Christianity confuses me!

[liv]

So, months ago, rysmiel asked me to go into detail about what it is about Christianity that I find so off-putting. I've been thinking about this in the intervening months, and I think I'm about at the stage where I can try to write it up.

I am aware that there are a number of Christians (of various flavours) reading this. This isn't a disclaimer, as such; if you want to take offence at this little essay, you're probably entitled to. To a very large extent, I'm shelving all I have learnt in over a decade of serious commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue, and reverting to my eight-year-old self who got into trouble for complaining to my form teacher, But your religion makes no sense! I do want to point out, though, that I don't mean this in any way as a personal slight against any Christian individual. I am also very well aware that Christianity isn't monolithic, and I do already realize that you could almost certainly point to a Christian who doesn't do or believe any one of the items on the list.

A parable that I rather like: To-what-may-this-be-compared? A traveller comes to a foreign country. He peeks in through the windows of a building, and sees people moving about in a bizarre way. These foreigners are right weird, he concludes, as he goes on his way. Later, a second traveller arrives at the same building. Instead of peeking through the windows, he knocks on the door. The foreigners welcome him in and he finds himself in a dance hall. At the moment I'm being the first traveller; Christianity looks weird to me because I don't hear the music.

• Translated texts. OK, some Christians don't take the Bible seriously, which is fine. But those who do think that Scripture has authority really confuse me when they don't bother to learn the original languages. I don't get how anyone is prepared to take someone else's word for what a sacred text actually says.
  
  
• Vows. Christians seem to be positively encouraged to make vows, and religious vows at that, all over the place. Vows that are not time-limited, vows that they have no way of being sure that they will be able to keep, vows that are too general so it's not clear what one is vowing. And there seems to be almost an expectation that vows will be broken. The kinds of Christians who accept divorce still make marriage vows, for example. Christians even make vows on behalf of others, which I find a seriously unpleasant concept.
  
  I know several people who prefer to publicly name themselves oathbreaker rather than live in a way that would be untrue to themselves. I have nothing but admiration for people who are brave enough to make that decision, but it seems to me a very bad thing for a religion to create the kind of situation where this is likely to be a frequent outcome. There are even, apparently, formal religious structures for abjuring / renouncing / annulling vows, which does suggest that the system is geared for vows not to be kept. And as for encouraging children to make vows they are too young to understand, that's simply obscene.
  
  
• Original Sin. Yeah, this is a pretty obvious one. Stereotypically, the Jewish / OT view of God is perceived as being too focussed on Justice (as opposed to Mercy). So maybe I'm living up to the stereotype a bit here, but I'm inclined to ask, Will not the Judge of all the earth do justice?; how can one follow a God who would be so utterly unfair as to blame the whole of humanity for something Adam and Eve did?
  
  
• Faith. Following on a bit from the previous one, I find it offensive that someone can live a completely blameless, even a saintly life, making the world a better place, and yet be condemned because they have wrong ideas about some extremely complicated matters of theology. I have no problem in principle that I don't understand how something like the Trinity is supposed to work, but I do have a problem if this means I'm going to Hell, however wonderful a person I may be. The converse, that someone who is absolutely horrible and vile, but manages all the mental gymnastics to understand and believe all the ins and outs of Christian teaching, can be forgiven, is less problematic; forgiveness is on the whole a good thing. It does seem a bit odd that it's predicated on having exactly the right views about such things as the nature of God, though, especially since I'm kind of inclined to think that anything that can reasonably be called God is probably beyond ordinary human understanding.
  
  
• Proselytizing. This is the big one, for me. However many aspects of Christianity I don't understand, (and there are lots I haven't listed here, because I'm focussing on the ones that really make my skin crawl), in general my attitude would be, well, that's because I'm ignorant, and trying to understand the Divine is so complicated that it's reasonable that different religions are going to come up with different approaches to spirituality. But proselytizing goes completely against that pluralism which is far more fundamental to who I am than any particular position I happen to take on any topic. I don't like proselytizing in general, but religious proselytizing is the very worst kind, it's an attack on something which, for those who are religious, is the very foundation of their life and identity.
  
