellion against God. This is a great tragedy, but God allows them this freedom to reject Him.
But from my own experience, I would say that most non-evangelicals do not have a very good idea at all what evangelicals believe. Many, like you, believe that it is merely a metanarrative and group lifestyle that provides meaning, just like any other mere metanarrative. But that isn't it.
Quite a few think that we are offering an experience. But that can be gotten elsewhere. From drugs, sex, extreme sports, etc., so why give up certain pleasures in circumstance-free environments just to have what they already have. But that isn't it, either.
There is that which is true, and that which is not true. We Christians are indeed logocentric, indeed "aen archae aen ho Logos" "In the beginning was the Word."
If it is objectively true that there is a Creator Who made all that is, and if morality flows from His Character, and not merely from various communal metanarratives, if it is true that He is just, and that justice will be served, if it is true that we have sinned against Him, if it is true that God the Son died in our place on the Cross, so that justice might be served upon Him rather than upon us -- yet that those who freely refuse Him will have to have justice fulfilled upon themselves, which will never come to an end, because He is infinite, and thus so is the immensity of our crimes -- if all these things are true, then to chose to not be a follower of Christ is a choice of profound import. And if these things are not true, then as Paul wrote to the Romans "we are the most miserable of all men."
We report, you decide. :-)
DS, Joe means a Christian impact on culture. Catholics are talking about the same thing. You think we have it because you see signs of Christians all about you. But the culture has fallen drastically away from the culture of Christendom (which wasn't perfect, but was a start). H.H.J.P.II is right that we have in the West a culture of death that has replaced the culture of life. If you want to know what he means by that, it is easy enough to find out. Go to the Vatican website. Go to the EWTN website. Read _Death in the City_ by Francis Schaeffer when culture wasn't nearly as devistated as it now. You aren't seeing a Christian culture around you. You are seeing the ruins and shadows of a past civilization that has been taken over by savages with high technology.
Joe, if someone says that they are a follower of Christ, but have no willingness to take up their Cross daily and follow Him, what did Jesus say about such? I am afraid that perhaps the majority of evangelical congregations, especially the large and hippest ones, are not making converts, are not effectively preaching the Gospel (if at all).
Christianity is not an existential experience. Christianity is not a weekly party without drugs. Christianity is not a better self-help program. Christianity is not a program for personal success in life. Christianity is none of these things. Indeed, if the dead are not raised, we are the most miserable of all men.
Joe I was just spouting rhetorically for dramatic effect BTW. I do interact with Christians because damn near the whole freakin population is Christian.
I have some JW's that come by on Saturdays. I usually make Tea for them because it gets kinda hot when they walk the 'hood. So I interact with them. (They've learned over the years not to discuss religion or science with me.)
And obviously I can deal with exposure to religions of all kinds and I take responsibility for it, or I wouldn't be in this discussion right now. As far as face-to-face discussions with Christians I admire, this isn’t face-to-face, but I admire you Joe. I like the way you write and the courage you show by covering the dicy topics most classical religious writers avoid. Just because I don’t share your faith doesn’t mean I dislike you or your fellow Christians. I admire the depth of your beliefs and the patience you show us hell bound atheists in your Blog.
I admire Glenn Morton, an acquaintance from the EvC battle. I admire my father who happens to be a pretty devout, although a fairly reserved, evangelical Christian. But you’re right, I don’t often have heart to heart discussions face to face with evangelical Christians. I don’t know why that is but it’s probably best they don’t waste time on it. I assure you if their goal was to convert folk’s like myself, they don’t have a prayer ]-s rimshot.
One of evangelicalism's problems is precisely the "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument advanced above. In the gospels, Jesus didn't distinguish between certain sinners and their sins. Pharisees, Saducees, and lawyers felt the sting of his verbal whip. Jesus didn't tell his disciples to be kind to them. He told them to avoid them like a plague.
Evangelicalism places an unbiblical emphasis on conversion. Everyone is regarded as a potential convert, to be won over by spineless niceness. In practice that means it does little to oppose evil, since those evil doers are not only potential converts, they're more useful as converts than those they're exploiting. (Think of the South under segregation. Whites had money and influence, blacks didn't.)
That's why Jews and blacks don't trust Evangelicals. When times get tough, Evangelicals wimp out and turn to 'Jesus magic.' Put them in Nazi Germany, and they'd pine and hope Hitler would "come to Jesus" rather than work to destroy Nazism. They don't see evil (other than petty, personal sins) as a thing to be fought. Nor do they see evil doers as people to be stopped, whether or not they "come to Jesus." In our evil world, they ignore the victims and obsess over celebrity converts. For all their talk about 'loving Jesus,' that don't resemble him in the slightest.
