Christianity confuses me!
Feb. 7th, 2004 05:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livSo, months ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 06:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 06:23 pm (UTC)And evangelists: much as I like my evangelist friends, and much as appreciate their concern for my immortal soul, it annoys me when they tell me that my life has no meaning and cannot possibly be fulfilling without God.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 06:27 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 06:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 07:16 pm (UTC)I wouldn't expect every practising Christian to do a PhD in biblical interpretation, no. That would be taking things too far. But I do find it odd that an active engagement with the text is so rare among Christians.
And I agree with you, that it's odd that people who are generally scholarly suddenly become totally uncritical with respect to the Bible. Now, I do know Jews who are a bit like that, but at least they do study texts in depth, just with a different approach from what they would use for studying anything else.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 07:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 07:45 pm (UTC)That goes back to the 'not hearing the music' thing. I think it's very hard to understand a religion unless you're seeing it from the inside. This may well mean that religion is all baloney and based on circular arguments; I don't happen to think this is the case, but it may be so. I find religions other than Judaism confusing, but I expect this because I simply don't know enough about them. And this is why I try to learn as much as I can through my interfaith work. But I know I'll always be an outsider.
The thing is, with Christianity, simply from being immersed in it, I know more about it than other religions that are not my own, and yet it still confuses me far more than, say, Islam or Sikhism. I just keep choking on the proselytizing thing, which makes it that much harder for me to say, oh well, different set of concepts and different culture from mine, no wonder I don't really understand.
For example, how can anyone seriously believe that the Supreme Being cut a special deal with an obscure band of nomads?
This doesn't seem significantly more remarkable than that said Supreme Being cares about humanity at all, much less that mere humans can have an almost-personal relationship with God. I can easily see why someone might have a problem with those things, and indeed that strikes me as a perfectly respectable argument for deism. But given a personal, involved God, why should a special deal with obscure nomads be particularly problematic?
Doesn't the whole idea of a Chosen People imply massive disrespect for everybody else?
I honestly don't think so. No more than the fact that I'd choose a plumber to fix my boiler implies that I have disrepect for electricians.
I think that people who are not part of my group have a different contribution from me to make to God's plan. Their beliefs may be good or bad, they are just not my beliefs. Christians, AIUI, think that people who are not part of their group are simply wrong, and their beliefs are worthless. To me, the second attitude is far more disrepectful. It may be that I am misrepresenting Christianity here, but that's the impression I have, and that's what bothers me.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 08:05 pm (UTC)On the personal God thing, I have seen it from the inside. I was once a practicing Anglican. Ultimately I find the phlosophical and logical contortions necessary to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil quite bizarre. Certainly in other context than organised religion such beliefs would get one diagnosed as schizophrenic.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 08:15 pm (UTC)Similarly with faith, I pretty much follow what CS Lewis says:
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 08:57 pm (UTC)In the vast majority of Christian societies, there has been no way of getting at the source texts and even for those that could, there was no way of getting as close to the source as the translators managed- after all, they were supposed to be experts. This view has unfortunately stuck in many places.
Most people don't like to break them. They therefore provide an extra source of strength for people thinking of tuning their back on Christianity. As for vows taken on behalf of someone else. Grr! (They rely on notions of responsibility).
With any religion, you need to explain the nature of evil. This way works. It's both abhorrent and incorrect, but it is logically near-sound.
If by this, you mean the doctrine of "Salvation by Faith Alone", that's an artifact of the Reformation that has grown far beyond its usefulness and is misunderstood by many of its proponents anyway (see point 1). Pre- the Reformation (and in the West...), your standing with God was thought to be equivalent to your standing with his Holy Church and the priests that represented him on earth. The Catholic Church pre-reformation used this to make money by e.g. the selling of indulgences. The answer to this was Salvation by Faith Alone - i.e. your standing with God rather than with any mortal agency. Unfortunately this has both grown out of control and been corrupted over the years- if one has faith then one should act accordingly and e.g. works should come out of this- although the corruption is to forget this. Good idea (in fact one I agree with to an extent) but one that has been perverted by misunderstanding.
You see someone doing something wrong and you often want to help them. If you know (and here you and I differ from evangelists) that you are right and they are wrong, you try to get them to do the right thing. At root it is a charitable, if unflattering impulse.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-07 08:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-07 10:52 pm (UTC)[Texts]
Obviously, this was one of the things that all my Christian friends took very seriously. All of them learnt both Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew. All of them agree that you can't properly engage with the texts without learning at least some of the original language.
[Faith]
I had some talks with my Christian friends about whether or not God would blame me/punish me for being a non-believer, even though I do my best to be a morally upright person. They all agreed that since God is good, there's no way he'd heap blame on me simply for not becoming a Christian. Some Christian thinkers and philosophers of religion argue that God would actually be angry if an atheist tried to force themselves to believe something that goes against their natural God-given faculties of reason or intuition.
[Proselytizing]
I can understand why this upsets people, and coming fromcertain types of Christian it upsets me too. But I can also understand that if you believe that you've found something incredibly special and true in the Christian faith then you'd want to share that with other people.
Obviously, my experiences have been with inquiring, open-minded Christians. I'm sure there are other Christians out there who are not nearly as reasonable. But I'm not sure whether to blame the whole religion for this, or just those particular Christians.
I like your analogy of looking in through the window and not hearing the music. Despite lots of thought, discussion and study of religious ideas, I still don't 'get it' and probably never will. In fact, I think I've even opened the door and gone right into room, but I seem to be deaf. ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 08:41 am (UTC)You're very welcome to contribute if you are prepared to keep your tone polite.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 03:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 04:45 pm (UTC)The serious Bible reading Christians I knew would usually have several translations of the Bible and would make use of tools like Blue Letter Bible. Actually knowing enough Greek to read the NT in the native language was rarer, though.
