Posted by Bill Cecchini on: 12.05.2008 /
The other night I put this message on my Twitter and Facebook status:
One of my favorite things Christians do: pretend not to see each other so they can avoid having to say hi. So immature…
For the record:
A few emails, comments, arguments and questions later, I realized that I had hit a nerve with some people.
I’ve found myself, as problematic as I’m recognizing it to be, holding Christians to a higher standard than that of which I hold non-Christians. I can rationalize too:
So I often find myself looking at Christians, myself included, a bit up in arms: “And you call yourself a Christian???” I often think.
Look, I’m all about grace. I’m all about understanding. But where do I draw the line? What the the difference between a Christian who is growing and learning and a Christian who clearly hasn’t/doesn’t put any effort into becoming a person who truly loves God and loves one another?
Me, I look at these Christians and my first desire is to want to judge them: “You are a horrible Christian. Pick up your bible, read it, and take a long look in the mirror - you might be surprised,” I’d love to say. They can’t possibly justify their crappy attitudes/behavior if they’re reading the same bible as I am.
I’m learning that it’s a better idea for me to:
I won’t lie, though. There’s still a part of me that feels completely justified for feeling like this.
Why do I have to act like it’s ok for a Christian to claim the name of Christ while acting like a complete fool who has never been transformed into the new creation that the bible says we become?
Comment by: Jason
1Do Christians believe that they should be held to a higher standard than non-Christians? It seems to me that the belief that they gain a moral direction from the bible must mean that they believe that they are held to that. Does that make sense?
If Christians are supposed to do all the things you list and fail to then aren’t they falling short of their own standard? You aren’t judging someone on your own standards but on those that they proclaim, often loudly to the detriment of others.
Luke 19:22 Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee
Comment by: Mike O
2I wonder how much of it is just cultural? Are you talking just about the “pretending not to see each other,” or are you going after more than that?
I’ll grant you, Christians don’t seem to be better people than anyone else, and that bothers me, too. If the God we believe in is real, and Jesus was really his son and he really is still alive and it really does make a difference that we follow him, where’s the difference???
Comment by: Mike O
3jason, I think we strive for a higher standard, and that’s fine. But holding others to a higher standard that we, ourselves, can’t attain is probably not right.
With that said, however, if we *strive towards* a higher standard, shouldn’t we tend to be closer to that standard?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of days (believe it or not :))
My first reaction is to agree with you but I’m trying to see all sides of this :)
I do think it’s reasonable to hold people to any standard they claim is theirs.
I also think it’s good to affirm people when they make progress, even if they’re not ‘there’ yet. (Maybe none of us are ‘there’ yet)
If people are getting upset with you and calling you judgmental perhaps they feel you are unbalanced in that you are majoring on noticing the shortfalls and minoring on noticing progress/what’s going well.
How has it been made clear to you that the second person has put no effort into loving God and others? Are you sure? I know I sometimes make the mistake of judging someone on little information, then when I get to know them better I realize I was unfair to them and had missed some important aspects about them.
Maybe there are more options than acting like it’s ok, or acting in a way that upsets others and doesn’t seem to lead to positive change and mutually encouraging friendships. Maybe you could figure out a way to develop relationships in which you can express your concerns without people getting upset with you.
Comment by: Stephan
5My answer is yes and no.
Yes, I believe in general Christians should be held to a higher standard. As others have pointed out, we should know better, we should be set apart, we should have an “in” with the Big Guy that helps us behave better.
But I also believe that each individual needs to be held to their own standard. Sure, some Christians are jerks, but they may have been even bigger jerks if they weren’t Christians. You can never know for sure. Some people are just naturally nice, others aren’t. It isn’t fair to compare a naturally decent non-Christian with a naturally sour Christian.
Comment by: Chris C
6I’m generally with Stephen on this.
Christians have been given much (Luke8:10; John1:12-13; 16:12-15*) and so much is expected of us (Matthew28:19-20; John20:21-22*; Acts1:8*; 1Peter2:9). But Jesus will be the judge of our work (1Corinthians3:10-15; 2Corinthians5:10; 1Peter4:17) not us.
Never the less, I sympathise with Bill’s frustrations, for we are meant to disciple and encourage each other. Such mutual nurturing requires that we discern each other’s strengths and weaknesses. The difficult bit is to avoid drifting from discernment into being judgemental. When someone claims to have accepted Jesus as their Saviour, whilst apparently failing to allow Him to be the Lord of any part of their lives, we simply need to continue to be there for them, when they allow us to be. Yes, sound advice and timely warnings might be part of this, but I always need to keep in mind that I fully know neither from where they have come nor what they are facing and that there, but for the Lordship of Christ, go I.