That's why in the 1990s the Washington Post remarked that Evangelicals were mostly "poorly educated older women." That isn't true, but it is true that they act with all the weakness and ineffectiveness of such people. They need to fret less about being liked and focus more on being respected and even feared.
In the late 19th century to early 20th century, there was much talk about creating a 'muscular Christianity.' Today, we need a "Christianity with a whip" busily rooting out evil in our troubled world. We need to measure our spirituality as Jesus told us, by the number of people who hate us for opposing evils from abortion at home to religious persecution in the Middle East.
In short, we need to quit selling a sticky sweet perversion of the gospel.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
Kevin-
"To imagine that proselytizing harder is going to win over very many people is to imagine that if they only knew what you had to say then they'd accept your message. That's very condescending, which is just one of the things non-evangelicals object to about evangelicals."
Yeet... from actual, real-life experience, the average non-Christian knows nothing about Christianity, especially in the post Da Vinci code era. For instance, a web comic creator whose site I enjoy yesterday posted his two biggest gripes about Christianity.
They were A)A lack of sanitation advice(yes, no joke) and B) Being annoyed because the New Testament contradicted the old by saying homosexuality was no longer a sin.
So, I pointed out that A) The Bible has a lot of advice on sanitation-see Leviticus and Numbers and B) The New Testament didn't get rid of the concept of sin-in fact, it expanded it: now, we should be forgiving because we're sinners too, even if we don't think our sins are as important as the next guys.
I don't know how well he took it-not well, probably, he's a combative sort, but as long as people have objections like this that are based in error-and I see them very, very often, then I don't agree that everyone in the US/World already has a great, instinctual understanding.
Theology is likely the only thing one can earn a doctorate in that people think that they completely understand from Holiday pageants and over-hearing people talking about it on the street... how's that for condescending? I devote a significant portion of my life studying something that the secularists of the world claim to completely understand from half-remembered Sunday school classes. Gee, I must be really stupid.
Also, I find it just the tiniest bit ironic that you who have a rather deserved reputation for posting very, very long arguments on this blog-which is clearly operated by someone who diagrees with you-in an attempt to explain your own views, and, at least by default, 'convert' people to your way of thinking. As an obvious believer in the marketplace of ideas, who works hard to 'sell' your own thoughts to sometimes hostile audiences, the fact that you would ban religious people doing the same thing as inherently offensive is strange to me, though not uncommon.
And, on a lighter note..
"I see it everywhere I go and in everything I do:
Every
Damn
Day
I'm used to it by now. It doesn't bother me."
Are you sure? It sounds like it bothers you a heck of a lot...
David Scott loves to exaggerate. Regarding Kevin Keith, David writes,
"As an obvious believer in the marketplace of ideas, who works hard to 'sell' your own thoughts to sometimes hostile audiences, the fact that you would ban religious people doing the same thing as inherently offensive is strange to me, though not uncommon."
Can everyone see the Big Lie about Kevin Keith's post which David snuck into this paragraph? Will David acknowledge the mistake himself?
And David then cites a silly anecdote to support his conclusion that
"the average non-Christian knows nothing about Christianity"
Here's a much more reasonable assessment: the average non-religious person in the United States knows much more about Christianity or Judaism than about any other religion. Let me know if you doubt this is true, David, and why.
Yes, you are a Christian, David. And you enjoy making extreme and inaccurate statements to support your views. Good luck evangelizing while carrying that load.
Oh, and since you claim to devote "a significant portion" of your life to "education" yourself regarding the teachings in your holy book, please let me know what you believe is the Biblically mandated punishment for a women who remorselessly "murders" her "unborn child" at, say, four weeks post-conception. Thanks, man.
Is there a difference between Jesus' relationship to the Pharisees and our relationship to Western non-believers? The Pharisees were models of legalism, and claimed to be believers when they just wanted to look good. They didn't care about the actual truth about God, but they claimed to.
Are the people in our culture that aren't Christians to be treated the same way as Pharisees? Jesus didn't treat the prostitutes and tax collectors like he treated the Pharisees.
Thankyou for that post. I'll most definitely share this with my 'neocalvinist' peers over here in Ontario.
"David Scott loves to exaggerate. Regarding Kevin Keith, David writes,
"As an obvious believer in the marketplace of ideas, who works hard to 'sell' your own thoughts to sometimes hostile audiences, the fact that you would ban religious people doing the same thing as inherently offensive is strange to me, though not uncommon."
Can everyone see the Big Lie about Kevin Keith's post which David snuck into this paragraph? Will David acknowledge the mistake himself?"
Hm, I suppose you'd say that Kevin does not want to ban religious proselytization, only complain about it. And, I suppose, in an era of hate crimes legislation and at a point in time where people can be fired from their jobs for anything smacking of 'proselytization' - it does seem that people would want to ban it. And, these sentiments seem prominent in his statement. But, seeing as I quoted the specific portion of his comment that I was replying to, calling it a 'big lie' is a bit much.
