Seriously Considering
Christ and Christianity
As everyone knows, there is a crisis going on in the church
which has massive ramifications for the church and, ultimately, for world
culture. Young people, especially, are
being challenged to walk away from their families' commitments to Jesus Christ
and the church. They are being told that
Christianity is simply not true, that Jesus is not the Son of God and Saviour
of the world, and that exclusively to hold to the truth of Christ is
intellectually irresponsible or disreputable.
And such claims are coming not just from university departments of
philosophy or biology, they often come from inside the church, even from those
with lifelong involvement with the church, as some of those previously
committed to Christ now significantly question most of what they previously
were taught and believed. This is not
just sad, it is tragic, especially when the challenges made to Christianity are
so often grounded on less than the most rigorous intellectual, philosophical,
historical foundations.
From merely a human perspective, Jesus the Messiah or Jesus
of Nazareth or Jesus Bar Joseph from Nazareth in Galilee, born about 4 B.C., is
the most important, most admired, most followed human being who has ever
lived. The social ethic he taught and
exampled is considered the most important, most revolutionary, most widely
influential, loftiest social ethic ever conceived. The social community He created has been the
most significant, most influential, most powerful force for good that the world
has known. If the poor, the sick, the
lonely, the heartbroken, the unattractive, the outcast, the hurting, the
disadvantaged, the imprisoned, the persecuted, the oppressed, the
self-destructive, the addictive, the demonized, the evil and the rejected ones
have received from someone a blessing, a helping hand, a bed for recovery, a
word of encouragement, an opportunity to arise from their misery, or an
opportunity for healing, forgiveness, sustenance, grace, and love there is a
good chance that the good things that have come their way ultimately have a
source associated with Jesus the Jewish Messiah. The extent to which the evils of humanity
that otherwise would have been put upon each other, but which were avoided or
overcome by Jesus and those who with genuine commitment have followed Him, is
simply incalculable. About these things
there can be no debate.
Some today, and even many Christians, have been compelled to
re-evaluate all this, as if maybe what I wrote in the previous paragraph is not
empirically true. They would speak of
the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or colonization, or Constantinianism
or American Imperialism or Capitalistic Materialism as if these movements are
directly based on who Jesus was and taught, as if Jesus and His true followers
were responsible for these tragedies. I
will admit that those who claimed to
follow Jesus were to a lesser or greater extent behind such movements; but no
one who has carefully read, or even cursorily read, the teachings and example
of Jesus in the Bible could ever link together with Jesus such aberrations from
true Christianity. Humans beings who
truly and consistently followed His teachings would not, could not perpetrate
such sinfulness. He was entirely
non-violent when it comes to military, governmental, institutional, and private
action by his followers. He specifically
commanded against violence. He taught
His followers to love everyone, including themselves. He was accepting of all those who hurt,
including those who greatly sin because of their hurt. He and His closest followers made virtue,
kindness, love, goodness, gentleness, humility, peacefulness, patience,
meekness, and non-judgmentalism the core of Christian teaching about how to
live. These facts about Jesus and Christianity are very easy to verify, and they
need to be kept in mind by those threatened by the attacks and unbelief that
frequently come against Christ and the church, whether from inside the church
or from outside.
So, as one who has carefully investigated these things over
the last 40 years, some words of advice.
Don't just accept accusations against Christ and Christianity or accept
claims made about the irrationality of belief in God without considering these
things at great length and seriously testing their veracity. Often young people, especially, hear claims
made against Christianity or the church and with very little serious
investigation accept such claims, or at least allow such claims to colour their
view of Christ and the church. Please
don't just accept such claims just because it is considered more socially
acceptable to disbelieve or to criticize the church or because you are
embarrassed to go against the grain of society in its attack against Christ and
the church. Study history for yourself. Study ethics for yourself. Study science and philosophy for
yourself. Read the Bible and evaluate
the church, yourself. And please don't
stop after reading one or two or ten books critical of Christianity thinking
that such critics have said all that there is to be said. I weary of hearing about those who have taken
a class or two, read a couple of books, listened to a couple of lectures, and
have decided that Christianity is not true, or that it is not noble or
intellectually defensible. Often I find
the intellectual effort that has been expended in such investigations of Christ
and the church to be truly second class; it simply does not measure up to the
best of human investigative efforts. It
is shallow and incomplete, and those who conduct their inquiries in this way
too often reach conclusions and make statements about Christ and Christianity
that have little or no merit whatsoever, simply because they are looking for an
easy way to excuse themselves from taking seriously the claims that Christ
makes on their lives. They simply wish
to not be uncomfortable in their belief, or they wish to sin and feel better
about it, or they are lazy, particularly intellectually, and so do not want to
do the hard work on their own of finding out the truth about Christ and
Christianity, about Christian history, about the real teachings of Jesus, about
what authentic Christianity looks like. Some