  I suppose this does follow from the previous bullet-point; if one believes that theology is all-important, then it makes sense to want to bring as many people as possible to the 'correct' beliefs and thus to salvation. But it's so appallingly, sickeningly arrogant. (I'm not talking about the fact that certain evangelists use really crass methods of trying to get converts, I'm talking about the principle of holding that as an aim at all.) It's really, really hard for me to respect a belief system that is based on such a total lack of respect for not only my beliefs, but for those of anyone who thinks differently from the believer.
  
  Please feel absolutely free to argue with me, or tell me that I've got the wrong impression of how Christianity actually works, or whatever. Discussion is good.

Comments

[wychwood]

I'm not going to go into detail on most of your post, though I found it interesting (and not in the least offensive). But to bring up the proselytising point: this varies very greatly from denomination to denomination. As far as I understand it for the Catholic communities I've been a part of, you certainly *don't* go around pushing it down other people's throats; instead, you try to show other people *through your life* what it means to be a Christian, and if someone asks you, then you do the best you can to explain things to them. But door-knocking and so on is something that strikes me, also, as extreme arrogance. I may believe that my religion *is* true, but I could be wrong, and besides, who am I to judge others? That's not what God told us to do. Spread the word, yes, but don't bury people under it.

Similarly with faith, I pretty much follow what CS Lewis says:

"the Glorious One...said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me...if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him... But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have searched so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek." - The Last Battle

Not that I think any of the major religions follow Tash or his equivalent, but the idea that the seeker after truth will not be disappointed is one that makes a lot of sense to me. I cannot believe that a truly good, loving God (be he the Jewish or Christian one, or another entirely) could condemn people for living good, loving lives, but honestly believing and following something which was not the truth. That could just be my interpretation, but Jesus was not harsh or judgemental.

Yeah. Generally, all comments in this post are reflections of my opinion rather than Catholic doctrine, but hopefully don't contradict said doctrine. I may come back later and talk about some of the other points, because, again, I don't entirely agree with all of what you're saying.

[liv]

I found it interesting (and not in the least offensive)
Oh, thanks for the reassurance! I occasionally worry that I may be saying things that Christians might find offensive, because of the problems I have with understanding Christianity, and you seem to be very good at coming along and being all not offended. This I appreciate!

[liv]

But to bring up the proselytising point: this varies very greatly from denomination to denomination.
I am reasonably aware of this, yes. I was trying to pick out themes that are, as it were, common to Christianity 'in general', while acknowledging that there's never really any such thing. But precision of this sort is always good.

As far as I understand it for the Catholic communities I've been a part of, you certainly *don't* go around pushing it down other people's throats
I get the strong impression that since Vatican II, the Catholic church as a whole has been far more progressive on the issue of interfaith relations than most of the rest of the church. My personal attitude towards Catholicism is unfairly coloured by my mother's rather bad experiences at a Catholic school. I know, and she knows, that Catholics aren't all like that, but I also grew up with the horror stories!

you try to show other people *through your life* what it means to be a Christian
That sounds quite a lot like an attitude you could hear many Jews expressing, living as an exemplar rather than trying to change people's views through argument or any other tactics. Cool.

I may believe that my religion *is* true, but I could be wrong, and besides, who am I to judge others?
You are an excellent counterexample to my negative view of Christian evangelizing. This kind of attitude I can easily cope with!

I cannot believe that a truly good, loving God (be he the Jewish or Christian one, or another entirely) could condemn people for living good, loving lives, but honestly believing and following something which was not the truth.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel, so I'm very pleased to find a Christian taking the same attitude. It certainly suggests that the contrary pov is not as fundamental to Christianity as I was previously imagining. And thanks for that CS Lewis snippet; good illustration. Yay for lovely fluffy Christians like you and Lewis.

Lewis is interesting, actually; both ultra-liberal types and really scary obnoxious types seem to be fond of him. We use some writings of his for the 'guesting' section of our liturgy, incidentally.