"And David then cites a silly anecdote to support his conclusion"
It was a personal anecdote-two other people had already posted by saying they were constantly exposed to Christianity, so I posted saying I was constantly exposed to people who know nothing about it. Maybe you should complain about them, too.
"that the average non-Christian knows nothing about Christianity"
Here's a much more reasonable assessment: the average non-religious person in the United States knows much more about Christianity or Judaism than about any other religion. Let me know if you doubt this is true, David, and why."
You say this as if somehow contradicts what I was saying-which it does not. In fact, its a bit of a non-sequitir. The point isn't whether the average person knows more about Christianity than religion X, but if they actually understand Christianity. I know more about physics than I know about being a car mechanic, but that doesn't mean I can sign out of my physics classes.
"Yes, you are a Christian, David."
Uh, thanks, I guess.
"And you enjoy making extreme and inaccurate statements to support your views. Good luck evangelizing while carrying that load."
The accuracy is a matter of opinion-as far as extreme... a lot of people don't know a lot about Christianity? Uh, shocking. Better call the police.
Oh, and since you claim to devote "a significant portion" of your life to "education" yourself regarding the teachings in your holy book, please let me know what you believe is the Biblically mandated punishment for a women who remorselessly "murders" her "unborn child" at, say, four weeks post-conception. Thanks, man.
See, now, you prove my point. Not only is that completely off topic, but its not something I'm going to find in the Bible. Actually, it is: the Bible says that God will handle her punishment, if any is necessary.
It's funny, really. When do _you_ believe a fetus becomes a baby? What do you base that on? And what does it have to do with proselytizing?
Oh, and since you claim to devote "a significant portion" of your life to "education" yourself
Oh, and that should be 'educating'. Just so you know.
Eh, on second thought, I chose my language poorly-I suppose 'ban' could be taken to be some sort of legal measure, rather than personal hostility, and said of saying the average non-Christian knows nothing about Christianity I should have said 'has little functional knowledge'.
My point still stands, though: for all of the 'been-there, done that' rhetoric this post has prompted, my personal experience is that many of the non-believers of the world have a great deal of misconceptions about the Christian faith, and that correcting them is a rational and valid activity that should not be discouraged, especially by those who feel strongly enough about their own views as to deliberately search for others to debate/argue with on the web by going on sites that are oriented towards beliefs that differ from their own.
David Scott, who refuses to admit that he lied when he stated as a matter of "fact" that Kevin advocated a ban on religious speech, asks the question:
"When do _you_ believe a fetus becomes a baby?"
When it's born, of course.
"What do you base that on?"
Webster's. n. 1. The young or embryo of a vertebrate animal in the womb, or in the egg
"And what does it have to do with proselytizing?"
As Mr. Keith pointed out, one of the reasons evangelical Christians are doomed to fail in their "proselytizing" is that they tend to be spouting off garbage such as "abortion is murder" and the "Biblically mandated" death penalty for murderers. Put two and two together, my friend: it's an ugly picture (in my humble opinion).
You seem to be agnostic with respect to the Biblically mandated death penalty for murderers (which is clearly found in the Bible according to some evangelical Christians), or perhaps you don't believe that abortion is murder. Regarding my hypothetical fetus "murderere" you say that "the Bible says that God will handle her punishment, if any is necessary."
Hmm. Following that logic, it sounds like you are advocating that we cease punishing any behavior that our society has deemed criminal. What a radical Christian you are, David! Or, perhaps you'd rather not explain your beliefs regarding what truly Christian abortion legislation would look like. Understandable.
Dang you David! ;)
Revision to my post above:
In light of David's sneaky posting while I composed my response, I have to retract "who refuses to admit that he lied when he stated as a matter of "fact" that Kevin advocated a ban on religious speech"
My apologies, David. Next time I'll type faster. :)
David also wrote:
"my personal experience is that many of the non-believers of the world have a great deal of misconceptions about the Christian faith, and that correcting them is a rational and valid activity that should not be discouraged"
I totally agree. And the same applies to conservative evangelical Christian misconceptions re atheists, scientists and Democrats. Hence, the gnat-like presence of certain persons fitting those descriptions here.
LL-You're not very interesting to talk to, but I guess I'll answer you one last time.
"David Scott, who refuses to admit that he lied when he stated as a matter of "fact" that Kevin advocated a ban on religious speech, asks the question:"
Eh, first, just so you know, using parenthesis for emphasis is not generally considered proper usage. Also, it considerably muddies the waters when discussing what people actually said at any particular time.
Second, since you are still harping on the 'ban' comment: I was using it in this sense; note numbers 2 and 4, please.
