Sunday, June 21, 2009
Faces of Christianity
The Christianity presented in the mainstream media, (MSM= television, newspapers, and popular magazines) is usually a caricature of reality. If we are to believe the press, the Catholic Priesthood is composed of pedophilic perverts and the churches are full of homophobic, bigoted white people who want to restrict civil liberties. To read the news, churches would close all abortion clinics, prevent birth control from being practiced, and force Christian doctrine on everyone. Christianity is held up high for all to see in cases of polygamy and child-marriage, as if this is part of Christian doctrine. During the Presidential campaign, now-President Obama expressed the liberal view of religion in his infamous, “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
All of us have experienced negative forms of Christianity at the personal level. There are the tracts left in public places. For some reason restrooms are a common location. There are the people who preach on street corners, taking literally the injunctions to publicly witness, instead of the one to “Let your light so shine before men….” When I was in college I was accosted by the fundamentalist asking, “Are you saved,” when I was still a believing Christian.
There are also the interpretations of Christianity that have lead to such incidents as Waco, Texas, and the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and Jonestown, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, Warren Jeffs as leader of the FLDS, and the FLDS in general. Again the identification with Christianity and the coverage in the press goes to increase the negative image of Christian doctrine. I have also read intellectuals, supposedly Christian leaders, that blame the ills of the world on Christianity, per se, not on the interpretations of it. Though this essay will focus on Christianity, Judaism comes under that same sort of attack, being seen as a political force, even conspiracy, running counter to current political direction
All of these examples are far, far from the general truth about Christianity, but I know good, well-meaning liberal, atheists that accept this picture of Christianity. To read the agenda of the politically liberal, they believe this is true as well. There is a strong effort to remove all expression of Judeo-Christian belief from any public forum, regardless of whether there is explicit government sponsorship of it or not. Passive permission is not acceptable. Through tortured and ideological reasoning, along with a misconstrual of the First Amendment, it is seen as a form of establishment.
So let us look at some of the actual realities behind these caricatures. First of all, there is some truth in the above images or they would not have any power to convince. There have been pedophilic priests, and the Roman Catholic Church is belatedly dealing with it. What is important for perspective, is that there are hundreds of thousands of priests, past and current, that have never violated their vows with respect to sexual abstinence, and perform their duties faithfully (religiously? Couldn’t avoid the pun, either word is a pun.) every day.
While we are on the discussion of Roman Catholicism, much has been made in the press a year or two ago, concerning the statement that any politician that supports abortion and is a Roman Catholic should not take Holy Communion. Several prominent politicians fell under that rule—two of the most notable being John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. To liberals this was interference in politics. No, this was a restatement of the values that being a Roman Catholic includes. The Church did not tell them how to vote, it simply told them the consequences of a pro-abortion vote, with respect to their religion. In kind, this is no different from the ostracism of Joe Lieberman for supporting President Bushes war policies. The only difference is in the underlying philosophy.
Christian fundamentalists as a group tend to have the most courage in public expression of their values, including those against abortion, or so-called pro-life. As a consequence, since this runs counter to the views of most of the MSM, it is presented in a negative view, and generalized to imply it includes all of Christianity. Because fundamentalists tend to have intellectually simple viewpoints (not to say they are wrong, just not complex) they are seen as subjects of derision by the self-anointed elites of politics and the MSM. The scorn and abuse heaped upon Sarah Palin for giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby is the most egregious example.
What is ignored is that most fundamentalist Christians are hard-working, virtuous (in the Biblical sense), and generally happy, well-adjusted people. Except when they chose to back a public cause such as stopping abortions, they are never seen, but go about doing a lot of quiet, good work with all the various forms of the less fortunate, and they do it voluntarily. Their children grow up well-behaved and studious, and they provide the young men and women that serve in the armed forces, do service work, and go on to raise their own families.
