A church in California did a series called "Confessions of a Sinful Church". They encouraged locals to come and hear why the church was sorry. For what were they apologizing? They were sorry for being self-righteous and hypocritical, for supporting racial segregation, for mistreating homosexuals, for the Crusades, and for saying that the earth is flat. Now, "racial segregation", "mistreating homosexuals", and "the Crusades" all fall in the previous entry -- the big lie where Christianity is blamed for things that violate Christianity. However, one of the most common complaints about Christians is that we are "self-righteous and hypocritical". I'd like to address that particular lie.
Yes, lie. Oh, it's not quite as egregious as the lie that people who violate all the words of Christ are "Christians", but it's still a lie. It's not quite as awful because there are some elements of truth to it. Some people -- immature or faltering Christians -- may be self-righteous and even hypocritical. It would be foolish not to admit it. But here's where the problem occurs. Self-righteousness and hypocrisy are diametrically opposed to Christianity.
Look at the concept of self-righteousness. In Christianity, we learn "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). We read "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10). We find, instead, "For our sake He (God) made Him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, Christianity teaches that we have no self-righteousness. The only righteousness we can have is righteousness imputed by grace by God from Christ. So much for self-righteousness.
Then there is hypocrisy. The concept is often misunderstood, I suspect. It means to pretend that my beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards are better than they actually are. Consider, for a moment, a mother talking to her teenage daughter. She warns her against premarital sex. The daughter responds, "You hypocrite! You had sex before you were married." And we'd all likely nod and say it's hypocritical ... and we'd all be wrong. There is no hypocrisy there. If the mother said, "You need to be as virtuous as I was before getting married, so you need to avoid premarital sex," then the mother is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is claiming to have higher virtue than is actually possessed. What is the biblical virtue we possess? Biblically, we are sinners, saved by grace. The Church, in essence, is a "losers club" of people who have all professed that we are deserving judgment from God and have no hope apart from His saving grace. We are all on the same plane, no one better than another. We are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" who by God's sheer grace have been made "vessels of mercy" (Rom 9:22-23). Where, then, is the room for hypocrisy? What "higher virtue" can we claim. Paul is quite clear that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works "that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Even the work we do is prompted by God "who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12). I'm sorry, but there just isn't any room for claiming a higher standard of virtue.
Now, again, are there people in the Church who are self-righteous? Sure. These are blind people unaware of where they stand. They are operating contrary to basic Christianity. Are there those in the Church who claim to have more virtue than they genuinely possess. Unfortunately, yes. They have succumbed to error, but it is error, not Christianity. In other words, the only (true) Christians who are self-righteous and hypocritical are those who are not acting as true Christians. So ... on what grounds would we want to apologize to the world? When they complain about self-righteous hypocrites, so do we.
Remember, it's easy to buy a lie. The basic problem of our sin nature is that we tend to "suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). Recognize the lies and deal with them. We have no need to defend lies.
4 comments:
the big lie where Christianity is blamed for things that violate Christianity.
Whatever the status of the souls of people who have oppressed, tortured, killed, mocked, whatever Muslims, gays, women, folk of color, etc, the truth is that much of this behavior HAS been done in the name of the church.
I agree with you fully that those who would demonize, bully, threaten, harm or kill whole groups of Others certainly are NOT following in Jesus' steps or acting in a Christian manner, nonetheless, many HAVE been acting on behalf (at least nominally) of "the church," or at least a particular church.
So, for me to talk to a Muslim, for instance, and get into a conversation about past misdeeds of those acting on behalf of the church and for me to say, "I sure am sorry for the behavior of some in the church in the past (or currently, sometimes)" does not seem to me to be wholly uncalled for.
Like it or not, we are identified with the group we associate with. Being from the anabaptist, peacemaking tradition of Christianity does not mean that if someone hears I'm a Christian, they wouldn't associate me with those who haven't been peacemakers.
Dan Trabue: "done in the name of the church"
I suppose, then, that you've missed my point. "Done in the name of the church" is not the same thing as "Christianity". Here's how it works out. We get the accusation: "Those people did awful things in the name of Christianity." I have two choices. I can defend "Christianity" or I can attack "Christianity". This, of course, is a false dilemma. You see, because it was done in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that it was Christianity. The third option is that I can stand there beside them and say, "Yes! You're right! Isn't that horrible! Now ... what has that to do with Christianity?"
There is another problem.
Dan Trabue: "for me to say, "I sure am sorry for the behavior of some in the church in the past (or currently, sometimes)" does not seem to me to be wholly uncalled for."
For me to apologize to anyone for anything that I didn't do is pointless. If I didn't do the wrong, I cannot be forgiven. And if they didn't receive the wrong (as in the Crusades, in which case you're apologizing to Muslims who weren't there for things done by people who weren't Christians), they cannot forgive me on behalf of others.
But we're down to the bottom line here. I said that things that violate Christianity cannot be laid to the blame of Christianity. For example, biblical Christianity would have opposed the Crusades, yet we're forced to respond to them as if we (and Christianity) are at fault. I would respond, "If it wasn't what Christianity supports, why is Christianity to blame?" You would answer, "I'm sorry for things I didn't do and I don't believe in because other people falsely represented themselves as people like me and did things I disagree with." In other words, I can tell them, "I agree with you; those things were wrong ... just not Christian" and you would admit it was Christianity that did it?
This association with groups called "Christian" that are not in the least is one of the biggest problems with today's understanding of Christianity, both within and without the Church. I'm trying to address those lies. I'm tired of being lumped with people who disagree with Christianity and call it "Christian".
I said that things that violate Christianity cannot be laid to the blame of Christianity.
And I agree. Wholeheartedly. However, the reality is that we're NOT just part of the church Universal, God's Body in our world. We are also part of religions.
Various religions and specific congregations HAVE committed wrong in the past. I would maintain that there is nothing wrong with apologizing for those behaviors on part of the imperfect Church of which I'm a part.
It's like with slavery. I have never owned a slave. I would not own a slave. And yet, my ancestors DID own slaves. There is a scar upon our land that is created by sins of the past. I have both benefited and been damaged by this scar, as have the descendants of the folks my ancestors enslaved.
While I am not to blame for the sins of my father (and grandparents, etc), there IS something in human nature that appreciates apologies. Apologies help the healing process.
Ideally, apologies come from the ones who commit the wrong, but sometimes, apologies from the descendants (actual and spiritual) CAN be healing, too. If you don't believe me, just ask someone whose ancestors have been wronged who have received an apology eventually. It makes a difference.
People understand that it wasn't ME that oppressed Muslims or enslaved Africans, but they also recognize that I have attachments to those who did.
It makes a difference, I would suggest.
Okay, so you apologize for things people did in the name of Christianity that was not Christian because "We are also part of religions". Now ... how do you go about differentiating between Christianity and religions? Having apologized for things you didn't do to people to whom it wasn't done in the name of beliefs you don't hold, how do you then go about saying, "This is Christianity and that is not"?
I say, "You're right. That was wrong. I'm with you. Now ... here's the point: That is not Christianity. I need to tell you about genuine Christianity because that is not! I agree with you that that is wrong. I need to help you understand that that is not Christian." It seems to me that by apologizing, you are admitting fault, at least on the part of Christianity. So ... now what?
(Note: I also will not apologize for white people who held slaves. I will agree with everyone that what they did was wrong, but I do not have the authority to request forgiveness from people who do not have the authority to forgive.)
Post a Comment