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

[lisekit.livejournal.com]

I don't get how anyone is prepared to take someone else's word for what a sacred text actually says.

The inner linguist in me agrees entirely; but on the other hand one of the most radical moments in Western Christianity came about with the first vernacular translations of the Bible. The illiterate peasantry in the 16th century couldn't really be expected to learn Hebrew, Greek or Latin, and so were theologically restricted by the clergy's version of what was actually being preached. You get a lot of genuinely radical thinking once Tyndale's bible appears in Britain, and people start to take issue with "offical" versions of what Scripture is said to mean.
Likewise, you get another radical shift when literacy becomes more widespread in the 18th century, and people read along in their Bibles and debate over the meaning of the text. What I'm saying is, that when people gain access to Scripture (in this case, through translation and through increased literacy), then you see vigorous and interesting debate; wheras when people sat passively through sermons in non-vernacular languages, you have much less in the way of theoloical thinking among the masses. So I think the vernacular translations of Scripture have been a healthy thing, enabling people to access new dimensions of the Christian faith.

I would add that I woud expect any serious mondern scholar to be conversant with the original texts; but of course not everyone is a serious scholar, and I still think it's important for the lay to be involved at an appropriate level.

(Obviously, vernacular translations worldwide were an important part of proseltysing!)

[liv]

Wow, that's a really interesting historical perspective, thanks for that. And I love the idea that you have an inner linguist.

I should point out here that I am not at all against translations. I'm not like certain Muslims who believe that the Koran can only ever be in Arabic, or like the rabbis who instituted a fast to mourn the tragedy of the Septuagint existing. What surprises me about a lot of (not all, by any means) Christians is that they don't look at the original at all, they're satisfied with a translation only.

The illiterate peasantry in the 16th century couldn't really be expected to learn Hebrew, Greek or Latin
The thing is, though, that the church had loads of resources and influence. There was nothing to stop them from educating people, but this was never seen as a priority. I am aware of Muslim Sharia schools where even illiterate people are taught the Koran (and enough Arabic to at least get by). And Jews have pretty much always made general literacy and familiarity with scripture a priority, even in the middle ages when they lived in largely illiterate societies. That this didn't happen in Christianity is an indication that access to the texts wasn't taken seriously.

I would add that I woud expect any serious mondern scholar to be conversant with the original texts; but of course not everyone is a serious scholar, and I still think it's important for the lay to be involved at an appropriate level.
I think I disagree with you here. I have no issue with serious Christian scholarship; it exists, and have no reason to believe it's at anything less than the highest standard. What bothers me is precisely that lay people and 'ordinary' people have so little engagement with the text. If it's the basis for your religion, it ought to be of more than just academic interest.

(Obviously, vernacular translations worldwide were an important part of proseltysing!)
Yes, but being nice to people is sometimes part of proselytizing too. The goal is the problem here, not the means. I have to admit that the Hebrew translation of the New Testament is considerably freaky, mind you.

Re:

[lisekit.livejournal.com]

I agree with quite a lot of what you are saying above, but I think that

lay people and 'ordinary' people have so little engagement with the text. If it's the basis for your religion, it ought to be of more than just academic interest.

could be the source for a whole different discussion. Certainly, for some practising Christians, personal faith is of far greater importance than Scripture or law or ritual (I know that in itself is moving outside the textual frame as well, but I guess that's also part of the issue - for some, text is not all-important).

Some sects of course place a great deal of emphasis on textual interpretation and discussion and scriptural understanding; but some place more importance on either personal faith, or a relationship with God mediated by a spiritual authority.

[liv]

Certainly, for some practising Christians, personal faith is of far greater importance than Scripture or law or ritual
That's a very good point, Lise, and thanks for the interesting discussion. Christians who don't think text is important don't bother me at all. It's the ones who do think the Bible is important, but who don't study it at all rigorously or in the original language.

Sort of: "We have to beat up gay people because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God, so if you don't listen to it you're obviously evil" And you can't question the translation of what sexual act exactly is forbidden, or compare other uses of the word translated by 'abomination', or investigate the chain of interpretation from that verse to beating up gay people...

Now, obviously that's a deliberately extreme example, and obviously most Christians don't believe that the Bible tells them to beat up gay people. But it's the general attitude of 'the Bible is really really important but not important enough to actually put effort into studying' that bothers me.

[lisekit.livejournal.com]

On that, I can only agree with you!