To sum up
Theresa at Frasch Ideas wrote the following comment, and it perfectly sums up my feelings after reading the Martin Luther King biography that I reviewed yesterday. This question formed in my head as I read the book, and it started my slide into questioning and doubting Christianity -
Why is it that Christianity is the only religion that claims a creator God (via the Holy Spirit) takes up “residence” in the life of the believer but it doesn’t produce people who act any better than anyone else, especially it’s pastors?
There are many people with loving and serving lifestyles, who pay no mind to God. And there are many pastors and priests who are total skunks. And of course, all moral flavors in between. Where is the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit? How does it manifest itself – by the ‘Fruits of the Spirit’? A fellow Christian friend recently told me that God exhibits his miracles today by peoples’ changed lives. Huh? I see no miracle there. Love, Joy, Peace, Long-Suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith and Meekness all come exclusively from the power of the God of the Universe and are imparted only to his believers? Come again? That just defies common sense. People of most every non-Christian religion exhibit those behaviors, but the Spirt Filled members of my church, including myself, were nothing extraordinary, in fact we were quite apathetic. There was no dunimus, no power to set us apart from the heathen.
So I will ask what Theresa asked – ‘Anybody out there have any answers’?
View the original article here.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I have 2 ideas about that. First, that when Jesus told the disciples that the Counselor was coming after his death, he did announce that there was to be a universal aspect to the ministry, as in John 16:8. How does the Spirit work in believers? By helping us to be aware of sin then repent. How does the Spirit work in non-believers? By helping them be aware of sin and repent. Clearly, people can stagnate as believers if they choose; the indwelling Spirit is a still, small voice who can easily be drowned out by self and the world. The way you hear preachers these days talk, you’d think the Spirit is like a form of magic that works despite our lack of effort. I think I’ve already mentioned Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, and the likely motives why people choose to go into ministry, which is a big reason for stagnation. American Christianity is generally very shallow. It places little emphasis on holy living, avoids tough subjects (when was the last time you heard a sermon against divorce?), choses its leaders badly, mixes patriotic jingoism with the faith, and puts itself into the public square as a dominionist political movement. Yet, I still say, I’ve known many very saintly people in churches that I find rarely in other settings.
Second, imagine, if you can, the world as it likely would exist today if Christ had never come. We’d have gladiators, massive slavery, human sacrifices, temple prostitutes, euthanasia of mentally disordered or infirm, glorification of warfare, and no notion of equality or true liberty. So, you and me and those folks in your church might not just seem lukewarm in the fruits of the spirit, but likely almost entirely lacking in them. (I doubt monotheism would have survived, the Romans utterly sacked Judea in 70 AD, and repeated it a few times for bad measure. The lack of any sign of monotheism’s power would have allowed polytheism to flourish, it being triumphant.) I would not want to have lived in that kind of world. The world we live in now demonstrates the effect of a whole lot of salt and light over the years, which can be observed in both believers and non-believers of this generation.
March 4th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Ed,
Your first paragraph is well stated and I can only say “Amen!” However, I must take serious issue with your second paragraph. This line of reasoning is faulty. Your counterfactual world doesn’t seems any worse than the real world in which Christianity exists. We have the Crusades, the Inquisition, the American slavery, racism, KKK, Milosovic, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Moa, the Khmer Rouge, Islamic fundamentalism, Darfur, Rwanda, etc. If the Holy Spirit is convicting the world of sin, he’s not doing it very well. Or he’s only affecting the ones who are already guilt conscious, those afflicted by Nietzche’s slave morality. What’s worse is that while Christianity has been utterly inaffective in curtailing these realities, it’s directly (Crusades, Inquisition) and indirectly (all Muslim based violence) responsible for most of it. If Christianity hadn’t been around, would Muhammed have created Islam? Probably not. The atheists who died on 9-11 died because of a religious groups hatred for the Christian West. I’m hard pressed to see your point.
I appreciate the ethical system that can be extracted from Christianity, but it has no objective, external efficacy apart from those who give such efficacy to Christianity. Once we grant the metaphysical assertions, we begin down a very slippery path.
March 4th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I guess my response to your critique is that there are tons of people who condemn the Crusades, KKK, Stalin, Hitler, etc. rather than glorify them. We may cheer when our team makes an interception, but we don’t seem to take much pleasure in seeing children eaten by lions or hearts ripped from sacrificial victims. I have a much lower estimate of the baseline behavior of human beings than you. Remember, the noble savage was more often than not a cannibal.
Did a rising tide raise all boats? No, but a vast number of boats enjoyed a better existence. I don’t think the NT ever implied that the world would be completely enlightened, or the Christian ever completely saintly in this world. But there is a ministry of reconciliation and a call to suffer. Imagine, again, if you can, taking a vacation in Scandanavia today if the Vikings were not yet influenced by Christianity.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
My original critique was aimed at the proposed net effect of Christianity which your counterfactual hypothesis seemed to assert. I don’t deny incidents and people(s) who have been somehow bettered by Christianity, Buddhism, even Islam. However, when one makes a global case for Christianity in the form of counterfactual worlds I think the evidence doesn’t support the claim. I’m not sure that the world as a whole is a better place in the end as a direct result of Christianity. This is the claim I was disputing. I apologize for any disrespectful tone, I just really dislike the counterfactual world argument.