Re:

[wychwood]

Just to get this out of the way now, though:
There are many, many illiberal, fanatically right-wing, extremely unpleasant elements in the Catholic church, even today. I have always been brought up within a fairly "Low Church", liberal, laid-back atmosphere, and therefore am speaking from that viewpoint. Unfortunately right-wing elements have grown dramatically within the last few years, and can present a very different perspective; there are a lot of people working to try and reverse many of the Vatican II reforms.

Mel Gibson's "Passion" seems quite likely to be an example of this. Though I admire his dedication to his faith, I understand that he is a member of a particular group within the Catholic Church that denies the rulings of Vatican II, and sticks to the older ways of doing things. That in itself says a lot about the kind of perspective he is likely to have.

And thank you for the compliments :) As a follow-up to the whole "offensive" idea, I wish to offer the observation that an individual honestly seeking after truth cannot be offensive to any other honest person.

The issue of translated texts is a contentious one; we put ourselves into the hands of translators when studying the Bible, it is true, but as lisekit pointed out, using translations has allowed any literate individual an immediate, personal access to the scriptures. While I think there are arguments both ways, the ability to refer easily to the actual source (though second-hand) seems preferable to me.

Interfaith dialogue has certainly been a substantial part of my Christian experience while at university. In my home parish, we don't have much interfaith contact, but a fair amount of interdenominational work. But at the Chaplaincy there was always at least one explicitly interfaith event every term. I think perhaps that it may be more of a Catholic than generally Christian thing in this country because we are a minority; there are times and places where Catholics are still subject to discrimination, or at least insults and unpleasantness, in a way that Church of England people are not. Jews, Muslims and so on also have that experience and awareness, and therefore there is more of a common ground that way.

CS Lewis is wonderful. His stance on women is... well, not especially liberal. But he writes so well on so many subjects, and has always seemed to me to have much of the core of the matter in him. You might well enjoy "The Screwtape Letters", which are unfailingly clever, humourous and exceptionally thought-provoking, as well as "Mere Christianity", which is based on a series of radio talks he did; it tries to find a Christianity which is not "Anglican" or "Catholic" or "Orthodox", but merely Christianity. I think he succeeds quite well, and thus provides a good overview of some of the most important ideas of Christianity.

I've just tried to comment on vows and original sin, but I can't seem to say what I mean, so I think I'll leave that for others who can answer more articulately...

[liv]

extremely unpleasant elements in the Catholic church
All religions, and all denominations, have their share of idiots. For my part, I just strive not to be one of them; I don't think their existence proves much except possibly about human nature.

Mel Gibson's "Passion" seems quite likely to be an example of this.
A lot of different groups seem to be rather up in arms about it. My impression has tended to be, well yes, the Bible is controversial; are we supposed to be surprised by this? But I don't know a great deal about the background, and I'm a bit inclined to regard it as someone else's problem!

an individual honestly seeking after truth cannot be offensive to any other honest person
That's an excellent maxim, I must say. I think it applies quite well to me, but I know I'm more thick-skinned about my religion than some, and I'd rather over-compensate than accidentally offend people.

The issue of translated texts is a contentious one
I'm not against the principle of translation! I just believe strongly in parallel texts, that's all.

at the Chaplaincy there was always at least one explicitly interfaith event every term.
Oh yes, I went to a couple of those. I also knew more than a few Anglicans who joined CathSoc because it seemed so much more palatable than OICCU.

because we are a minority... there is more of a common ground that way
That's a very good point, and one that hadn't occured to me. I can think of several examples of really productive interfaith collaborations which have arisen out of various religious groups approaching Jews and asking, how do you cope with being a minority?

I've just tried to comment on vows and original sin, but I can't seem to say what I mean
Well, if you do manage to frame something, I'd be really interested. With your background in mythology you're probably more aware than most of why vows are supposed to be important.

CS Lewis is wonderful.
Indeed he is. Thank you for the recommendations; Mere Christianity sounds like exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.