My approach to Bills three options: I need to keep asking God to help me have a Jesus attitude to others, whilst remaining concerned and not backing off from the important issues. Still, it’s not easy. I suppose that’s one of the reasons why Jesus (in three of the references above*) offers Christians the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives before we get involved in doing ‘what’s expected of us’. In our own strength we’re simply not up to it.
Comment by: Seren
7Helen:
I think Helen is right. It’s not whether or not your standards are higher, but if you’re meeting with a group who all proclaim the same standards, it makes sense to hold eachother to those standards.
I wouldn’t expect to find support in a church group for eating vegan, nor would it make sense to ask a Muslim person why they don’t tithe.
I think being part of a group makes me accountable. Yes i have my own standards, but i’m much more likely to stick to them if i meet regularly with a group who shares those values.
I’d encourage you to be gentle but bold with others in your group - I think i would appreciate it myself if someone exposed my hypocrisy to me. Though i might not take it kindly at the time!
Think A.A. style.
- Seren
Comment by: Mike O
8No one has said it, but it sounds like what people are generally saying is, have grace with people. Whether or not the standard is high or not, or whether it should be, treat those who don’t measure up to your/their standard with grace and respect.
Sure, they may just be jerks and hypocrites. Or maybe (probably?) they have their reasons/baggage for acting the way they do.
Should Christians be held to a higher standard? Yes, but we only have the right to hold ourselves to that standard, not others. And like Seren said, if you need to be bold with someone within your group, be gentle.
I heard a message one time where the preacher was talking about how the truth can be used like a scalpel - in the right hands with the right motives, a scalpel can heal. But with the wrong motives, it can kill.
Comment by: Jason
9Stephan said:
I don’t think anyone is making a comparison. This is about one group claiming a standard and then failing to adhere to it. Or at least the perception of that. It has nothing to do with non-Christians. We have our own standards that are not part of any religion, actually we define our own standard.
On the subject though, claiming a certain high standard of behaviour and then failing to live to it does make Christians in general appear to have double standards. I’m not saying that Christians actually have double standards but that the raising of expectations that are not lived up to make it appear that way.
It is like claiming to be a vegetarian (that should please Bill) and then eating meat at a party. Alternatively claiming to be a non smoker and then chuffing away like a chimney when you’re down the pub. It isn’t acting in accordance with your expressed beliefs.
Now, as an atheist, I can claim not to be tied to the old biblical rules that provide support for certain homophobic or sexist views. Unfortunately I still have cultural forces that don’t altogether allow that and there are many Christians who have decided that these old rules are culturally based and not divine in nature or otherwise don’t apply. I cannot therefore claim any superiority of moral standard in these areas unless someone demonstrates an anti gay or anti woman attitude that I feel compelled to call them on.
I’d love to be able to claim moral superiority based on atheism but sadly atheism says nothing at all about morality or behaviour, merely belief. The best I get to say is that any claim that biblical morality is superior to non-biblical morality is open to interpretation and the claim needs to be proven.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
10Mike O wrote:
That’s a good analogy. On the whole I run away from Christians waving scalpels these days because I’ve had bad experiences with how Christians have used them in the past.
Jason wrote:
My experience with atheists is that they usually have moral standards/values. If they make a big deal about those then I think there’s as much reason to expect them to live up to them as there is to expect Christians to live up to any moral standards they claim as theirs.
Comment by: Bill Cecchini
11I wonder how much of my life I will spend apologizing for this type of “Christianity.”
I agree with Don Miller in Blue Like Jazz: it’s time for Christians to start confessing our mistakes. We’ve turned a faith based around love, forgiveness, unselfishness, sharing, and grace into…well, ya know the rest.
Comment by: Jason
12Helen said:
Yes, but the moral standard that individual atheists adhere to isn’t one that is “God given” or dictated from the pulpit. In general terms it is one that has been arrived at after careful thought and understanding of the implications of the particular moral stance. That isn’t to say that this is a feature of atheism, only that atheists tend towards defining for themselves where they will stand.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
13Bill wrote:
All of it? :)
I like Don Miller’s heart although the way that book was written - in a ‘child’ voice - irritated me since he’s clearly not a child. He seems like a kind person whose heart is in the right place.