have been hurt by Christians, or by the church, or their loved ones have been
hurt by Christians or the church, to the point that hearing criticisms of Christianity
are psychologically soothing or satisfying, because accepting such criticisms
fits with the anger or hurt they already feel toward Christians who have harmed
them. This is understandable and
explainable, but to hold against Christianity what has been done to you by
sinful Christians is like despising gravity because the contractor who built
the deck on your house built it poorly, causing it to fall and injure you or
your loved one. It is like despising rye
or wheat or hopps or those who harvest such crops because someone else bought
the grain and made from it alcohol, which another person bought, got drunk
from, and then he or she drove while drunk and killed your loved one. It is hardly the fault of the grain or the
harvester. But for some, it is far
easier to just believe what an author or professor or the internet or Facebook
tell you about Christians and Christianity, because some Christians have made big mistakes, than it is to conduct a long careful
investigation, and so many just accept the easy answer. It is too easy to stay where you are in
carrying out your lifestyle of less than noble pursuits, your materialism, your
self-centeredness, and to criticize Jesus and His followers, than it is honestly
and plainly to be confronted by who Jesus really was and is, by what He really
taught, by what He really calls us to. So,
many simply parrot the easy answers they have heard. Please, don't stop after a half-hearted,
lazy, easy quasi-investigative look at Christianity and then settle yourself in
unbelief, ignoring the fact that you haven't really put in the effort
needed. Because the decision of whether
or not to accept Christ or to remain Christian and connected to the church is
so significant in one's life, you owe it to yourself, if to no one else, to
honestly read and study for yourself, without cutting corners and without
accepting easy answers. Listen not only
to critics of Christ and Christianity, especially as Jesus, the church and
Christians are portrayed in contemporary mass media and social media, but give
attention, too, to those who have investigated at a profound level both the
claims of the critics and the claims of Christ and His followers and have found
Christianity not just defensible, but have found it to be a system of belief to
which it is worth being faithfully committed for life. Nothing less will do. If, in the end, after much careful, serious
thinking and investigation you find Christ and Christianity not worth giving
your life to, then so be it. At least
you will have reached your conclusion in light of your own honesty and to your
own intellectual satisfaction, and not just because those around you─who live in a
questionable world with questionable motives, and who themselves may not have
been very careful in doing their own searches─have told you that Christ and Christianity don't
deserve your attention or allegiance.
Or, if you should choose Christ, you will not be doing so because you
simply adopted your parents' faith or have believed blindly. You will have a faith that is grounded in
what you seriously take to be the truth because you have investigated the
question and found that God was quite capable of defending Himself. You will have seriously considered Christ and Christianity, chosen faith, and you
will be Christian because you will have seen that it is the best system of
faith the world has known, because it is the only faith system in line with
things as they really are.
Perhaps your thinking can be distilled into two primary points:
ReplyDelete1. There is good reason to accept Christianity as true
2. Intellectual responsibility requires a “first class” examination of Christian teachings
I assume it is also your view that acceptance of the second point will, in general, lead to acceptance of the first. That is, intellectual responsibility will tend to uncover the convincing reasons to accept Christianity as true.
After identifying the “crisis” of an increased disillusionment with the claims and teachings of Christianity, you begin by noting that we cannot responsibly attribute all the evil done by Christians to “Christianity” as a worldview. This seems reasonable. But then you assert that we certainly can attribute the majority of humanity’s good works to the teachings of Christ. Why one and not the other? Presumably this is because those bad Christians weren’t true Scotsmen (er, Christians). They merely claimed to follow Jesus but, since they didn’t interpret it in a way you think is consistent with the text, they weren’t really following the doctrines of Christianity.
When young people are thinking about the truth and value of Christianity, they ought to take seriously a wide range of interpretations. There is no reason to find themselves immediately constrained by a pacifist interpretation. Historically, such interpretations have been in the minority among so-called Christians. Perhaps your interpretation is the correct one, but reasonable minds have long disagreed, and Christianity continues to be associated with violence, bigotry and exploitation probably as often as love, peace and acceptance. Christian militants continue to be active in many countries, including India, countries in Central Africa, as well as in the domestic United States and so on. If we survey the benefits and burdens of the Christian texts in terms of human suffering, the final analysis is by no means beyond debate. The fact that some people derive a more commendable set of virtues from Christianity should not convince us to ignore the rest of the biblical writings, which have often been used to contrary ends. I agree that Jesus, for the most part, taught positive virtues. But so have many secular ethical systems, and many which predate Christianity and avoid the metaphysical baggage. It is by no means obvious that a “cursory reading” abolishes all evil interpretations of the text. Even scholars of Christianity have for centuries come to morally abhorrent conclusions. About this there can be no debate. It’s often been said that there is no faster route to atheism than studying the Bible.