"\Ban\ (b[a^]n), n. [AS. bann command, edict; akin to D. ban, Icel. bann, Dan. band, OHG. ban, G. bann, a public proclamation, as of interdiction or excommunication, Gr. fa`nai to say, L. fari to speak, Skr. bhan to speak; cf. F. ban, LL. bannum, of G. origin. [root]86. Cf. Abandon, Fame.] 1. A public proclamation or edict; a public order or notice, mandatory or prohibitory; a summons by public proclamation.
2. (Feudal & Mil.) A calling together of the king's (esp. the French king's) vassals for military service; also, the body of vassals thus assembled or summoned. In present usage, in France and Prussia, the most effective part of the population liable to military duty and not in the standing army.
3. pl. Notice of a proposed marriage, proclaimed in church. See Banns (the common spelling in this sense).
4. An interdiction, prohibition, or proscription. ``Under ban to touch.'' --Milton.
5. A curse or anathema. ``Hecate's ban.'' --Shak.
6. A pecuniary mulct or penalty laid upon a delinquent for offending against a ban; as, a mulct paid to a bishop by one guilty of sacrilege or other crimes.
Ban of the empire (German Hist.), an imperial interdict by which political rights and privileges, as those of a prince, city, or district, were taken away.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc."
Thus, as you can hopefully understand, 'ban' does _not_ necessarily involve a legal matter, it can simply be declaring something unwelcome, which is what KTK is doing in his argument.
'When do _you_ believe a fetus becomes a baby?"
When it's born, of course.
"What do you base that on?"
Webster's. n. 1. The young or embryo of a
vertebrate animal in the womb, or in the egg'
Hm, Dictionary.com:
ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Slang. A girl or young woman.
Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby
Also, my Introduction to Psychology Textbook says "During the sixth month, the fetus's brain activity becomes similar to that of a newborn baby." At this point, the fetus has, for instance, disinct sleep-wake cycles and periods of activity. Also, if given hospital care, fetuses this old can survive outside the womb.
Despite this knowledge, which is freely available, fetuses of this age and older are not protected by the law.
But all of these 'religous' arguments doubtlessly pale before the infamous hypothetical teenage rape victim.
'"And what does it have to do with proselytizing?"
As Mr. Keith pointed out, one of the reasons evangelical Christians are doomed to fail in their "proselytizing" is that they tend to be spouting off garbage such as "abortion is murder" and the "Biblically mandated" death penalty for murderers. Put two and two together, my friend: it's an ugly picture (in my humble opinion).'
That's too bad, but, um, I didn't. Of course, as I mentioned, secularists like to put people of faith in a box and assume they have already heard everything they have to say... so far, in my humble opinion, you are proving my point nicely.
'You seem to be agnostic with respect to the Biblically mandated death penalty for murderers (which is clearly found in the Bible according to some evangelical Christians), or perhaps you don't believe that abortion is murder. Regarding my hypothetical fetus "murderere"'
Again with the quotes... I'm guessing they mean contempt, this time? I mean, it really looks like you're saying I said that. It makes your posts really hard to follow. The Bible mandates a death penalty for murderers in a society that was nomadic, and thus completely lacking in prisons, or basically much of anything in the way of alternative punishments for the worst human acts.
In the New Testament, we are told that rulers do have 'the power of the sword' over their subjects-a concept which, properly understood, is usually not argued with-to completely take it away would involve disarming the police and armies, for one thing.
And no, I don't think abortion is murder, because murder required _intent_, which, in today's society, is generally compeletely lacking thanks to aggressive lobbying/propogandizing from pro-abortion groups.
'you say that "the Bible says that God will handle her punishment, if any is necessary." '
Hmm. Following that logic, it sounds like you are advocating that we cease punishing any behavior that our society has deemed criminal.'
Our society hasn't deemed abortion criminal...? I don't support the death penalty for eating purple jellybeans either... is this another sign of my secret desire to destroy our justice system?
"What a radical Christian you are, David!"
Well, if you mean I depart from your stereotypes, thank you, I think.
"Or, perhaps you'd rather not explain your beliefs regarding what truly Christian abortion legislation would look like. Understandable."
Um, I think there's an absolute, rock-bottom, case for not allowing late-term, or partial birth abortion. I personally think we need to work on these things before a wider-spread aborition ban, though I do find it telling that, when abortion accesibility was determined on the local level, by the states, it was well on its way to being illegal, and even today, after years of pro-abortion arguments, a slender majority still opposes it.
Aaaaaanyway, I have better things to do than argue with people about things they ascribe to me, so I think I'm going to wander off now...
I guess it wasn't very nice to say LL isn't interesting to talk to... he's just a little too angry for me, I think...