There are minor denominations that go to what might be considered extremes of literality where their behavioral proscriptions make them stand out in public, especially the women with no jewelry, no makeup, hair that is never cut, but bound up, long skirts close to ankle length. Because they are different and have beliefs that do not fit our logic, they are often sneered at. Yet one would find in general that they are again, model citizens, and part of the strength of our country.
The situation is not helped when the mainline Protestant churches conduct their policy and doctrinal disputes in public. In particular I am thinking of the issues of homosexual marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals as ministers. These are never presented sympathetically by the MSM. There is no discussion of the issues, or the fact that sincere, caring people are trying to sort out what the Bible, their fundamental source of doctrine, says vs. what they think should be the reality. And such leaders as Rowan Williams, Archbishop of the Anglican Church, generate more contempt than respect in the church, but a lot of press coverage.
What the press and other fail to see, is that mainline Protestantism is extremely diverse—having everything from the most abstract interpretations of Biblical scriptures to the most literal. It has beliefs concerning Jesus from being Divine to being a great teacher. Liturgy contains everything from feel-good, hymns and an uplifting sermon, to guilt-inspiring solemnity with lessons, sermons, and music to match. It has formal leadership to interpret doctrine and preach, or no doctrinal leadership with personal spontaneity providing the messages. Under it all, is a basic doctrine that preaches love and caring for others, which doctrine is quietly executed in many programs—caring for the homeless, caring for unwed mothers, caring for the elderly and disabled. These are not advertised, because Christians believe that public display of virtue negates the virtue. It becomes prideful rather than servitude.
What is also ignored, is that there are a myriad of interpretations of Christian doctrine. Those which grab headlines are presented rarely as one-peron’s interpretation but rather as somehow part of a more general doctrine. This is often the approach of some intellectuals, who blame Christianity for ills that are due to interpretations that are denied by the mainstream. In addition, that the entire Western culture is Judeo-Christian based is totally ignored today, or seen as something to be denied, removed, and blamed for the ills, many of which come from failure to adhere to that doctrine.
The greatest single concept in Christianity, that has led to its success in molding cultures is the line from Matthew 15: 21 “... Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” This teaching had a specific context at the time, but it has a far more general application. This can be seen as a Biblical injunction to keep the Church and the State separate in action. By divorcing the actions of the State from the rule of the Church, the pragmatic, compromising actions of the State can be allowed the freedom to provide for all people, not just those that believe. It provides for the desired goal of a diverse society. At the same time it frees the Church from having to compromise its moral standards. It renders moral good whether in ones person or in ones action towards others to be truly a free choice and therefore have moral meaning. Theocracies, just as uncompromising political ideologies, fail because they allow only one view of all that should be, right or wrong in the reality-test sense.
Today, Christianity is often seen as a threat to our culture. This is reminiscent of the past when any deviation from Roman Catholic doctrine was subjected to the inquisition (or rather any person reported deviating from it). Just as the Priests recoiled in terror and horror at any non-Christian symbol, so today the symbols of Christianity, such as the Cross on Mt. Davidson, in San Francisco, or the Cross in the Seal of the City of Los Angeles is seen as powerful and corrupting of our political purity. Just as in the Pre-Renaissance period extirpation rather than tolerance was the rule, so today our modern inquisitors attempt to remove all public expression of religion rather than simply allowing it in whatever legal (not in the Politically Correct interpretation but in the sense of not violating others explicit rights) form people wish to chose.
The true face of Christianity in this country is not in the news. It is most of the people you meet and work with. Over 40% of the population goes to church, and over 80% believe in God (Granted, not all of those would consider themselves Christian.). They are diverse in their beliefs. Some sincerely believe in the Biblical injunctions that homosexuality is sinful, and others will agree that homosexual marriage is acceptable as are practicing homosexual clergy. Some will state that abortion is wrong under all circumstances (a small minority view), most consider it to be a very difficult decision to be undertaken only in the interests of the ultimate health of the mother and the child, and a few have no scruples with it. Politically they are represented in every view. Some are extremely liberal and some are extremely conservative, and both can exist in the same church, not just the same denomination. Christians are quietly generous and giving of both their time and money to many charitable causes.