You also claim the many listed good works have a “good chance” to be “ultimately … associated with Jesus.” As long as we interpret “associated with” in an unreasonably broad way, this is probably true. Otherwise, it seems strikingly naïve. There is no empirical measure of the source of good acts, so yours is merely a speculation. If its striking over inclusiveness is not obviously false to the reader, then little more can probably be said. I would however point out that many of the billions of non-Christians are responsible for just the things in your list; helping hands, recovery beds, encouraging words and love are products of humanity, not Christianity. You might also consider why you are again quick to ascribe these good works to “Christianity,” even while denying ascription of wickedness.
A person may work at a soup kitchen on Saturday morning, and passionately argue for racial segregation in the name of Christ the same evening. Of course this interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. So why does “Christianity” get credit for the good works, but avoid condemnation for the wrong, when the very same person is often responsible for both? The most plausible explanation is that people do both good and evil regardless of religion, and religion should not, in large measure, take credit for either. If only your interpretation of Christianity “counts” for the ascription of good and evil, then you should correspondingly reduce the amount of “good” the religion can claim.
ReplyDeleteI recognize that your position is not that the balance of good and evil flowing from Christianity is the sole or even primary basis for accepting the doctrine. But you dedicate nearly one third of your reflection to this point, so it is worth pointing out why some might not find it persuasive. I suppose you imagine that it is the sustained, comprehensive investigation of Christianity that will be the real basis for its acceptance or rejection. Why else the clarion call?
You find it regrettable when a person dedicates only ten books, two classes and two lectures to deciding whether Christianity is worthy of future study. Considering most self-proclaimed Christians have never read the complete canonical Bible, I’d be quite impressed if a person dedicated this much study to a religion to which he or she was not already adhered. I’d invite you to consider whether you have dedicated the same amount of study to Scientology—not, mind you, in an effort of comparative religion but rather with an honest and open mind as to its truth. But it’s absurd, you object, to expect a person to take a seriously a religion devised by a science fiction writer. Perhaps, but you can rest assured its followers would disagree. Consider the perspective of the “young person” for whom you find yourself concerned. This person is faced with an abundance of spiritual doctrines and creeds. You suppose that such a person should commit to an extensive and rigorous study of the truth of Christianity? This seems once again hopelessly naïve. People quite frequently dedicate their entire lives to examining the tenets of a single religion. But to seriously and systematically examine all contenders is utterly unrealistic. And there is no reason to single out Christianity as the only religion worth considering, or even as one of a select few “live options.” A Muslim cleric is surely confident in his personal systematic theology, just as you are with yours. Young people have hundreds of comprehensive worldviews on offer at any given time, each with its own variety of prophets, miracle workers and magical texts.
A young person is more likely to consider religions in a more pragmatic manner, and one perfectly consistent with epistemic responsibility. This more pragmatic method, using heuristics, is an approach with some similarities to cryptography in cases involving massive amounts of data. Huge swaths of possibilities are cut down by examining some basic presumptions, allowing penetration into higher levels of complexity. Instead of examining all 100 billion permutations, a computer will adopt certain axioms to eliminate millions or even billions of options on some small basis. Here that might be something like the problem of evil. The person might consider the standard theodicies, and come to the conclusion that no fully benevolent God can exist. This rules out many religions without ever having to seriously engage the text. If God is not benevolent, and Christianity claims God is benevolent, Christianity is wrong on at least that count. I’m not interested in any particular answer to the problem of evil, and I can assure you I have heard them all. This is just an example to illustrate how a person operating with a responsible approach to practical rationality can eliminate some religions as realistic contenders within the confines of a few books and a couple of classes. I simply do not need to dedicate a serious portion of my life to examining the claims of Scientology. I’ll provide some more examples of the pragmatic thinking I am referring to.
ReplyDeleteA young person is likely familiar with the lamentable failures of reasoning within the church as a whole. Science deniers are especially egregious, particularly young earth creationists and anti-evolutionists. Young people tend, on average and as a generation, to be more educated than older individuals who tend to speak for churches and religious groups. Why should an intelligent young person take seriously the claims of a person with such clearly demonstrable errors in both reasoning and intellectual responsibility? To be clear, I’m not trying to characterize you here, but rather a certain common kind of religious “leader.” Most religious “objections” to the basic principles of entire scientific disciplines are easily cleared up by a five minute Google search. Yet even this is too much to expect of a lot of religious people, and often these are the same religious leaders promoting calls for intellectual rigor! The irony would be comical if it weren’t so tragic. Some religious leaders have religious training from religious universities and are so entrenched in theological echo chambers and repeated claims that they are experts at “critical thinking” that they have failed to understand the role of empirical observation in clear thinking. In classical Greece they used to argue about the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth. Now, we look. If a person does not understand statistics, study design, microbiology, not to mention basic biology, that person should simply not be commenting on evolution. Yet I can find many Christian thinkers doing precisely that. This is an embarrassment that many young people, quite understandably, wish to avoid.