David Scott, perhaps doing his best Kevin Keith imitation, writes a long post which ends with his statement that
"I personally think we need to work on these things before a wider-spread aborition ban"
It's nice that you recognize the political implications of going after the entire pie too hastily, but you have not-so-cleverly avoided answering my question (I did answer yours, directly and honestly). What is this "wider-spread abortion ban" you refer to, David? What do you mean by "ban"? What punishments would be appropriate for women who terminate their pregnancies if you are drafting the legislation?
You also wrote,
"And no, I don't think abortion is murder, because murder required _intent_, which, in today's society, is generally compeletely lacking thanks to aggressive lobbying/propogandizing from pro-abortion groups."
This is a non-sequitur. Of course abortion isn't legally recognized as murder NOW, but that has nothing to do with intent and everything to do with the fact that a fetus isn't legally a person. For the same reason, you can't be convicted TODAY of "murdering" your cat, regardless of whether it runs underneath your car or whether you toss it in the microwave.
But let's say the evangelical Christian lobby gets it way. Certainly it would not be a misrepresentation of the fundamentalist Christian position to say that they believe that fetuses are human beings and abortion is murder. So in the hypothetical future world when the laws are passed which legally effect this transformation, David, my question to you is what do YOU -- David Scott -- , as a Christian, think the appropriate punishment is for women who are convicted of intentionally remorselessly "murdering" their "unborn children"? And why? Just imagine that you are writing the legislation and whatever you write, that will be the law.
This is simple straightforward stuff, David. I'm surprised you haven't thought about it a lot already, because abortion rights are a favorite issue for Christians. Later we can talk about what to do about gays and Darwinists.
"he's just a little too angry for me, I think..."
Angry? I prefer "spirited." :)
Larry, David: Guys - play nice.
Larry: the average non-Christian knows nothing about Christianity . . . Theology is likely the only thing one can earn a doctorate in that people think that they completely understand from Holiday pageants and over-hearing people talking about it on the street
Interestingly, evolutionary biology is one of the few things you can get a doctorate in that people think they can completely understand with a theology degree . . . or a pamphlet written by somebody who has a theology degree. But I digress . . .
Your comment above is aimed at my remark that it is condescending to imagine that people reject proselytizing because they don't know enough. You suggest they really don't know very much; you seem to imply that this is a good reason to proselytize them even if they don't want you to.
I think you are right that most people don't know much about Christianity, or the specifics of the dogma of any particular Christian sect. I don't think this is a good reason to proselytize them.
The question is not whether they know a lot about Christianity; it is whether they know enough to be left to their own devices in deciding whether to embrace it or not. That does not require knowing very much about Christianity, actually.
Of course, it's true that if one does not know very much, one cannot make a fully informed decision. And, Christians will be quick to insist, this is "the most important decision you will ever make," so it's absolutely vital that you make the right choice. That's all well and good, but we do not, in fact, expect people to make fully informed decisions about this or most matters of personal conscience - we only expect them to satisfy themselves as far as they feel they need to.
That may seem a rather fast and loose approach to "the most important decision you will ever make," but it's the approach all Christians take . . . to non-Christian religions. After all, if it takes a PhD in Jesus to really understand Christianity, presumably it takes a PhD in Islamic studies to really understand Islam, and a PhD in Jewish studies to really understand Judaism, and a PhD in, um . . . whatever . . . to really understand Wicca . . . and Buddhism . . . and Hinduism . . . etc. You see, of course, that you can't make a truly informed decision about which religion is right until you truly understand not just the one you settle on, but all the others as well. So making a really informed decision about which religion to practice is going to take longer than the lifetime you have available to do it in.
Alternatively, you could just investigate whichever faith attracts you to the point that you are satisfied it meets your spiritual needs - which is what all Christians do. That also requires rejecting all the other religions on the basis of fairly rudimentary knowledge of them - which is also what all Christians do. (They're just shocked when anyone makes such a choice and that answer turns out not to be Christianity - in which case that person is wrong in ways that only an honest-to-gosh theology PhD could understand.) If Christians can decide to be non-Jews, non-Muslims, non-Hindus, etc., without having a PhD in those subjects, than moderate Christians and non-Christians can decide to reject evangelical Christianity the same way.
Thus, proselytizing is an inherently low-yield activity. Nobody needs you to tell them what religion they should practice. Although it's true that almost nobody is "truly" informed about Christianity, almost nobody is so uninformed that they can't make a valid decision to reject it - just as they can validly reject any other religion that you don't approve of. And nobody is required to put up with your pressuring them until you're satisfied they've made a fully informed decision (which occurs only when they've adopted your religion, because otherwise they're making a mistake, which proves they're not fully informed). They can just choose another path if they like - and the more you badger them, the more likely they are to do that.
Setting up some clever "I know more than you, and you're wrong until you agree with me" trap only works when you have the power to compel people to accept your decisions. When they can freely choose otherwise, then you can only offer them your opinions - and if they don't bite, you must then either accept their decisions about their own lives, or keep hassling them in the hopes that they'll eventually give in. The latter is what proselytizers do, and it's why people resent them.