Those of you who are not believers in Christianity would do well to find out about it. Not to become Christians, but to know and understand a significant portion of our society, and the source of the values on which it was built. The ideal forum is a dialog where both Christians and non-Christians can exchange their views—not to convert one another, but to respect and understand one another.
All of us have experienced negative forms of Christianity at the personal level. There are the tracts left in public places. For some reason restrooms are a common location. There are the people who preach on street corners, taking literally the injunctions to publicly witness, instead of the one to “Let your light so shine before men….” When I was in college I was accosted by the fundamentalist asking, “Are you saved,” when I was still a believing Christian.
There are also the interpretations of Christianity that have lead to such incidents as Waco, Texas, and the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and Jonestown, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, Warren Jeffs as leader of the FLDS, and the FLDS in general. Again the identification with Christianity and the coverage in the press goes to increase the negative image of Christian doctrine. I have also read intellectuals, supposedly Christian leaders, that blame the ills of the world on Christianity, per se, not on the interpretations of it. Though this essay will focus on Christianity, Judaism comes under that same sort of attack, being seen as a political force, even conspiracy, running counter to current political direction
All of these examples are far, far from the general truth about Christianity, but I know good, well-meaning liberal, atheists that accept this picture of Christianity. To read the agenda of the politically liberal, they believe this is true as well. There is a strong effort to remove all expression of Judeo-Christian belief from any public forum, regardless of whether there is explicit government sponsorship of it or not. Passive permission is not acceptable. Through tortured and ideological reasoning, along with a misconstrual of the First Amendment, it is seen as a form of establishment.
So let us look at some of the actual realities behind these caricatures. First of all, there is some truth in the above images or they would not have any power to convince. There have been pedophilic priests, and the Roman Catholic Church is belatedly dealing with it. What is important for perspective, is that there are hundreds of thousands of priests, past and current, that have never violated their vows with respect to sexual abstinence, and perform their duties faithfully (religiously? Couldn’t avoid the pun, either word is a pun.) every day.
While we are on the discussion of Roman Catholicism, much has been made in the press a year or two ago, concerning the statement that any politician that supports abortion and is a Roman Catholic should not take Holy Communion. Several prominent politicians fell under that rule—two of the most notable being John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. To liberals this was interference in politics. No, this was a restatement of the values that being a Roman Catholic includes. The Church did not tell them how to vote, it simply told them the consequences of a pro-abortion vote, with respect to their religion. In kind, this is no different from the ostracism of Joe Lieberman for supporting President Bushes war policies. The only difference is in the underlying philosophy.
Christian fundamentalists as a group tend to have the most courage in public expression of their values, including those against abortion, or so-called pro-life. As a consequence, since this runs counter to the views of most of the MSM, it is presented in a negative view, and generalized to imply it includes all of Christianity. Because fundamentalists tend to have intellectually simple viewpoints (not to say they are wrong, just not complex) they are seen as subjects of derision by the self-anointed elites of politics and the MSM. The scorn and abuse heaped upon Sarah Palin for giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby is the most egregious example.
What is ignored is that most fundamentalist Christians are hard-working, virtuous (in the Biblical sense), and generally happy, well-adjusted people. Except when they chose to back a public cause such as stopping abortions, they are never seen, but go about doing a lot of quiet, good work with all the various forms of the less fortunate, and they do it voluntarily. Their children grow up well-behaved and studious, and they provide the young men and women that serve in the armed forces, do service work, and go on to raise their own families.
There are minor denominations that go to what might be considered extremes of literality where their behavioral proscriptions make them stand out in public, especially the women with no jewelry, no makeup, hair that is never cut, but bound up, long skirts close to ankle length. Because they are different and have beliefs that do not fit our logic, they are often sneered at. Yet one would find in general that they are again, model citizens, and part of the strength of our country.
