The Hijacking of Christianity

Recently I was listening to a popular radio personality who called the Muslim community to speak out against the the acts of terrorism that are being done in their name. He suggested that the Islamic extremists have "hijacked" the public's image of Islam and that, if the Muslim community feels this doesn't represent mainline Islam, they need to publicly denounce these terroristic acts. Of course, we have not seen much of this, and the implication was that these acts are passively endorsed by the rest of the community.

This caused me to consider the community I claim to be a part of and the public image of Christianity. Are we permitting Christianity to be "hijacked" by those who commit their own acts of hatred under the guise of Christianity? The military funeral protesters, two-faced televangelists, gay bashers, and their ilk continue to dominate any news regarding Christianity and color it with their hatred. The abortion clinic bomber is commonly cited as Christianity's version of a terrorist, though there hasn't been one in almost ten years. Are we passively endorsing their behavior by not speaking out against them and not living in a way that is a loud and clear contrast? Who can we point to who is living a life that is full of peace and forgiveness to counter-balance the damage that group of people is doing to the image of Christianity? Is there anyone being that outspoken for Christianity in a way that is drawing people to Christ rather than driving them away?

As I have said before, one should never judge a worldview by it's abuses. One must instead judge a worldview by what it asserts and the founder who asserts it (in other words, deal with the ideas themselves). However, this argument by itself will not win a skeptical public to Christ. In fact, while this argument is sound and logical, it seldom will ever change the way someone feels about Christianity.

I know Christianity will not always be popular in the public eye (Jesus' ministry and teaching make this clear), but we must be sure that when we are unpopular, it is for the right reasons. This will require Christians who are aggressive with the grace and hope of Christianity. This will take Christians who are biblically informed and know how to handle the Word and those who are not living by it. I know those who are building the Church will not always be given as big a platform as those defaming it, but neither can we sit by passively and let such people form the public's entire picture of Christianity.

So it begins with you and it begins with me. Living a biblically saturated lifestyle out loud and in a winsome fashion on what ever platform we're given. Even if it's only with class mates, co-workers, friends and family. It requires an ear for which "Christians" are making the news and a finger on the public pulse. It requires the biblical literacy to know those who are and aren't living in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the ability to articulate the difference. But, most importantly, it takes a life that is full of Christ and empty of hypocrisy that will win the skeptics with an aggressive hope, peace, and grace that is out loud.

The Genetic Fallacy and Political Issues

When discussing political issues, it seems that the Christian is often at a disadvantage from the outset. The question "Why do you impose your Christianity on everybody?" is sometimes used as a sort of misdirection to throw a Christian's argument off track. However, this charge bears no weight, not because Christians are innocent, but because every single person is guilty. Plainly, whether proposing, voting on, or challenging a law, everyone acts in accord with their own religion and/or worldview.

Every law imposes someone's convictions upon the rest of society. Speed limits exist because someone said "It is my conviction that placing restrictions on driving speeds is the best way to promote safety on the road". A law was proposed and a majority voted in favor (meaning that such a law coincided with the majority's viewpoint as well). In the same fashion, every law (once passed) imposes one's position on a certain issue upon everyone else. Essentially, law means "We impose upon you that you [do this thing or don't do this, you fill in the blank]."

Additionally, every position grows out of one's worldview. Every view is drawn out of an individual thinking "I believe the world operates in such a way, and these certain things are valuable, so my position on this issue is that . . . ". Thus a law like a speed limit is passed and enforced because an individual felt that human life was valuable and worth saving, and the majority of that individual's culture agreed.

Mind you, this does not excuse a responsible Christian from understanding and being able to defend a position beyond "The Bible says so". However, to discount a position just because it grows out of a Christian worldview is committing a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Again, the Christian must be knowledgeable about the merit of the position and ready to defend it, otherwise they are being just as lazy about their argumentation as the skeptic.

Thus, every law imposes somebody's convictions on everyone in that culture and all convictions come from somebody's worldview. So, while understanding this will not give your argument any additional credence, it can at least prevent your argument from being disregarded off-hand.

Note: This does not mean that we should try to make illegal everything that is a sin under Christian teaching (can you imagine a society where gluttony and lying are illegal?). Nor does this give us permission to judge the world by the same set of moral tenets and standards that we judge ourselves by inside the Christian community (Paul strictly prohibited this).

Christians and Our Martyr Complex

A poll taken earlier this year gives us a new perspective on the attitude towards Christians in the community of higher learning. This poll was designed and conducted by a Jewish group to gauge feelings of anti-Semitism in American universities, but what they found was far from their expected results. 53 percent of its sample of 1,200 college and university faculty members said they have "unfavorable" feelings toward evangelical Christians.