I find it just the tiniest bit ironic that you who have a rather deserved reputation for posting very, very long arguments on this blog-which is clearly operated by someone who diagrees with you-in an attempt to explain your own views, and, at least by default, 'convert' people to your way of thinking. As an obvious believer in the marketplace of ideas, who works hard to 'sell' your own thoughts to sometimes hostile audiences, the fact that you would ban religious people doing the same thing as inherently offensive is strange to me, though not uncommon.
This blog is devoted to rational discussion of current issues; it invites comments in the comment section. In other words, this is a place where people are explicitly expected and encouraged to debate issues. (It is possible to run a blog without allowing comments; if Joe didn't want people to write here he could set it up that way. If he didn't want me personally posting here he could ask me not to, or ban me.) Your doorstep, public street corners, shopping malls, the back of a dollar bill, the wall of a supposedly impartial courtroom, and the carved surfaces of big freakin' rocks in the lobbies of courthouses are not such places - nobody wants or expects to be assaulted with religious messages in those places. To be insistently and involuntarily subjected to unsolicited demands that we adhere to someone else's religion, at times and places where we have not encouraged such behavior, is intrusive and annoying, and it turns people off. If we want to hear what you have to say, we'll find you - it's not like there's a dearth of loud-talking Christians in America. The insistence that people cannot be allowed to choose whether to seek out a certain message - that they must have it pushed on them without solicitation, and even against their active protest - is what is offensive about this behavior, and what limits its effectiveness.
As for what to do about it, I never suggested banning anything. In fact, my previous comment was not about what we should "do about" Christians at all. It was an offer of a non-evangelical perspective on the behavior of evangelicals - it was information evangelicals can use (if they want) to decide what to do about their own behavior. My comment was not a suggestion that evangelism should be banned; it was a factual observation that it is unlikely to be widely effective (because most people aren't interested and are annoyed at being badgered). You can do what you like with that. Nobody is banning proselytizing; they just wish you'd knock it off.
My message (or, one half of it) in my original comment was very simple, and it remains the same here: proselytizing is unlikely to produce major social changes because most people simply aren't interested. It's not that they know so little that you can convert them by giving them information - they've already decided that (your version of) Christianity is not for them, and you can only insult them by insisting that they need you to educate them on that point. Just as you don't feel the need to listen to whatever Jehovah's Witnesses say you need to hear from them, and are not tempted to become a Jehovah's Witness when you do listen to them, non-evangelicals do not feel a strong need to be harangued by evangelicals. You can get some converts that way (the JWs and Mormons certainly do, even though most people find them annoying), but you'll mostly just turn people off.
By the way, David, in response to my definition of fetus from Websters, you offered a definition of "baby" from Dictionary.com.
Did you check to see how fetus was defined by Dictionary.com?
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
If we were in court, I can assure you that our debate about when a fetus becomes a baby would be over (and my definition would prevail) because I would happily stipulate to the definition of fetus given by your preferred dictionary.
Mr. Perry, a significant number of the pastors who were of the Confessing Synod and signed the Barmen Declaration were sent to the camps. Some were executed. They did resist. It was the liberal Feuerbach/Bultmannian 'German Christians' who followed Hitler and his neo-paganism.
DS, actually it is in the Bible "bruise for bruise, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, limb for limb, life for life" I'm not a Marcionite heretic. God's character never changes. Good and evil are not one thing for elves and dwarves, and another for men.
As for LL, just don't feed the trolls. Please.
JOE CARTER, thank-you. You are right: personal holiness is considered a price too high to pay by many (and I too often belong to that fold). That inner transformation would have an outward efffect. Jonathan Edwards, Jerry Bridges and Diedrich Bonhoffer are nodding in agreement,and I'm convicted.
MIKE PERRY, good assist. Nice balance.
ANTHONY, don't run off: it is sometimes better than this.
Non-believers (of whatever stripe) hold innacurate conceptions about Christianity itself, and ascribe the most devious motivations to even those Christians who are taking the time to examine themselves in a forum like this. Many of these inaccurate beliefs no doubt are the result of a distorted perception by the out-groups and cultural reinforcement, but judging from the myopic comments above, I suspect one of the causes is an impenetrable spiritual blindness. The subject of JOE CARTER's main proposition (a church lacking discipleship and therefore transformative power in the culture) no doubt contributes to this condition, and I think serves to underscore Mr. CARTER's point.