The situation is not helped when the mainline Protestant churches conduct their policy and doctrinal disputes in public. In particular I am thinking of the issues of homosexual marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals as ministers. These are never presented sympathetically by the MSM. There is no discussion of the issues, or the fact that sincere, caring people are trying to sort out what the Bible, their fundamental source of doctrine, says vs. what they think should be the reality. And such leaders as Rowan Williams, Archbishop of the Anglican Church, generate more contempt than respect in the church, but a lot of press coverage.
What the press and other fail to see, is that mainline Protestantism is extremely diverse—having everything from the most abstract interpretations of Biblical scriptures to the most literal. It has beliefs concerning Jesus from being Divine to being a great teacher. Liturgy contains everything from feel-good, hymns and an uplifting sermon, to guilt-inspiring solemnity with lessons, sermons, and music to match. It has formal leadership to interpret doctrine and preach, or no doctrinal leadership with personal spontaneity providing the messages. Under it all, is a basic doctrine that preaches love and caring for others, which doctrine is quietly executed in many programs—caring for the homeless, caring for unwed mothers, caring for the elderly and disabled. These are not advertised, because Christians believe that public display of virtue negates the virtue. It becomes prideful rather than servitude.
What is also ignored, is that there are a myriad of interpretations of Christian doctrine. Those which grab headlines are presented rarely as one-peron’s interpretation but rather as somehow part of a more general doctrine. This is often the approach of some intellectuals, who blame Christianity for ills that are due to interpretations that are denied by the mainstream. In addition, that the entire Western culture is Judeo-Christian based is totally ignored today, or seen as something to be denied, removed, and blamed for the ills, many of which come from failure to adhere to that doctrine.
The greatest single concept in Christianity, that has led to its success in molding cultures is the line from Matthew 15: 21 “... Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” This teaching had a specific context at the time, but it has a far more general application. This can be seen as a Biblical injunction to keep the Church and the State separate in action. By divorcing the actions of the State from the rule of the Church, the pragmatic, compromising actions of the State can be allowed the freedom to provide for all people, not just those that believe. It provides for the desired goal of a diverse society. At the same time it frees the Church from having to compromise its moral standards. It renders moral good whether in ones person or in ones action towards others to be truly a free choice and therefore have moral meaning. Theocracies, just as uncompromising political ideologies, fail because they allow only one view of all that should be, right or wrong in the reality-test sense.
Today, Christianity is often seen as a threat to our culture. This is reminiscent of the past when any deviation from Roman Catholic doctrine was subjected to the inquisition (or rather any person reported deviating from it). Just as the Priests recoiled in terror and horror at any non-Christian symbol, so today the symbols of Christianity, such as the Cross on Mt. Davidson, in San Francisco, or the Cross in the Seal of the City of Los Angeles is seen as powerful and corrupting of our political purity. Just as in the Pre-Renaissance period extirpation rather than tolerance was the rule, so today our modern inquisitors attempt to remove all public expression of religion rather than simply allowing it in whatever legal (not in the Politically Correct interpretation but in the sense of not violating others explicit rights) form people wish to chose.
The true face of Christianity in this country is not in the news. It is most of the people you meet and work with. Over 40% of the population goes to church, and over 80% believe in God (Granted, not all of those would consider themselves Christian.). They are diverse in their beliefs. Some sincerely believe in the Biblical injunctions that homosexuality is sinful, and others will agree that homosexual marriage is acceptable as are practicing homosexual clergy. Some will state that abortion is wrong under all circumstances (a small minority view), most consider it to be a very difficult decision to be undertaken only in the interests of the ultimate health of the mother and the child, and a few have no scruples with it. Politically they are represented in every view. Some are extremely liberal and some are extremely conservative, and both can exist in the same church, not just the same denomination. Christians are quietly generous and giving of both their time and money to many charitable causes.
Those of you who are not believers in Christianity would do well to find out about it. Not to become Christians, but to know and understand a significant portion of our society, and the source of the values on which it was built. The ideal forum is a dialog where both Christians and non-Christians can exchange their views—not to convert one another, but to respect and understand one another.
// posted by Bill @ 11:07 AM 