I’m not so sure of the difference in our estimates of the baseline behavior of human beings. I view us pretty lowly, I also don’t subscribe to the noble savage perspective. If this in reference to my Nietzche comment, that was a pretty loose comment probably not worth the space it took up. Apologies again. Thanks again for the interaction.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Sorry, as I’ve said I’m not much of a philosopher. The counterfactual world hypothesis, I’m sure, is full of holes being hypothetical. However, it still makes sense to me, and seems to be the theme of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, from the promise of Abraham’s seed being a blessing to all peoples.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:41 am
I have to say that I take issue with both paragraphs of Ed’s statement. In the first paragraph, he seems to be saying that only Christians have a conscience. This is silly–non-Christian societies are no more crime-ridden or immoral than ours. The fact that you find more saintly people in churches than elsewhere is probably more a factor of your biased, limited sampling coupled with the high degree of religiousness in this country. Expand your horizons and you may find yourself surprised.
Your second paragraph exhibits the common fallacy of believers to directly attribute everything good to their religion, and everything bad to something else. Do you have any evidence that Christians exhibit more moral behavior than non-Christians in similar circumstances? Do I need to remind you of the historical role Christianity played in slavery, violence, and war? Do I need to remind you of the history of Christianity in maintaining despotic royalty and squelching equality? Do you need to read the Epistles again to remind yourself of Christianity’s stance on equal rights for women? Monotheism would not have died out–Judaism is still going despite Christianity, not because of it. Polytheism is still doing fine, and it still has plenty of adherents. The Crusaders themselves practiced cannibalism in the First Crusade, but cannibalism was not rampant in the Roman Empire pre-Christianity. Heck, those who truly believe in transsubstantiation are cannibals.
Broaden your horizons a bit; the civilized world does not end outside of Christianity’s hedgemony. Christianity is an interesting and dominant religous and sociological phenomenon, but it is not the material salvation of the world. At least in the secular, sense, there is no reason to believe that society would not have muddled along just fine without it.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I understand what Ed is getting at though – and I think Shygetz and Agnosis made some excellent points – defintely worth considering.
Can the teachings of Christ make someone’s life better? Yes. For someone to rule this out as a possibility is making an illogical assumption or generalization. There defintely is a lot of stuff that has happened under Christian regimes (of sorts – as I call it – religio-political conditions) that is deemed outright ‘horrible’ – but that isn’t the only reflection this faith has given. That’s tantamount to saying because the some Muslim countries have suidide-bombers the whole religion should be cast in that shadow (including the countries and their policies). In many of these cases it comes down to down-right ignorance on behalf of the people purpotrating the crimes – who as Sam Harris would say ‘cherry pick’ their teachings – in most of these horrible cases only pick a ‘judgemental aspect of it’.
On a personal level, this faith in Jesus has improved my family and my personal life – actually resulting in all of my family pursuing higher values than what it is being taught within our communities. Some might say will it’s ‘this or that factor’ – but if I being totally honest – most of the external factors I grew up with took me down many dead-end roads (ex: crime, welfare society, poverty, hatred, anger, gangs, etc…). In Canada, the neighborhood I grew up in is considered ‘the worst neghborhood in Canada’ (by Maclean’s) and the statistics are absolutely terrible, but brutally honest. I was a product of that system to the fullest and all my external factors did not make life better, it honestly wasn’t until I was taught about Jesus’ teachings that I sought some higher values to life and better ways of dealing with personal problems. So in some senses, this faith isn’t always the horrible face it gets branded with. Sometimes good loving people arise out of it that are very concerned for the plight of their fellow humans (ex: King Jr. and Mother Teresa)…some of the most inspiring characters of the 20th century (one of whon set in motion the total end to slavery – segregation).
But I do agree with Shygetz and Agnosis on the facts about history and the trials and tribulations it has come through – many of them came from outright ‘warped’ Christian value systems (and us and them mentality – which is very destructive). But I had to chime on on the fact that the faith has many good components too – some of which we gloss over for more sensational attributes. And I for one think we, as Christians, have to oppose the religious right and anything done in the name of Jesus that just seems illogical (ex: shooting abortion doctors, picketing gay pride parades and gay funerals, and ‘jonestown-isms’ of ‘us vs, them’).