To the defenders of the faith: you argue too much with the trolls, and get dragged off-topic into sideline brawls for your labors. This thread is a shameful example. Shake the dust off your sandals more often, and re-direct to the topic. Better to leave them with their self-vindication than a scattered trail of rhetorical intestines as the disappointing aftermath of what began as a good topic. DAVID SCOTT, I'm usually impressed with what you have to say, but today LARRY LORD hit you with an ad hominem, and you couldn't resist getting involved in a pissing contest about dictionary definitions, of all things. They have axes to grind, or they wouldn't be here.
From now on, I read the first seven posts only, or until I smell thought-decay, whichever comes first. ;^)
Quote: Even most Christians don't want to live the rejectionist straitjacket life you're pushing on them. Society has seen the ferment and excitement of allowing freedom in lifestyles, social roles, artistic expression, and every other part of life, and they like it. They have tasted the gratifying liberation of personal autonomy and freedom of conscience, and they aren't giving it up for any single point of view, Christian or otherwise. They've chosen this life and won't go back.
Yep, Hedonism is fun...picks up Brave New World (snickers)...till you relize its pointless and leads to death.
Oh LL what is Latin for baby?
Kevin,
We want a society that is open and accepting about sex, has few limits on gender roles, accepts a variety of possible family and relationship structures, offers an unfettered range of speech and print and music and video media, treats all religions with respect and tolerance, and does not allow religious dictates to determine our lifestyles, political system, social structures or scientific worldview.
Notwithstanding a few nits, I agree. People do not want to do good, they want to do their own thing. In that sense, it is nearly a miracle that anyone becomes Christians. The reason people become Christians is not because of a good sales pitch or a lifestyle choice. People become Christians because they believe it is the truth.
Even most Christians don't want to live the rejectionist straitjacket life you're pushing on them.
I wonder if Christianity or the modern progressive state is more restrictionist? Are there more laws and regulations today or 200 years ago? Greater regulation, not greater freedom, seems to be the trend. Largely secular Europe no longer believes in free speech. In England, a man was imprisoned for saying that rural people should have the same rights as minorities. Not seeing the irony, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned Catholic bishops that distributing the Vatican's statement on homosexuality may lead to prosecution. A high school teacher in British Columbia said that "homosexuality is not something to be applauded." He was suspended for a month without pay for "conduct unbecoming a member of the college." In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is punishable by 4 years imprisonment. It seems to me that as the west becomes less religious, it become less free.
When I was a boy, I wanted to play in the street. I remember thinking my parents insufferable puritans. Now that I am older I see the wisdom of their advice. This is exactly what most Christian morality entails. Christians believe that, in the long run, you are happier if you play by God's rules. Be believe God is love. We believe God wants us to be happy, and therefore, gives us rules.
Would you be happier if conservative Muslims passed laws that you could only read Islamic literature, buy Islam-compatible products, and were prohibited from going to work on Islamic holidays - and then filled the TV, newspapers, and radio with statements that you were a "sinner" and were "caught in Satan's trap" for daring not to agree with them? Or would you, perhaps, find that a little annoying, a little constraining, and a little insulting?
Seriously, how many Christians believe this? I don't know any Christians that think Christianity should be compulsory. Did not the modern notion of freedom of religion arise in a country people largely by Christians. Christians like everyone else, thinks that laws should be based upon morality. Society prohibits theft, rape, and murder because people think that such things are wrong. Liberals prohibit paying less than minimum wage or charging high interest because they think such things are wrong. Lately, from my vantage point (I work with the legislature), liberals appear to discover behavior that they think ought to be illegal every other day. The term "left" comes from the third republic when the legislators who wanted more government laws sat at the left of the chamber.
Evangelical Christians are Amway salespeople with even more inflated egos.
Hardly, how many of us do you know? I suppose I can only speak for my circles, but I don't know any Christians who fit this description, and I have known a lot of Christians in both rural America and two major cities. The vast majority of Christians are very self conscious when discussing religion.
Nobody wants to be proselytized, and nobody is impressed with a proselytizer's self-righteous justification that "it's for your own good!" You don't believe that when non-Christians proselytize you. Don't be surprised when I tell you that non-evangelical Christians don't believe you when you tell them the same thing. And the harder you try, the more you will just annoy people. You'll get some converts, sure, and you will reconfirm the non-converts that much more strongly in their determination not to let you run their lives.
First, I basically agree. Once again, I do not know any Christians who act this way. In fact, all the churches I have been to teach loving evangelism. Otherwise, very few Christians would evangelize. Christians understand that they cannot convince people by such nonsense -- and they don't want to. Once again, I wonder how many evangelical Christians you know?
Second, I don't know any churches where the pastors or elders runs anyone's lives. Pastors have only the power of persuasion. Actually, the pastor's and elder's lives tend to be run by the needs of the parishioners.
"LL what is Latin for baby?"
How the hell should I know? I'm an American.
JBP writes
"I wonder if Christianity or the modern progressive state is more restrictionist? Are there more laws and regulations today or 200 years ago?"