A young person is probably also impressed by publically available research that shows an inverse correlation between intelligence and the importance of religion, as well as between education and the importance of religion. Prisons and ghettos are full of Christians, but elite universities are not. Of course, there are exceptions. But there is little debate that, on average, more intelligent and more educated people tend not to be religious. Historically it might have made sense to accept religion as a kind of appeal to authority—all the most intelligent and accomplished people tended to be religious, and so religion must have some merit. Today, the opposite is true of Christianity. A young person is less likely to dedicate significant resources (which, don’t forget, are finite) to examining Christianity when many of the leading thinkers of our time have often already done so, and, on average, found it wanting. This is time that could be otherwise dedicated to advancing human knowledge, self-fulfilment, working with the indigent and so on.
ReplyDeleteYou suppose a young person is confronted with the truth or falsity of Christianity. In reality, the more important consideration is whether that question is worth asking.
If you are trying to reach people who might be persuaded by your call for a rigorous examination, I’d also suggest you think carefully about attributing mental states, motivating factors and circumstances to people. You imagine that people are “looking … to excuse themselves from taking seriously the claims that Christ makes on their lives.” You suppose they wish to avoid discomfort in their belief, or they are lazy or wish to avoid feeling bad about sin etc. This is where, in my opinion, your humility breaks down. We live in a pluralistic society where reasonable people dedicating their full intellectual powers will often disagree. Sectarian, theocratic thinkers suppose that everyone can be converted. Others recognize that the real problem is developing institutions and ways of coexisting against a background of reasonable pluralism. Assuming that those with whom we disagree are nothing more than hedonists, lazy, materialists or people with hurt feelings, is adolescent. People smarter than you or I have been dedicated Christians, and others have rejected it outright. If you want to persuade people, take for granted that they are rational human beings engaged in a process of reflection trying to sort through the many possible worldviews in an authentic way. Assume people live with integrity, not that they are lazy children with hurt feelings just because they disagree with you. To do otherwise is to further divide along ideological lines.
To summarize, my view is that intellectual responsibility does not require the kind of investigation you propose. In fact, a sustained, systematic investigation of Christianity is neither necessary nor often helpful. Instead, heuristic thinking about basic principles is enough to quite reasonably dissuade many people from mythological/magical thinking.
Pythagoras,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your respectful, articulate response. I wish very much to respond in kind, and kindly. If I write anything that appears to be harshly worded, please know that I did not write it with a harsh or disrespectful attitude, it is just hard sometimes persuasively to argue without sounding unduly pointed. I have great respect for you, based on the way you have addressed my post.
I also must tell you that I am under a great deal of time pressure in answering your long response, because of an impending international trip (I leave for a third world country in about 14 hours), and I doubt I will be able to write all I wish to write in response before I leave. I also don't know if I will have opportunity to get back to this for a couple of weeks. So, after you read this, you may have to check back after March 1 for more from me, particularly if you respond to what I post today.
I would first say that your distillation of my piece into two primary points is not quite correct. While I do think that "1. There is good reason to accept Christianity as true," is a true statement, this is a bit beside the point in my post, and it was not my intention to argue for this. My opinion is that Christianity is true, but something close to what you identified as a second distilled point is closer to what I wished to suggest, namely that "2. Intellectual responsibility requires a 'first class' examination of Christian teachings." However, even here, I don't think "requires" exactly fits what I want to suggest. I want to say that intellectual responsibility is, in my opinion, a practice and perhaps an attitude of approach that should be embraced and applied specifically by those who are 1) making the decision to leave Christian faith behind, 2) doing so while they are also making the claim that Christ and Christianity should be rejected and perhaps even denigrated based on the mistakes made by Christians. This includes the idea that many leave the faith for what they say are sound intellectual reasons, when my opinion is that some have not adequately conducted the kind of investigation of Christ and Christianity that is warranted if such a significant choice is to be made. Some, of course, have done otherwise, but my fear is that many have not been as rigorous as would be wise in considering whether or not they should jettison their faith, accepting too easily inadequately argued justification for thinking that Christ and Christianity represent an unworthy system of faith. There are various reasons for why they may have been less than intellectually rigorous in this, and some that I think apply I have specified.