Jason wrote:
I hear what you’re saying but I don’t think the source of a person’s moral standards changes whether it’s reasonable to expect them to try to live up to their standards. If you say “this is my standard” then regardless of where it comes from ,people will expect you to try to live up to it. Which I think is reasonable.
Comment by: Seren
14I sometimes wonder if the baby isn’t thrown out with the bath-water in Christian groups trying to explicate themselves from the confines of tradition. Alot of medieval practices were, in one sense, dry and repetitive, but they involved self-discipline not dissimilar to Zen or Tibetan meditation, the aim being to effect real change in a person, at the level of instinct and reflex.
I’ve heard statements in sermons like, “We are princes of the promise,” and wonderful similar phrases, but there is not always practical advice on how to do good, or at least do better!
Comment by: Jason
15Helen said:
I agree. The difference being that atheists don’t claim that the source of our moral standards is written in any one place. We can’t point to a body of works and say “this is my standard”. We take them from society, our own thoughts, family, friends, etc and gladly admit that. Some Christians like to say that their moral standards come from the bible or their church and some claim that this is only part of it.
Those who claim to get their morals solely from scripture I think are deceiving themselves or they haven’t read it. That isn’t to say that the bible can’t be a source of inspiration and help in finding the right direction. Just take what works or helps and reject what doesn’t.
It is my belief that we collect our moral standards from the same sources. We live in the same society after all, attend the same classes, have the same friends, work in the same companies. We are the same in may ways and are shaped by the same forces. Claiming a higher standard than others from the same environment must be a potential source of guilt and conflict when you fail. That said, if it inspires you to do better, as Seren says, then use it. Just don’t use it as an excuse.
Comment by: Chris C
16Jason said
We’ve looked at this shallow ‘picking and choosing’ worldview before (see Hellfire and Damnation/Politics and Religion topics). It seems to be a favourite of Jason’s. The fact is it’s the last thing Christians (and also any one else) should do with scripture. One: because we don’t have to, the New Testament is clear on the central issues it addresses. Two: because such an approach produces the sort of unbalanced view of Christianity and outworking of the faith that people have been rightly critical of on this topic and this forum (attitudes to Hell, politics, power, etc which distort the overall view of scripture on these issues). Picking and choosing prevents Christians being what they should be: salt and light.
I disagree Jason. My prime source is God: yours isn’t. If there is a God them I’m aiming at some absolute standard, with God’s power in me to do better than I could on my own. If we don’t believe in God, then we collect our moral standards from whatever sources suit (which of course can include the Bible) or are pressed upon us by society, fashions which can change with culture and time.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
17Chris wrote:
Chris, do you believe in salvation by works? That’s what Matthew 25:31-46 clearly teaches, isn’t it? If Christians set aside that clear teaching are they picking and choosing?
Comment by: Stephan
18Jason said:
Oh, but based on that you would not say that vegetarians are hypocrites, would you? You would say that that person is not a good vegetarian, or is not living up to the standard of a vegetarian, or perhaps that they do not understand what it really means to be a vegetarian. Atheists seem to use Christian hypocrisy as a way to paint all of Christianity, not just an individual Christian, as hypocritical.
Comment by: Jason
19Chris, yes it is a favourite topic. The New Testament is far from clear on a wide variety of topics. Where there are contradictions or issues of vagueness the reader is left to their own devices. For instance how do you feel about family? Jesus was quite clear that you should hate your family in order to properly follow him…and honour your father and mother. Helen’s question is certainly more central though.
Your second point is a little confusing though. If Christians collect their morals from God then one would expect their morality of Christians to be superior to those who reject God. You should be able to measure this by examining the religious beliefs of every convicted criminal and checking whether or not they correlate with the national percentages for religious belief. If you’re right you should see a marked disposition to criminality in atheists and a disposition against criminality in Christians.
Yet atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population and 8%-16% of the general population*. These would seem to suggest the opposite to what you describe. Perhaps the results are skewed though. Perhaps atheists tend to come from social groups that are wealthy and better education so the tendency to commit opportunistic crime is much reduced. It is certainly true that 93% of scientists (a prestigious career choice although not the most financially rewarding) are atheists.
Stephan, I would call a person who claimed to be a vegetarian but ate meat a hypocrite or at least point out that eating meat and being a vegetarian are mutually exclusive. Can the same be said for a Christian? Is a Christian who steals any less of a Christian than one who gives to charity?