Said chief pollster Gary Tobin, "If a majority of faculty said they did not feel warmly about Muslims or Jews . . . there would be an outcry. No one would attempt to justify or explain those feelings." As Dr. Jim Eckman observed, "since higher education is training the next generation of leaders and is instilling them with a worldview, that worldview is biased against biblical Christianity".

I don't doubt, if polled, we would see a similar bais against Christianity mirrored in many other circles (politics, media, the sciences, etc.) as well. This results in a double standard when it comes to the public response to conflicts surrounding Christianity. Case in point: Kathy Griffin's "Suck it, Jesus" comment during this year's Emmys. I am fairly certain there would have been a much larger outcry had she degraded any other religion and their deity/s. However, I am inclined to point the finger at Christianity before I point it at others.

One of my biggest pet peeves is hearing Christians cry "martyr" the moment we feel slighted. We instantly play the "persecution" card and chalk it up as suffering for Jesus to avoid any self-evaluation about how we are presenting (and representing) Christ and the Gospel. Bypassing introspection, we charge on bull-headed in behavior that we think honors God simply because non-Christians react negatively to it. While Christ promised His followers they would receive hostile responses just as He did, such a response is not an instant endorsement that you are conducting yourself in a Christ-like manner. We must make certain that the tension rises out of the pure Gospel and not as result of an attitude that is abusive, ignorant, or self-righteous.

We should be constantly striving for a Christianity that is graceful and winsome rather than judgemental and overbearing. We should be studying to be intelligent and articulate in our presentation of Christ and the Christian worldview rather than close-minded and shallow. From religious issues (God, sin, etc.) to scientific issues (Intelligent Design, stem cell research, etc.) to social issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc.), we need to be prepared to give a more satisfying answer than "The Bible says so". The Gospel is offensive enough on its own, there is no need for us to add more offense to it. Instead, we should be administering a constant gut & heart check to make sure that the "persecution" we receive is brought on by the Gospel and not our own foolishness.

Why is there pain?

This question grows out of one of my previous posts entitled The Victims of Tyranny and Tragedy. The question arises: why must the fallen world be so painful? The answer is similar to my previous blog in that it is rooted in the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man (neither of which do we grasp the depth and severity of). However, these are only two of the factors and a third may surprise you. One of the main reasons this world is so painful is because of God's great love and compassion for us.

I know, this sounds ridiculous and contradictory but let me explain. As children, we learn what our bodies were not made for through pain (our hands were not made for the stove, etc.). In a similar way, God is trying to teach us as spiritual children that we were not made for this world. More precisely, we were not made primarily for any desire in this world but rather were made to desire God above all else.

This, in fact, is how the whole pain thing started. In the garden, man and woman rejected God as their supreme desire and chose the desire for autonomy and freedom from God (in the form of choosing the forbidden fruit) instead. Through this act, not only did man sin and become fallen, but the world was subjected to bondage to corruption and futility. Because of this, creation has not functioned in the perfect harmony that it was intended for.

Why? Why did God do this to the world? Why so many children with heart-wrenching disabilities? Why natural disasters that take so many lives? Why famines and diseases? As John Piper puts it, God put the world under a curse so that the physical horror we see around us would become a vivid picture of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost to the unspeakable wickedness of moral evil. God allowed the disorder of the natural world to match the disorder of the moral and spiritual world. Diseases and deformities are God's portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm and that is true even though some of the most Godly people bear the most horrible deformities.

Yet we don't feel it! In our present, fallen condition our hearts are so numb and so blinded we seldom feel the gravity of our sin. Almost no one feels the abhorrence that sin is or feels repulsed or nauseated at how they scorn the glory of God. We should feel as deeply about sin as we do about a friend's disability. We should feel as intense and bad about our immorality as we do about starvation. O, that we could feel how offensive and repugnant and abominable it is to prefer anything to your Maker! To plagiarize John Piper once more, the natural world is shot through with horrors that aim to wake us up from the dream world of thinking demeaning God is no big deal.

Thus, if there were not the pain that there now is, it would be far too easy to forget God and how we have spurned Him. It would be far too easy to prefer all the temporary pleasures that this world offers rather than prefer the eternal joy in Christ. To quote C.S. Lewis, "We are half-hearted creatures like an ignorant child wants to go making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the beach. We are far too easily pleased."

The Charges Against Christians

There are many names thrown at modern-day Christians but there are a select few that seem to be more common than the rest and seem to stick unusually well. Unfortunately, I have to admit that we have all too often earned them.

"Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay" says David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group and author of UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity. He continues, "What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves 'Christians' because of the baggage that accompanies the label." So let me address these charges from former to latter.