You wrote, "I assume it is also your view that acceptance of the second point will, in general, lead to acceptance of the first. That is, intellectual responsibility will tend to uncover the convincing reasons to accept Christianity as true." Again, while I hope this to be true, that was not exactly my point or purpose in writing here. My point is that intellectual responsibility should be inherent in one's choice to leave the faith behind on intellectual grounds. And I am not sure this is the case with many. Many, I believe, give a token effort in the direction of intellectual responsibility, and they then leave the faith on what I consider to be insufficient intellectual grounds, prematurely leaving their faith for the kinds of reasons I mentioned in my post. Do I hope that they would do otherwise because I think Christ and Christianity can be rationally and justifiably held as a faith system, with there being adequate intellectual warrant for holding such belief? Yes. Do I hope they will discover this and remain committed to the Christian system of faith? Yes. But it was not my point to argue that "intellectual responsibility will tend to uncover the convincing reasons to accept Christianity as true." This has happened in many cases, but it has also in many cases worked in the opposite direction.
Concerning your paragraph that begins, "After identifying the 'crisis' . . ." you said, "why one and not the other?" It is not just as you say, "Presumably . . . because those bad Christians weren't true Scotsmen (er, Christians)." It is because I believe the empirical evidence of history considered will point in the direction of supporting my assertions about evil and good in the world in relation to Christ and Christianity. I think the world is better off because of the teachings and example of Jesus, even despite the far too many aberrations from Christ and his teachings that have been put on the world by his so-called followers. Further, it is true, I do not think the perpetrators of evil in the world who have claimed connection to Christ and Christianity have truly followed Christ, but not just because they have simply accepted a different take on Christ's ethical teachings, as if they just chose another legitimate interpretive option, one that could just as legitimately ground violence, bigotry, and exploitation on the teachings and example of Christ as could those who abhor such actions and attitudes. I would say that interpretations that attempt to ground violence, bigotry, and exploitation on the teachings and example of Christ really do show those who interpret Christ and Christianity in this way to be those who are merely claiming to follow Jesus, but who really have not. Their lives, their choices and attitudes, when compared to the teachings and example of Jesus, do not show congruency between themselves and Jesus or the faith he wished to establish. I think it is difficult to show that violence, bigotry, and exploitation are legitimate, reasonable outcomes that would derive from truly following a legitimate interpretation of Christ's teachings and example. I assume you have read the New Testament; do you not agree that violence, bigotry, and exploitation would be incongruous actions and attitudes to apply in your life if you were attempting to follow the example and teachings of Jesus?
ReplyDeleteConcerning your paragraph which begins, "When young people are thinking about the truth . . . ," it is true as you say that Christianity has long been associated with violence, bigotry and exploitation, but I would disagree that there is a legitimate interpretation of the teachings, attitudes, or actions of Christ that would take him as having advocated the reprehensible actions and attitudes you mention, so that young people should consider this as a legitimate option when taking "seriously a wide range of interpretations" as they are "thinking about the truth and value of Christianity." To what text in the New Testament, to what teaching of Christ or action by Christ or attitude that seems to have been held by Christ would you point to that could legitimately be interpreted as being supportive of violence, bigotry, and exploitation? I will admit that Jesus was Jewish. I will admit that his view of God was based on his reading of, understanding of, and acceptance of the truths about God revealed in the Hebrew Bible. But I also believe that the new covenant he authoritatively introduced superseded and made obsolete much of what was previously part of God's covenant with his people, including any advocacy of, encouragement toward, or valuing of violence, bigotry, and exploitation. I think the New Testament texts make the teachings of Christ with respect to his attitudes toward violence, bigotry, and exploitation quite clear, and that he advocated none of these, so that he actually specifically teaches against them. So, I would say that if interpreters "survey the benefits and burdens . . . in terms of human suffering" that derive from New Testament ethical teachings by Christ and from the example of his life as portrayed in the gospels, they will be hard pressed to find Christ teaching anything that can reasonably be said to be less than virtuous. Christian texts have often been used otherwise, as you point out, and "scholars of Christianity have for centuries come to morally abhorrent conclusions," but not, I would say, because they were legitimately deriving their perspectives from defensible interpretations of the teaching, attitudes or actions of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Would you disagree?; do you think there are teachings, attitudes, or actions on the part of Jesus that could legitimately serve as justification by his followers for their practice or advocacy of violence, bigotry, and exploitation?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your considerate reply. I appreciate your comment about appearing overly pointed. I find no disrespect in pointed intellectual disagreement. I find frustrating the tendency to explain away disagreement in terms of character failings rather than addressing reasons. The truth is that reasons are probably rarely the real ground for disagreement (human psychology is far less "rational" than we might hope), but it is my view that in the context of an exchange of reasons, rationality and good faith should be assumed, though we all miss the mark to a greater or lesser extent.