I’m not trying to attack anyone. All I’m saying is that we’re all human and prone to error and moments of weakness. A Christian standard may exist to raise Christians above the average but all it does, in my view, is show everyone how they fail. If you scored everyone from 1 to 100 with 50 being the average then half the people would be below the average. If Christians claim that their average is, say, 60 but they still only reach 50 like everyone else, then more will be below the claimed average even thought hey are no better or worse than anyoen else. That’s all I’m saying.
*http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Comment by: Seren
20Jason:
What’s more, you’d expect Christians across time and place to have the same moral standards.
What does God really think of
slavery
females in positions of authority over males
usury
homosexuality
I’m also wondering, Chris C, if this is supposed to sound pompous:
I’m trying hard to not run with my initial emotional responses to people’s comments, so I thought i’d ask.
It sounds very pompous to me, but it may just be the way i’m reading it.
Perhaps you could re-explain it for me?
Comment by: Chris C
21Hi Helen
With regard to salvation, I believe in the very clear message of the New Testament, which is that it’s by God’s grace through faith/belief in and following Jesus that we are restored to the father (we are saved, we become a new creation), it’s not through our own efforts, Jesus and not we are our salvation. This is implied by all the New Testament writers and explicitly stated by the majority, with Paul and John (whose writings are probably the earliest and latest in the NT) referring to this theme many times. I’m not being selective when I take this view, for I also accept the occasional texts which bring some qualification to this consensus, such as God’ view of people who genuinely sort God through faith, but did not know Jesus (Matthew12:41-42; Luke10:12-14: 12:47-48: Hebrews11).
In Matthew 25 we have, in a sense, the other side of the issue. The whole of this chapter is about those who claim to be something they aren’t: - the bridesmaids who weren’t; the steward who didn’t and, in the particular reference you quote, those who claim to know and be following Jesus (they call Him Lord, and are, like Christians, before Christ for judgement (see 2Corinthians5:10; 1Peter4:17), but don’t know and aren’t following, as Jesus points out. So this is not a teaching in opposition to the need for faith and grace, but a warning directed to those who claim to have faith, his followers (in this chapter Jesus is talking exclusively to His disciples; see Matthew24:3 and 26:1). It’s a call to all Christians, to make sure our faith is not a deception. This point is made elsewhere (Matthew7:21-22; James2:14-26). None of these references contradict the need for both the follower to have faith and the grace of God, but are warnings against pretence. None of these verses need to be deselected in order to retain a view of the primacy of Gods grace and of our need for genuine faith in, and a real following of Jesus.
Comment by: Chris C
22Hi Jason/Seren
I try to be precise in what I say. I’ve always maintained in these posts that it’s the thrust or balance of the main/central issues of the New Testament which are clear. A summary of these would be:- ‘Jesus, an expression of God on earth, as testified to by what he taught, claimed and did, brings, through His death and bodily resurrection, the gift of a renewed life and a restored eternal relationship with God to all who accept his offer of forgiveness and are willing to turn from their self focus, follow him and make Him Lord of their lives. Further, through his Spirit, He requires and empowers His disciples (the Church) to worship God, spread the Gospel and begin to bring in the Kingdom of God by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are’. I’ve never suggested that there aren’t less-central issues that are more difficult to draw conclusions about. We can look at some of these such as family, slavery, women etc if you wish, but it will take some detail, because we’ll need not to ‘pick and choose’, but examine the overall consensus of the Word.
I apologise Seren, if you find my response to Jason objectionable. I’m simply pointing out that, taking into account our different world views, Jason’s statement, that we both derive our moral directives from the same sources, is wrong. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I would have thought, as an atheist, Jason would not wish to acknowledge God as a source. If you find the word ‘suit’ inappropriate then you could try ‘we choose’. We may make what people see as noble/sacrificial moral choices for what are currently considered good reasons, but never the less, we choose.
Just on a detail, I’m sure your also incorrect, Jason, about the number of scientists that are atheists. An article in Nature (vol 386, April, 1997, p435) claims that 40% of scientists are theists, roughly the same figure as in 1918). In the University departments in which I taught about 25% were Christians (incidentally this is higher than the current UK population of churchgoers which, at best, stands at 10%). I only knew of three (about 7%) who claimed to be atheists.