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?
I never really saw this as being about blame, but rather about the spiritual state of humanity after the Fall. A bit of a fine distinction, perhaps, since in either case the effect is that without faith in JC it is impossible to please God.
It does seem a bit odd that it's predicated on having exactly the right views about such things as the nature of God
I'd be very surprised to see Christians saying that a correct understanding of the Trinity is essential for salvation, since it's practically impossible to talk about the Trinity without falling into some heretical -ism or other. Have you come across this?
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.
I'm hardly going to disagree here, although, again, I am surprised that the Christians you have encountered place such an emphasis on theological correctness for salvation, although not surprised that some consider it very important for church order.
One thing which S came up with about salvation by faith was "how much faith is enough?" My ex, K, and I once had a discussion in which she said that salvation by faith was fairer because otherwise you didn't have somewhat arbitrary pass mark for good works, but I never thought to ask S's question. I think that question rather telling, since it exposes arguments within Christianity about whether faith is a work, Calvinism vs Arminianism and so on.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 05:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 06:46 pm (UTC)How is this question relevant? It depends massively how you define the continuity between the nomads who originally joined the Abrahamic covenant and modern day Jews!
To say that the band of nomads is still around is a near-meaningless assertion. You might as well argue that the Trojan empire still flourishes because Aeneas founded the Roman empire and parts of Europe still show Roman influence.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-08 07:01 pm (UTC)Does Islam not also proselytise and hold that other groups are wrong?
Sorta. From what I know about it I find their attitude a lot less offensive than the Christian equivalent. Muslims, in my experience, feel that it is their duty to educate people about Islam, so that they are able to make informed decisions. This can still result in the annoyance of being pamphletted and buttonholed and generally preached at (indeed, in the past few months I have encountered Muslims who are nearly as annoying as the worst kinds of Christians!), but the annoyance isn't really what bothers me, so much as the core attitude that we're right and everyone else is wrong, which seems to be largely absent from Islam.
Muslims, I believe, also have the nice getout that anyone who lives a life that is acceptable to God counts as Muslim anyway, regardless of whether they formally convert or even have heard of Islam. Well, still I prefer the attitude I have picked up from Judaism that non-Jews are just as likely to be good people as Jews. But at least saying that everyone who lives a godly life is de facto Muslim is, IMO, preferable to saying that non-Christians are intrinsically inferior, no matter how exemplary their life. I do know of some liberal Christians who have a similar idea; yes, you have to be Christian to be saved, but it's possible in their view to be a Christian without knowing it.
On the personal God thing, I have seen it from the inside. I was once a practicing Anglican.
I do apologize if I implied that you were speaking from ignorance. I meant to emphasize that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I can see how it could be interpreted to apply to you, which wasn't my intention at all.
Ultimately I find the phlosophical and logical contortions necessary to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil quite bizarre
Hmm, the problem of evil. That was something I was thinking about adding to my list of 'why I don't get Christianity'. Because it seems to me that by theologizing evil you risk making evil sound like a positive thing. I will try to formulate a more properly thought out comment than that, though.
This kind of thing is tangential to my not getting the concept of faith, though. The thing is, there are plenty of Jews, probably even the majority, who have heterodox views about all sorts of things, and for the most part they're still Jewish. Whereas if you're Christian, you have to accept all that doctrine wholesale or else stop being Christian. That strikes me as putting a huge burden on Christians; it seems to me, as a person of rather little faith as these things go, rather difficult to be constant and unwavering in all your beliefs, especially where such fraught metaphysical questions are concerned.
(no subject)
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!
Re:
Date: 2004-02-08 08:04 pm (UTC)Islamic states traditionally levied extra taxes on non-believers and excluded them from all kinds of public office.which was certainly intended as an incentive to convert. According to the Koran it also a capital offence to become an apostate or to seek to convert Muslims to another faith.
Whereas if you're Christian, you have to accept all that doctrine wholesale or else stop being Christian
I don't think we are comparing apples to apples here. 'Being Jewish' isn't just about religion whereas 'being Christian' is. So you can still claim to be Jewish even if you reject all the religious stuff (my father in law for example).
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 01:11 am (UTC)One of the three major creeds of the church (with the Apostles and the Nicene- the three endorsed by the 39 articles of religion for the Anglicans (although the Athanasian Creed seems to be in eclipse and have been dropped from the liturgy), endorsed by the Catholic Encyclopaedia and seems to also be necessary for the Orthodox), it starts "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." and ends "This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-09 12:41 pm (UTC)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!)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:20 pm (UTC)The parties in the Protestant churches who would most like to anathemise the rest of the church these days are mainly concerned with the status of scripture and the workings of the atonement (and have formulated their own credal statements to serve as the equivalent of the Athanasian creed for that purpose).
The 39 Articles aren't really rules, merely guidelines. When was the last time you heard someone preach from the Book of Homilies for example?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-09 03:43 pm (UTC)wrt Mel Gibson's Passion film, I've seen trailers for it in the last couple of weeks, and it looks thoroughly tangled up in its own self-consciousness and self-importance and generally icky. There is no need to retell that story that way again, and when I compare it to a work of genius like Jesus de Montreal, [ which we saw again a few weeks back ] which does a phenomenal amount with how the story of Jesus echoes and has relevance in the modern world, there's just no need for it to exist.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 05:40 pm (UTC)The third (and Orthodox) belief is that of overcoming death and breaking its power (and possibly that of hell)- it is a matter of the rules having been changed for the better rather than one of redemption.
Anglicans seem to believe any or all (or occasionally none (Abelard uncombined with anything else)) of the above... not that this is out of character for Anglicans.