ReplyDeleteI should clarify that my original distillation was not intended to capture only the content of your blog post, but rather your overall thinking on the subject, which is strongly implied. For example, if you disagreed with my first point, that "there is good reason to accept Christianity as true," then I do not think you would advocate rigorous intellectual investigation into the subject. I recognize that you provided no evidence or arguments that Christianity is in fact true, and I did not mean to imply otherwise by including that as a central point in your overall thesis. I do however think it is a critical point in your thought more generally, and an implied background premise of your argument for systematic consideration of Christianity. You agreed that you do accept the first point of my distillation, so I suppose there is only a misunderstanding of my claim that "your thinking" can be distilled. I do not accept that the first distilled point is "beside the point in [your] post," but I don't think this is a particularly important area of dispute. Let's consider your thesis as you state it:
Intellectual responsibility is a practice that should be embraced and applied specifically by those who are leaving the Christian faith on supposed intellectual ground. (Which, you think, are not often as intellectually defensible as the apostate imagines.)
I imagine that no one would disagree with the first part of that statement. In fact, intellectual responsibility should be embraced at all times, not just when leaving the Christian faith. I don't think the way you framed your claim captures a question of much interest, since it is a point of wide consensus. The real debate is what intellectual responsibility looks like in the context of accepting or rejecting a religion in general or, for your purposes, Christianity.
My response remains the same: heuristics and the consideration of a few philosophical puzzles can, alone, be sufficient to reject a large number of faiths. No sustained investigation is suggested, let alone required, by intellectual responsibility. The kind of wide ranging epistemic burden your suggestion implies is one that no reasonable person could meet. Such a burden would require studying well before even the Greek primordial deities and the investigator would run out of life before he or she arrived at Christianity.
You have not made clear precisely how your claim about the empirical evidence of history and the balance of good and evil flowing from Christianity connects to your central thesis about intellectual responsibility. Your original post strikes me as implying that all the good you see flowing from Christianity is one reason why people should give it serious consideration. However you never state this explicitly, and it is not clear what to make of it. Does all the "good" provide a reason why Christianity is true, why it requires attention, both, or some other unrelated reason?
I think it might be helpful to consider again the mind of the person leaving or rejecting Christianity. Such a person does not necessarily accept your theological perspective. You take the position that only a certain range of interpretations of Christian teachings are "legitimate, reasonable outcomes." But what you consider reasonable is based on points of theological contention. Perhaps among most (but not all) professors of theology it is customary to accept some form of new covenant or dispensational theology etc., but for the ordinary Christian that opens the Bible and reads it, this is simply not the case. Christianity in the broadest sense includes adherents who accept the Biblical canon as the inspired word of God. Many of these people do not distinguish, as you would prefer to do, between Christianity on the one hand and the "teaching, attitudes or actions of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament" on the other hand. When I pointed out that there are interpretations of Christianity associated with violence, bigotry and exploitation I made no suggestion that such interpretations are based legitimately on the teaching, attitudes or actions of Jesus. They are nevertheless interpretations of the Bible taken as a whole, and more or less legitimate depending on your perspective. But, again, people have dedicated their entire lives to studying the scriptures and found themselves satisfied with such interpretations. There is no reasonable sense in which a cursory examination of the Bible would lead to the conclusion that Christianity promotes only positive virtue. Quite the opposite seems to be true.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between actions consistent with a doctrine, and actions caused by a doctrine. It seems to me that in evaluating the worth of a worldview, we should be concerned with the latter. Many evil actions are inconsistent with the interpretation of Christianity you personally find most persuasive. According to the perpetrators, however, they are caused by Christian doctrine (i.e., done in the name of Christianity). But the many good actions you would probably prefer to see as Christianity-derived are simply consistent with, rather than caused by, the interpretation you prefer. If you wish to focus on the good caused by Christianity, it does not make sense to exclude the bad caused by Christianity, even if the bad is inconsistent with your interpretation. Causality and doctrinal consistency are not logically coextensive. This should all be qualified by noting that why people think they do things and why they in fact do them are often very different, as engagement with the research of social and cognitive psychology makes quite clear (Kahneman/Tversky/Sunstein are a good place to start).
