August 2008 Archives

A great many myths are perpetrated regarding Christianity that I sometimes run into. I’d like to counter some of the more common ones.

The source for most of these myths is three-fold. First, by simply calling himself “Christian” a great many men seem to assert authority on subjects which have no relationship what being a Christian actually means (as defined by our church fathers in the New Testament). Second, those who are not Christians spread a certain amount of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in an attempt to discredit us or simply because they don’t understand us. Third, the more subtle myths are actually held true by some believers when they have no basis in the Bible (or even other lesser authorities such as the councils and other historical writings).

These are in no particular order and I am just picking them out as I go. I may or may not add more posts to this as a series in the future.

Myth #1: Christians Hate People

This is sometimes a myth stated against all religious people. The premise I have heard stated is that because we believe in some sort of specialized, organized religion we spread hate against those that disagree with us. In reality, however, it is Christian principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution (and other documents that have since been derived from it) that protect the freedom to express beliefs other than Christianity. Christianity fully supports each individual’s right to believe anything she wants to believe.

There certainly are haters who name themselves “Christian.” There have been horrible and hateful atrocities perpetrated under the name “Christian.” That does not mean that these perversions of the truth represent the truth. A man could sit on a committee to find ways to work against domestic violence and yet still go home and beat his wife and children. That doesn’t mean that the committee itself is a bad idea.

Myth #2: Christians Must Never Judge

This myth is a little confusing because the term “judge” can be applied in two ways. It is true, that Jesus said, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Or in Romans 2:1 Paul says, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” The point here being that condemning others on the basis of whatever you don’t like about them is not good. This is not what Jesus called us to do.

However, the flip side is that we are supposed to judge ourselves and know right from wrong. “But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.” (1 Corinthians 11:31) In a sense, we are required to judge the actions of ourselves and even others to make sure we do not follow after the sins of others. If we never judged, we’d believe in nothing. The hard part for every Christian is to not turn that judgment of action into a negative opinion of the actor. We are all sinners, every single one of us. We’re all equal in this way.

This returns us to Myth #1 about hate. If we hate others, we have judged them in an inappropriate way. If we’ve judged someone’s actions as being something not to follow, but still love the person, we have done right. This is something difficult for anyone to do since it is very human to distrust, suspect, and even hate someone just for being different. This kind of judgment we must make as Christians seeks to identify those differences. It is necessary. It is good. It is difficult for Christians to do the right thing in the process, which is why Jesus and Paul labor to point out how such judgments really condemn ourselves.

That’s it for tonight. Cheers.

I am occasionally frustrated with they way people treat others that disagree with them. As pet peeves go this one is one I’m bad at as well: critiquing your opponent as “idiots” and “nuts” instead of facing the disagreement. To some extent this is just a human reaction designed to relieve stress. Having to hold to a position that others disagree with is not something humans were designed to endure, so we lash out to relieve that stress. However, when you go beyond calling someone an idiot to relieve stress to believing they’re an idiot, you’ve crossed a line.

If you are a liberal, libertarian, conservative, communist, socialist, anarchist, or pacifist, you may be smart or you may be dumb. All of these points of view can be held in a way that is both intelligent and rational (or idiotic and illogical, but I’m ignoring that for the moment). If I only went that far, I could agree with relativists and say they are all correct. However, I believe relativists are idiots…er…sorry, are wrong. There’s more to holding a valid position than just applying a subjective point of view rationally. That is, the difference between these points of view is their particular subjective point of view. This point of view has two facets: (1) the objectivity of your perception and (2) the emphasis you place on that perception.

On some level, everyone believes in some amount of objective truth. There are of course people at the fringes who will disagree, but nearly everyone will agree that the sky is normally blue, clouds are normally white, and that walking in the rain will cause you to get wet. When we start moving into the abstract the details aren’t quite so easy to see anymore and we start to disagree on what is reality.

As an example, I overheard a former professor of mine (of a Women’s Studies course I took in college) discussing a dissertation or book or something with a colleague (and/or graduate student) at a coffee shop. In this conversation, she said something to the effect of (or at least I heard this paraphrase), “I just don’t understand why these Republicans and their little wives have such a thing against government interference with the family. They have to know it would be to their benefit. I am trying to figure out where their hatred of government comes from.” If she’d have turned around and asked me, I might have been able to answer the question, but that’s beside the point.

Here’s the point, do I think that she’s dumb just because she doesn’t know or possibly accept the answer I at 3 feet distance could have given her? No. She’s very smart and well educated. However, she does not understand my perception of reality because my perception in the abstract is incompatible with hers. I believe that humans are basically evil and will seek to take power for themselves for the purpose of subjecting and abusing others, eventually reaching the extreme of declaring themselves God on Earth that all others must bow down to worship. There’s some amount of evidence for holding to this belief.

I cannot claim to speak for her, but I believe I understand something of the perceptions of many who think like her (since I’ve known many of these people). These folks don’t think so much in terms of basic depravity or even the basic goodness of people. They think in terms of the social orders. People who are less fortunate deserve aid. Those who are more fortunate should render that aid. The purpose of government is to make sure that people who have the means to support aid give it to those who need it. This comes in the form of taxes and welfare (in general terms since both taxes and welfare programs come under many names and guises). Therefore, people who are in government seeking to expand these programs are good intentioned and are doing what is good for others (or at least trying). And also, people who are in government trying to shrink or eliminate these programs are seeking harm for their own personal gain. This is not on unintelligent or uneducated position to hold (certainly not the latter since it or something like it has held the majority opinion of many in education for decades).

Through this illustration we see both forms of perception difference. First, we both believe in basically different forms of reality. One sees humans as basically evil and the first need of evil is to make sure to stack the deck so that evil will hold evil in check. The other sees humans as either seeking to help each other render aid or seeking to deny that aid. These are very different ways of thinking about humans and it’s not even convenient to translate one kind of thinking to the other.

Second, we see that the emphasis is different. One emphasizes the examples of human selfishness throughout history and the other emphasizes the examples of human sacrifice. As an illustration, people from both of these sides may love the story of Robin Hood. One because Robin Hood chose to steal from the undeserving rich to give to the needy poor. The other because Robin Hood stands against a corrupt dictator who has implemented taxes that are too harsh on all. Or the more recent example of Wall-E. One likes the fact that a corrupt corporation seduced humanity into destroying themselves and the planet through rampant consumerism. The other because the solution is to get rid of a corrupt monopolistic government and return to traditional family values in order to return to and save that planet.

So before you think I’m an idiot conservative or that someone else is an idiot libertarian or socialist or whatever, pause. Don’t cheat yourself out of understanding your adversary and being fair with your own perceptions. You are not the only person on earth and your view is not the one correct view forever. You might be right and I might be wrong, but you won’t convince me and I won’t convince you if we each spend our time thinking the other is an idiot and working out from there.

Cheers.

Every so often I hear the “news” that some airline is increasing fees on something or other. Oh no! American now charges to check your first bag! Oh no! Delta now charges for snacks on the plane. But really, if you’re already paying $300 for a plane ticket, do you really care if they add an extra $5 or $15? They could have raised the plane ticket price and would you have noticed? Probably not. Someone in company, though thinks these fees through and decided that it would provide some benefit in exchange for the negative PR.

To me, this is just as much background noise as people freaking out over $3 ATM fees when using another bank’s ATM. I just can’t get too excited about a few bucks.