Of being anti-gay, I believe the church has sorely mishandled this issue. I have never understood why we treat homosexuality (inside or outside the church) as any different than any other sexual sin (adultery, premarital sex, etc.). They are all the same in the eyes of God. As Paul said, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?" Yet we have flipped them around, trying to change the lifestyle (of an outsider) before changing the heart (and bringing them within the church). Up until that point, we need to love them and witness to them in word and deed (just like every other lost person). If and when a conversion takes place, then the issue of homosexuality can be approached in a sensitive but uncompromising biblical approach with the assistance of the Holy Spirit working in their lives. Public policy is another matter and one I have addressed in a previous blog (see below).

To the charge of being hypocritical, I think most people use this word quite poorly. A hypocrite is one who professes beliefs of one sort but privately (or not so privately) practices the opposite without any attempt at change. For instance, no one would call a recovering alcoholic who disapproves of (and discourages others away from) alcoholism a hypocrite for having a momentary relapse. In the same way, Christians who discourage others away from and disapprove of a vice or sin but slip up and fall in that area don't quite fit the definition of hypocrite. The key is in the fight, the struggle, the effort to overcome. When the sin or vice becomes habitual, accepted or even celebrated then one crosses into hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there have been some very high-profile Christians who have been guilty of just that.

Addressing judgmentalism, I feel I've already said a bit. To the Christians, why are we judging those outside the church? To the rest, are we really guilty of as much hypocrisy as we're accused of? If we as Christians are to come under fire and garner a negative image , it should at least be for the right (and righteous) reasons. As Jesus said, "No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also." This is not golden ticket to interpret every bit of "persecution" as a sign you are doing the will of Jesus, only a proper understanding of Scripture will prove that in the end. Instead, too often we see a superficial "religion" in the guise of Christianity used to promote a person's bigotry, hatred, and self-righteousness. I don't expect John and Jane Doe to know the Bible well enough to see the duplicitousness of these individuals, so the burden falls on the true believers to live in a way that is lovingly and gracefully biblical and thereby reveal the disparity between the two. Only then will we be able to wear the label of "Christian" without being afraid of the stigma attached and knuckleheads who brought it upon us.

What is the unborn?

There is one question that makes or breaks the entire abortion issue for both sides. What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations. All arguments are either made irrelevant (if it is not a human person) or insufficient (if it is a human person). All the arguments reduce to this issue and either find their grounding or their nullification here. This argument was brought to my attention through a podcast that I cannot recommend highly enough (link below).

---

"Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate."
- Greg Koukl, founder of Stand To Reason Ministries

---

This argument may seem too simplistic to some, but I would suggest that it seems this way because we have made the issue too complicated. Arguments are presented regarding the health of the fetus, the relationship between the parents (i.e. rape, incest) and the rights of the mother. However, while these arguments do have issues that must be dealt with, they are secondary if the fetus in question is a person.

Every person's response should be obvious. No matter what side of the argument you fall on, there seems to be a clear burden on every person to answer this question. Any one who votes, who has any impact on public policy, should feel obligated to research enough to know whether or not a fetus is a human being.

http://www.str.org/

Who's forcing their views on whom?

I write this blog with more than a little trepidation of being mistaken as a bigot. So let me instead address the Christian community first. We have shot ourselves in the foot when it comes to the gay and lesbian community. We have largely remained silent about the love and forgiveness and life change available through Christ. Instead, we've blown homosexuality out of proportion and consider it somehow worse than the other sexual sins of premarital sex, adultery and pornography (sins occurring within the church). When we pick on homosexuality and turn a blind eye to these other sexual sins in the church, we are hypocrites. Unfortunately, the most vocal ones are the extremists who do not represent the majority of Christianity but form much of the public's opinion of Christianity. They are decidedly unbiblical in their bigoted thought and hateful speech and give no evidence of the grace and life change that a genuine conversion brings. My suspicion is that they are not part of the true body of Christ at all.

However, the homosexual community is committing one of the same errors that we as Christians tend to make. We seem to expect them to live by the same set of morals and values that we do without accepting our source for those values. In other words, we expect them to live up to Christian community standards without accepting Christ. We are guilty of trying to force them to live as if they accept our beliefs.

Yet they are doing the same thing, and on a much greater scale. The homosexual political lobby has exerted all it's strength to force it's view on the rest of society. They seek to pass laws or have judgements made in courts to force other people who have conscience concerns to the contrary to live as if they thought that same sex unions are exactly the same (naturally, socially, morally) as heterosexual unions. The majority of the people in this country do not adhere to such a stance, so to enforce something like same sex marriage statutes is to enforce such that is contrary to the public will.

It is not the religious side forcing it's views on gay community in this conflict, the Christian response has been largely on the defensive. The religious right would not be reacting if the homosexual lobbyists were not pressing to change laws to force people to accept their beliefs. Notice, there are no laws against homosexual relationships or unions, but there are also no allowances or exemptions for it. No rights are being infringed, but neither are any provisions being made. It seems to me that it's not the Christians who are forcing their views on the homosexual community, but rather the opposite.