March 6th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I just finished reading all the replies here, and it is great that such intelligent and diverse people actually read this stuff. I have nothing to add other than that I also have greatly benifited in my Christian belief. Christianity has given me a moral basis, a real love for giving and charity, shown me humility and my proper perspective in this world, and a sense of mystery and wonder for the unknown. All that is absolutely true. I can also tell you that my father has benifited in all those ways in his faith – in Mormonism. Now some would claim that my evidence of salvation is by my Fruits. How to account for someone with such “heretical” views as my dad?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I think one of the issues is to look at the primary source(s) to determine which brand of theism makes the most sense. This interview is of interest in evaluating that issue. Antony Flew, one of the most prominent atheists of our time, has become a theist. He does not commit to any religion, due to his continuing skeptical philosophy, but this interview is instructive in terms of what “brand” of theism makes the most sense: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ . I would say the same thing about Mormonism as he says about Islam, the primary source is not reliable. Here is another interesting link about communication in the Bible: http://www.quodlibet.net/thron-communication.shtml .
March 7th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“Now some would claim that my evidence of salvation is by my Fruits. How to account for someone with such “heretical” views as my dad?
” ( HeisSailing)
For this problem is a real toss up for me – since I do believe what I read in the gospels is a type of ideology to ‘live by’. Same things Muslims believe and also the Mormons (and hoardes of other religions).
I have to go the simple and easy route on this one. If someone loves and follows the teachings of Jesus (which also means they love and respect the person of Jesus) – then they will show this in their daily living…which is the truest sign of respect/worship. I chalk it up to ‘following Jesus’ as was said to the first disciples. In this is the proof they actually believe what Jesus is saying.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
HIS and SocietyVs,
I don’t think anyone is saying that no good comes from following the teachings of the Christian religion. I myself have, and continue to be, benefited from its teachings. The problem comes when a direct causal relationship is purported between any particular (specific) theological/metaphysical belief and any ethical action in an absolute sense. At least a couple factors seem to be in play when an apparent causal relationship is observed. First is generalisation, second is psychological. But more importantly, religion is for the most part transcendental ethics. I think that the changes for the better observed by those who live a waywayrd lifestyle and choose to follow a religion are the effects of following a systematic ethical system (generalisation) couched in mythical archetypical concepts (psychological). SocietyVs alluded to this in the repeated phrase “higher values.”
Positive moral reality is not the sole property of any theological system, just as negative moral reality isn’t either. But as the classic problem of evil demonstrates, negative moral reality is exactly what precludes any religion from attempting to claim exclusive causal rights to positive moral reality. To answer your question about your father (HIS), “fruits” are an intrinsicly human byproduct, just as much as theologizing is an intrinsically human action. I could offer many examples of atheist humanitarians and theologically orthodox adulterers, but I think the point is clear by now.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
ED L – I really like the links – I think I will check those out and read through them – this is the reason I love blogs – someone always shows me something I knew nothing about.
“following a systematic ethical system (generalisation) couched in mythical archetypical concepts (psychological).” (Agnosis)
I love this viewpoint and explanation – it’s deep but very understandable – thanks Agnosis – I think it explains things quite well.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
One interesting aspect of Christianity is the blend of law and grace. I have found it confusing at times, did Christ cancel the law for me, or just part, or possiblly, ought I to uphold even OT laws? For me, the last part of Colossians 2 is a very freeing place. I find the framework by Kohlberg, see http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm if you want to read up on it, to be a useful idea to help on that. I’ve also grown to appreciate the need for concrete rules, even for adults, since I’ve had my daughter who has Down Syndrome. She will never be able to abstract very well, and will need “commandments”, not “act in gratitude for the grace God has shown you”, as I tend to conceptualize my inner motivation to act better. Since grace-driven motivation is a concept only understood by people at the higher Kohlberg stages, is it possible that Christianity could be characteriszed by a higher number of Stage 5 or 6 people emerging from its influence than other religions? It would make an interesting study: look for example at China, a place with a long history of literacy and Confucianism, and compare it to Europe, and try to determine which civilization produced the most Stage 6 individuals recorded to history.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:30 am
The idea of “grace” seems to be more couched in Stage 3 than Stage 5 or 6. Also, Christianity is largely based in Stage 1 (e.g. Pascal’s Wager); therefore, your test could well find a prepoderance of punishment-oriented people. Also, remember that Christianity historically upheld authoritarian arrangements (e.g. 1 Peter 2:13-20, Titus 2:9-12), which is clearly a Stage 4 mentality. China also wouldn’t be a good comparison with the US, as there are too many other variables than religion. You would want to compare a religious country with its nearest equivalent in a different religion.
The interesting thing about Flew’s conversion to deism is what he bases it on. Flew is a philosopher (and a very prominent one, at that). He finds all of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God to be poor (argument from morality, ontological argument); these are arguments in which his expertise is clearly beyond reproach. The only arguments he finds promising are the scientific arguments (cosmological and teleological), which are the arguments in which he has zero expertise (and, indeed, in which he pretends no expertise). Which goes to indicate that the creationists of various stripes (YEC, OEC, IDers) have put on an excellent PR campaign. If Flew had said that he had a change of heart and now finds the ontological argument compelling, I would sit up and take notice. As it stands, he is making an opinion based on ignorance, which is always dangerous.