An internal challenge with your position is that your separation of the teachings of Christianity from the evil of Christians in Jesus' name is only possible after serious theological commitments have been made. In other words, your suggestion that all the good flowing from Christianity is a reason for investigating further already presupposes that some serious investigation has previously occurred, and some serious theological commitments made. A person could quite reasonably survey the shameful history of Christianity and decide it is not worth a serious look. Your defense is that Christianity as a worldview should not be held responsible, since these despicable actions do not follow logically from your interpretation of the Bible. But this defense is itself already based on a prolonged, systematic investigation of Christianity--the very kind which, by hypothesis, this person has not undertaken. If a person does not separate, as you do, some scriptures from others, then the person will not make this distinction. This separation of authoritative scriptures from old covenant etc. is a matter of theology, and cannot be decided without serious investigation.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in replying, I would be curious to hear why you think Christianity deserves such intellectual attention from us unenlightened, without any appeals to theology etc. (which, by hypothesis, are only reasonable after investigation). Am I right in understanding that all the good in the world is the reason why you propose a person should study Christianity as opposed to the thousands of other worldviews? Since this depends on theology, I think it is unpersuasive to the unfaithful. To the outside world, Christianity must take ownership of its sinners and its saints, its good and its evil. Humans of all religions, and those of none, act well when in consistency with the admirable parts of their chosen doctrines, and act poorly with in consistency with the regrettable parts. It seems to me that this is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with being human.
I hope you enjoy a safe flight and a fulfilling trip. Thanks again for your comments.
My response will be spotty from Zambia!
ReplyDeleteIn response to your paragraph which begins, "You also claim the many listed good works . . ":
I am not sure exactly what constitutes an unreasonably broad way that would associate many good works with Jesus and what is a reasonable way of broadly associating them with Jesus and Christianity. In western society, but then in many places where the influence of the teachings of Jesus have been felt, good works by many ultimately relate back to the ethics of Christ. This doesn't seem to me naive, strikingly or otherwise, but simply a statement of historical fact─there is, in fact, a good chance that benevolent acts and attitudes currently directed toward others in many parts of the world, and historically, are either directly or indirectly associated with the teachings of Jesus. There is, it seems to me, something empirical about assessing the widespread influence of Christianity, if even just by counting the numbers of Christians and churches that have multiplied historically, throughout the world. But, in addition, the numbers of hospitals, schools, infirmaries, orphanages, relief agencies, sanatoriums, etc. that have specifically been associated with Christianity far outnumber those of any other source of such benevolent efforts, even those of national governments and the United Nations, and especially if one subtracts from such governmental works those that are also in some direct or indirect way grounded in the influence of the ethics of Christ. This is empirically calculable, and it seems to me indisputable. The amount of financial resources spent in the world by Christians and Christianity, specifically with the purpose of carrying out benevolent good deeds, done in the name of Christ, far surpasses that of any other religious or humanitarian source that works to relieve the burdens of those who suffer. Saying so is neither naive nor speculative nor without empirical verification. Nor is it true of only one time period in the last 2000 years, but throughout. Further, I did not deny the connection of evil with Christianity, but with Christ and his true followers. I was quick to admit the amount of evil done by those who have claimed to be Christians. I ascribe the good to Christ and Christianity because it is empirically verifiable. I have not denied an ascription of wickedness to those who claim Christ, but who I would say do not follow him. I am quick to do so in the one case on empirical grounds (an affirmation of the good of Christianity), and in the other case (there is a link between wickedness and Christianity) on the grounds that those who claim Christ and who do evil do not reflect a legitimate application of the teachings of Jesus as found in the New Testament.
I just now read your second set of response; those I am now putting up will be quite behind where you are, and it may stay that way due to my circumstances. I very much appreciate the spirit with which you are writing. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your paragraph that begins, "A person may work at a soup kitchen . . .":
You wrote, "So why does "Christianity" get credit for the good works, but avoid condemnation for the wrong, when the very same person is often responsible for both?" Because it is not legitimate, in my view, to associate the evil with Christ or true Christianity, where it is quite legitimate to associate the good with Christ. The bifurcation in the life of the person you described immediately above this cannot, it seems to me, be blamed on the teachings of Jesus, who only taught the value of being consistently good. You are correct that people do good and evil, however, there is simply no reason why this is the "most plausible explanation" for the good done in the name of Christ. That there are those who do good deeds, and say they do so in the name of Jesus, rings true because of the coherence of such good deeds with the teachings of Christ. They seem to have been impacted by Jesus both because they claim this is case and because their attitudes and actions fit with what Jesus did and taught. Those who generally do evil, despite claiming their connection to Christ, even if they claim to do evil in the name of Christ, seem to be making an implausible connection between themselves and Christ because their attitudes and actions stand apart from what seems to be a reasonable and consistent interpretation of the teachings and example of Christ. So, it seems quite reasonable and consistent to me for me to claim that the good, that comes from the lives of those who do good and who claim that this good comes from their connection to Jesus, really does come from the impact of Christ on their lives, even while the sin that is seen in the lives of authentic Christians, and the evil done by those who falsely claim Christ, comes from a source other than Jesus─coming from what you rightly identify as the human condition of doing good and evil (although I think when completely free from the influence of Christ, ultimately more evil than good). My explanation for this is nothing more than the standard description of the sinful nature of humanity since the fall coupled with the redemption of humankind with the saving ministry of Jesus. The "saved" positive characteristics of humanity, and certainly in the lives of those who are Christian, stem from the impact of Jesus. For this Jesus and his new covenant relationship to humankind deserves the credit, where the results of human nature, it seems to me, need to be laid at the feet of fallen humanity. If there is really God, and if he really sent Christ, then there seems to me no inconsistency, irrationality, naiveté, about such a response.