Probably your view of freedom would depend on what color your skin is. I'm just guessing.
Oh, and there's a couple more people living in the US today relative to 200 years ago. Just fyi.
Larry Lord,
Probably your view of freedom would depend on what color your skin is. I'm just guessing.
If you only consider the west and principally America, then you have a point. I did not say that all people in all cases are less free. In a broader sense, this statement is not really correct. For example, there were free black free men who were burdened under less laws than anyone does today. Second, 200 years ago, slavery was a near universal practice. White slave traders bought most of their slaves from African slave markets. The word "slave" comes from the word Slavic. Slavic people happen to be white eastern Europeans. They were enslaved in incredible numbers by Muslims who were darker skinned people from Africa and the Near East. In the context of this discussion, you should also remember that the abolition movement was principally a Christian movement, and the slaver owners that day complained that Abolitionists were forcing their religious beliefs upon everyone else and that it was improper to mix religion with politics. Nonetheless, those Christians finally won the argument and passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery. Therefore, the slavery issue appears to me to be a good example of a Christian "straitjacket" making people free.
Oh, and there's a couple more people living in the US today relative to 200 years ago. Just fyi.
Wow! I did not know that! I am after all merely an ignorant evangelical Christian. I cannot believe I obtained a doctorate from an Ivy League school without learning that. Thanks for the information. Forgive me if I impose upon your knowledge one more time, but I fail to see how this is relevant. Does every person get his own special law? Maybe, you could elaborate as to why having more people makes for less civil rights. The connection is not apparent to my Christian muddled brain.
Doh! I think when the originator of the post leaves, then the thread has gone WAY passed the recommended shelf-life. That's giving me tacit approval to snipe away.
I would like to address another asinine comment to David - "Us unlearneds is kinda slow sum times. Stop usin thems big wurds on us; we's all kin' folk."
"Probably most Christians (like everyone else) could do a better job living up to their own ideals, but that isn't why people don't adopt those ideals. The answer, I think, is much simpler: the bulk of society doesn't want to buy what you're selling"
Exactly! But look at the ridiculousness of it all: we float along on the only boat in the midst of billions of drowning people, and it's big enough to hold everybody on Earth. And the swimmers say they refuse to be rescued because the Boat People don't use words like "port" and "starboard".
This EXACT SAME THING happened to Noah.
Fellow Ark-Crewmembers: do not be concerned with their criticms of your speech, and whether you always remember the difference between bow and stern, or when you occasionally forget that you are not on land anymore.
Also, do not be concerned with your popularity, or how influential you are on the bottom of the ocean: that world has at most a couple more minutes before it drowns. Popularity will not help you save them, and the soundness of their laws won't help them achieve boyancy.
Finally, do not let them convince you that they are drowning because of you. Step back from the railing and look again carefully into the water: there is only one Man out there in the water rescuing people, and He's walking on the water. Their words of blame are only meant to convince you to jump in. Your job - don't forget it - is to yell from the deck and portholes of the Ark - "Trust Jesus". It speeds up the rescue process for those who are in shock.
Great post, Joe.
The main problem is that Jesus was such an extreme anti-materialist. While there are a few great parables, like that of investing the Talants rather than merely burying them, the thrust of Christian thought has not simply embraced a balance of Christian spirituality and wealth creation.
Especially missing is a good Christianity for business owners, and EMPLOYERS.
Consider 3 offers to a hungry person:
1) a fish, 2) teaching him to fish, 3) a wage-paying job.
Concerned lay Christians need to accept that the biggest industrial age help for most poor people is the offer of a job.
How many Christian have hired at least one more worker in the last year?
I think this is the most reasonable question to focus on the whole person, with compassion for the poor strangers who need love. And self-respect, and self-love, and self-sufficiency, all of which they get most quickly through honest work.
(I'm working on more thoughts with the idea of new empolyee-maximizing firm of custom furniture makers -- Jesus was a Carpenter).
Re: love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course that's the Biblical mandate. As it concerns homosexuality, what do you do? I can think of no other pattern of sin that so completely defines a person's life. So how does the church condemn homosexuality and speak against gay marriage, and yet reach out to gay people? I'm not criticizing, I'm just honestly curious. I'm the son and grandson of evangelical pastors, I've spent the last twenty-three years in church and I can't think of a legitimate response.
matt said: So how does the church condemn homosexuality and speak against gay marriage, and yet reach out to gay people?
the same way we condemn any sin and still reach out to sinners?
if people don't know what they are doing is wrong, how much long-term "reaching out" will be done? i don't think being silent about sin, "drawing people in" and then letting them know later that we don't accept their sin would be effective... we may be tolerant to those people, but surely "reaching out" involves some sort of hope/attempt at a change in lifestyle, right?
*also questioning*