Finally, Jason, a response to your statement that ‘one would expect the morality of Christians to be superior to those who reject God’. Well, you’d certainly expect it to be superior to what it was before they became a Christian. But what was their starting point: Jesus’ call is often loudest to those who are most aware of their wrong doing, who have transgressed the most, John Newton, for example. You would also expect them to be better at following the Gospel, but the Gospel is more than a moral code. The problem is, as you acknowledge with the prison population, it’s almost impossible to quantitate. One of the most difficult issues is who’s a Christian, when did they become one and how much have they allowed Jesus to be Lord of their lives. Only God can judge that. Seren’s point on expecting consistency of moral standards with time runs into a problem here. From Constantine onwards until the end of the 19cent, Christendom held sway. All sorts of people took the name Christian as a convenience without paying much, if any heed, to the teaching. In fact, just the issue that Jesus is prophetically addressing in the text in Matthew 25, that Helen asked about, and I responded to, above. So, whilst the work of Gods Spirit is seen in Christians and in the Kingdom communities that they form, until Christians, overall, let God into their lives more or Christ returns, we are better to looking to Jesus than to Christians for the true expression of the faith. There was a discussion on this nearly two years ago on http://www.off-the-map.org/ebayatheist/viewtopic.php?p=11249 . It’s still there, but a little corrupted.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23Chris C, thanks for your response. I think that you, like me and many Christians, have been ‘taught’ that the Bible is clear and its message is such-and-such. That in itself is a belief and it’s a very strong one that makes it very hard to take an honest look at the text and be open to it being unclear, contradictory, etc. The Bible being clear is presupposed rather than proven, and the theory that it’s clear is upheld by ‘explaining away’ anything that would challenge its clarity. That’s how it seems to me. For about 16 years I went with this approach, not even realizing that I was not open to what the text said but was doing whatever I could to uphold my belief in the clearness and unity of the Bible. When I finally allowed the possibility that it was not clear, I saw all sorts of things I’d never seen before in the text, because I’d never let myself see them. Like Matthew 25 being about works salvation (I read what you think about it but the passage doesn’t say it’s only about disciples; in fact no one in it recognizes the King which isn’t exactly what one would expect of a group of followers)
I agree with Jason to a large extent, because in my experience Christians apply a ‘reasonability’ filter to what the Bible says which looks pretty much like the ‘reasonability’ filter atheists apply when making decisions about values and moral standards. There are some differences in that Christians pay at least some attention to what seem to be clear Thou Shalt Nots in the Bible, for example, whereas atheists have no reason to care.
But the idea that the Bible equates to ‘God’ or is clear is so problematic for me that I would question “Christians moral standards come from God” anyway, because of that.
Comment by: Jason
24Chris said:
Why not? If “God” is the popular idea held in religions or in the Old and New Testament then I see no reason not to use the idea to help me with a particular issue if it is useful. Rather than thinking of God as a creator or some sort of super powered deux ex machina I might think of him as an idea or a character. I can use the idea of Zeus or Odin for inspiration so why not Yahweh as well?
However that isn’t what I meant when I said we get our moral standards from the same place. I meant that we get them from society, from environmental factors and from certain biological predispositions inherited from our ancestors. We learn “the rules” from our guardians (parents, extended family members, teachers, etc) and from our peer group (friends, classmates, TV, video games, newspapers, politicians, etc) as well as a whole host of other factors that help to build us as people.
I have no problem with you claiming that god is one of these factors and that God helps you to be a better person. I just don’t think that it is the only factor or even the strongest factor in a religious person’s repertoire.
As for the percentage of atheist scientists, I don’t know, you may be right. There are figures from 155 to 97% bandied about that vary depending on what you mean by “scientist” and what you mean by “atheist”. I you look at the hard physical sciences and assume a lack of declaration for belief in a personal, supernatural God as appears in the bible then 97% might be right. If you include the social sciences and ask for a declaration of non-belief then 40% seems more accurate. I’ll try to check my sources in future.
One would expect recidivism rates of criminals who converted to be significantly lower than non-converts assuming that both were exposed to the same secular rehabilitation efforts. The additional support of a church structure should certainly help a former prisoner from re-offending. A quick look around t’Internet reveals only inconclusive studies.
I’ll certainly check out that old discussion but time constraints don’t allow me to do so right now.
Comment by: Seren
25Thanks for your detailed reply, Chris.