I am still particularly curious about how this whole line of inquiry ties into your thesis that it is intellectually irresponsible to reject Christianity without a significant intellectual investigation into its merits. It seems to me that a different question is primarily being addressed: whether Christianity has been a historical benefit or burden on the world. I think it is an interesting question, but even if I am persuaded of your conclusion, it does not undermine my central objection that consideration of some philosophical puzzles and the application of heuristics can lead to the rejection of Christianity, while maintaining fidelity to principles of intellectual responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI think we agree that if Christianity is carefully defined to include only its virtuous aspects, and the actions of persons not consistent with this definition are discounted, then it will follow that many virtuous actions are in fact consistent with Christianity.
The reason I characterized your "empirical" claim as speculative is because it depends on attributing behaviour motivation without a causal analysis. You point out that "[people who do good deeds] seem to have been impacted by Jesus both because they claim this is case and because their attitudes and actions fit with what Jesus did and taught." I think this ignores the fact that being consistent with Christianity (or "coherent with") is only part of the story. It attributes too much to Christianity which results from its status as a widespread social phenomenon, and ignores the fundamental drivers of human behaviour. I'm sure we agree that in the absence of Christianity some other religion or collection of religions would have taken hold of the human population. Atheism has always been a minority player. The very same people who became Christians, let us suppose, might have become Confucians. This is where Christians wishing to take credit for widespread moral principles seem to run into trouble. An ethic of reciprocity, of universal love etc. existed well before Christianity, and continues to come from a variety of sources (see, e.g., the good Samaritan). People who do good works in the name of Christianity would very plausibly have done similarly in the name of Confucianism, or whatever other worldview took hold. The best evidence for this is that charitable giving, service etc. is associated with all religious faiths, not just Christianity. The latter just happens to be the largest. And as this changes, and the number of Christians continues to decline, I suspect that the number of hospitals, orphanages, and helping hands will remain unaffected. But as I pointed out, this is speculative.
Consider a simple example of two religions. The first has ten adherents, the second only two. The first donates $1000 and builds five orphanages. The second donates $200 and builds one orphanage. On a global scale, the first religion has done "more good" but it is a function of the number of adherents, not the influence the religion has on individuals. Individuals in both religions may very plausibly have contributed equally, no matter which religion was chosen.
ReplyDeleteConsider a person who is raised Christian, and does good works. That person may well have done good works without Christianity. Even if the person attributes Christianity as the source of his or her good works, this says almost nothing about actual causes of behaviour.
Consider a person who is raised Christian, does good works, and then leaves the church. The person continues to do good works. Now the person attributes the cause differently, but there is no convincing evidence about the true cause.
The "empirical evidence" of the good of Christianity is much more complex than you imply. A simple counting of Christians, institutions in the name of Christianity etc. would be very misleading. Any reasonable analysis would also include the negatives of Christianity, though I understand that many Christians would like to exclude this, calling such behaviour inconsistent with Christianity. My own view is that, even on what I see as an unreasonably constrained view of Christianity, there is still plenty of objectionable material. The influence of Christianity on the world, even carefully defined in your favourable terms, is still deeply problematic. Troubling views of women, family, forgiveness/responsibility, and damnation are all found even in the New Testament. Even if you personally do not accept such problematic interpretations, it follows as always that many reasonable people are unfortunately, though quite reasonably, persuaded by these views.
Even if Christianity does, on balance, more good than harm, what does that tell us? Surely adherents of every comprehensive worldview make precisely the same argument. If your main argument is that the good/evil balance suggests we take a serious look at Christianity for its truth, rather than its utility, then it is not a particularly important point for your overall claim that it is intellectual irresponsible to reject Christianity without a serious and long look at the religion. As I pointed out before, it is intellectually responsible, and much more efficient, to simply apply a few decision heuristics and tackle some fundamental puzzles rather than getting tied down in (often biased) theology, history etc.