It’s interesting to me that your description of “the thrust or balance of the main/central issues of the New Testament” doesn’t include an ethical imperative - “how, then, shall we live” or some such. I agree that two people could share the same understanding (as you) of the central issue of the NT and still have very different moral/ethical stances on things.
I wasn’t thinking of things written by nominal lay persons! More like St Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, even Bonhoffer when it comes to women.
Do you mean that we choose whether or not to breach our moral standards, or that we choose what those standards are?
I would agree that we can make the choice to act for or against conscience, but i’m not entirely sure that we pick, as if out of thin air, what the values are that our conscience dictates.
I would agree with Jason and Helen, that socialisation and education, particularly in our formative years, create in us a sense of right and wrong that is not something we can just switch on or off. Not that i’m saying our behaviour is dictated - i might feel guilty for stealing but do it anyway.
That said, i believe we are born with an innate capacity for empathy (except, perhaps, a few of us) which it central to ethical decision making.
Hope this hasn’t been too rambly. It’s a very important topic.
Thanks for the discussion,
S.
Comment by: Chris C
26Hi Helen, thanks for your response. You said
I wasn’t brought up a Christian and for 7 years before and 15 years after my conversion I was in a very liberal Methodist church which taught that the New Testament was inconsistent and not historical. It was my experience of God and personal reading of the Bible, and certainly not what I was taught, that brought me to the conclusion that, on the central issues, the New Testament message is clear.
I understand what you’re saying; we simply have completely different views on this. But that doesn’t mean that in order to accommodate my view I find it ‘very hard to take an honest look at the text’.
No, I said it was spoken only to the disciples. It’s addressed to all those who, down the ages, claim to be followers. None of them, both true and false, would recognise the King in this life for it was not He, but “Jesus’ brothers” (whether this means Jews/ Christians/or just the disciples is difficult to say) whom they served or failed to. At judgement they all recognise Jesus and claim Him as their Lord. The context of the passage and the details mitigate against using this one passage to overturn the thrust of the scores of other passages on salvation by our faith and God’s grace.
Comment by: Chris C
27Jason said
Well I don’t claim to get my moral guidance from this source or in this way either, so our sources are still not the same. If you choose to redefine God in this way and believe in it, you might well do so. My God is the more usual definition of a spiritual being who is transcendent and all knowing and, in Christian terms, loving and absolutely morally superior to us.
That’s certainly where I started from. But I now claim the ‘the rules’ of the God of the Christians’ as my prime and strongest directive by far, or at least I try my best to make it so. As a result I now disagree with a significant part of my parental, school, university, peer group and certainly media and political moral/ethical influences (of course, my new direction still matches some of those influences, as they were themselves influenced, to some extent, by God). God helped me to start to change in this way when I became a Christian, half way through my life. You see it really is a new birth, a start of becoming a new creation, both spiritually and morally.
Again my experience suggests that this is not so, the harder the science, the more Christians you find. I know of many physicists and mathematicians who are Christians. I would suggest at least 15% of those at my university were committed Christians. The proportion rises as you move into the sciences allied to medicine and falls towards pure biology. I knew of only one Christian in the sociology, psychology and, sadly, theology departments.
Comment by: Chris C
28Hi Seren, thanks for your reply, not too rambly at all.
You said
Sorry, it was a brief summary. The ethical imperative is there in ‘begin to bring in the Kingdom of God by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are’ a summary of the passage which concludes and sums up the teaching in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-16) and would include love your neighbour, go the extra mile etc.
Well both, but in the context I meant the latter.
I agree, but I would say that it’s part of God’s image that’s in us.
On the particular subject of the authority of women in the Church, I acknowledge that Christians have and still do differ on the subject. It’s one of those non-central issues in scripture that I’ve agreed before is not clear. However, overall the New Testament is more honouring to women than were the cultures of 1st century Judea and the surrounding countries. So when looking at Christian moral standards with time, a comparison with the prevailing culture and how much those who really practiced the faith tried to influence it towards Jesus’ teaching, needs also to be factored in. But, as I’ve said before, look to Jesus not the Christians, even the best at having Jesus as Lord of their lives are going to fall short of Gods standards. That’s why we need Jesus to ’save us’, we can’t save ourselves.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
29As long as you realize that what you read in the New Testament is primarily about what YOU should do, and not necessarily what others should do, I think you should feel free to annoy other people, christian or not, to your heart’s content. If you wait till you get the beam out of your own eye, you will have missed so many wonderful opportunities.
This advice does not hold if the other person values your opinion.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
30Helen
Thanks for the reminder of that passage. If that is salvation by works, then so be it.
with Paul.
Comment by: Seren
31Ai! I’m afraid it’s probably non-central to you because you are not a woman!
I grew up having the fullness of my human-hood questioned around me, and at the moment i feel that even if i end up in hell it will be worth it to have got away from that for the second half of my (earthly) life.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
32Seren - do you want more authority in the church? Something there doesn’t resonate with me. Can you explain more what it means to you, or what you would do if you could get it, or … anything.
Why in the world would anybody want responsibility? Foreign to me.
It is sort of like when I am old and my kids ask “daddy - what did you do during the war in Iraq”, I would like to be able to say to them “Hey I was in jail the whole time”.
Alternately, Galatians 5:22-23
Comment by: Seren
33Isn’t that a bit like asking slaves why they would want to be free, with all the attendant existential anxt; or the disenfranchised why they might want to vote, with the burden of responsibility it brings?
But seriously, i think women do have authority in the church, and in Christian families. It’s just that we all have to carry on with a bizarre double speak because men’s egos can’t cope with the reality that women hold up half the sky.
You pray to a sky god to give you your daily bread, and (male) priests hand out the body of Christ. But seriously, who is is around the world who bakes the daily bread? Who goes without to make sure children get fed?
To me, reality is women giving birth to little girls and boys. Religion is “woman” coming out of “man”.
REality is the waters breaking in the amazing, dangerous act of giving birth. Religion is baptising away the dirt of being born at all (of a woman).
Reality is women cooking and serving up a meal. Religion is men presiding over communion.
Reality is complicated relationships and endless negotiation. Religion is prescribed roles.
All that nonsense about headship, endless arguments about what it means. It’s baloney. It’s ego.
And i wouldn’t expect a Christian male to get it, so, yes, it is foreign to you.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
34What is foreign to me is not you wanting it - it is me wanting it. I don’t want it.
To my way of thinking, it is more like asking the free why they would want to be slaves.
Comment by: Chris C
35Martin said
I agree. Others have the free choice to do as they wish.
Comment by: Stephan
36Seren, I’m sorry that has been your experience with church and Christianity. That is not the way it is done at my church, or at a great many others.
Comment by: Chris C
37Seren said
I very much hear your heart. Unfortunately, the Church of Christendom has made the issue of the role of women in the Church central and then used it to oppress them. This has made the issue important to me, although I maintain that it’s neither clear nor central in scripture. I wish I could apologise on behalf of the whole church to women like you, who rightly feel undervalued, damaged or worse by that attitude. I hope and pray that men who take a hard line will be impacted by verses such as: Romans16:3; Galatians3:28; Ephesians5:25; Philippians4:3; I’m sure you could list others. In spite of the restrictions that some parts of the Church have placed on females, I know that women hold up much more than ‘half the sky’ in many congregations and probably in the rest of society. Unfortunately I can only apologise personally: I am very sorry. You can preach to me any time: I suppose in a sense your doing so on this forum. You can, if through all this you’re still able to recognise Jesus as Lord and Saviour (though perhaps not the Church), minister communion to me.
With best wishes for Christmas
Chris
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
38Seren wrote:
There’s a sense in which one person can’t fully ‘get’ what someone else goes through if they haven’t been through it. However, I know Christian men who are very supportive of full equality for women, who could never believe God intended anything else, who regard anything else as resulting from human sin and prejudice, not God’s intent.
Stephan and Chris, thanks for your responses to Seren.
Comment by: Seren
39Thankyou for your kind responses. That’s what i get for attempting to lump all “Christian men” into the same basket.
Chris:
I very much appreciate your graciousness here, Chris.
I’m no longer a Christian, I now describe myself as a “tree hugging agnostic.”
I think this site is important for me because my feelings about my experience of Christianity are negative, and this gets generalised to all Christians.
It’s not healthy, especially when i’ve got four siblings and two parents who are very much Christian.
So let’s keep learning from eachother.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
40Seren, I think it’s easy to fall into generalizing negative experiences. I know I do (although I try not to) and I’ve seen others do it a lot too.
One of the reasons I like having Christian friends is, they help me be open to the reality of who individual Christians are, instead of relying on an idea in my head which could be distorted and probably is an over-generalization.
It would be neat if conversations here could help you in your relationships with your Christian siblings and parents!
Comment by: Seren
41Thanks, Helen :)