Seriously, readers, if you have anything to say, anything at all, go ahead and say it. My thoughts have only been refined in the bias of of my own mind, so I'm somewhat dubious about their integrity. There is also a hint of "Socratic" arrogance creeping in--these thoughts seems too easy and logical; surely there must be a flaw or alternate perspective or something, otherwise why are these not prevailing views?
Somehow, now that I'm out of Luther in the 'real world', I notice more often christian symbols and phrases and such. Swears in the form of "Jesus Christ", cross necklaces (some of them pretty gaudy), shirts for bible programs, etc... (I forgot so many people were religious) And yet, oftentimes I think to myself "I never would have placed that person as a christian if I hadn't seen that shirt/necklace/tattoo/whatever". Maybe part of it is the context. It would probably be hard to guess anyone's religion or philosophy if you've only seen them for a minute in line at the store. Some are impatient, some are kind, some ground their kids, others don't, some are vulgar, others aren't, some are temperamental, some hold grudges.
Other times, though, its people I've known for somewhat longer--like most anybody else they have good days and bad days, can be generous or jealous, impatient or relaxed. Then church comes up, and I think "Oh, huh. Religion hadn't even occurred to me".
And while I do not mean to say that these individuals are falling short of some basic standard of social action, maybe, in a way, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I don't expect every christian to be a paragon of righteousness/goodness/charity/whatever. But, as individuals who follow, to varying degrees, a very specific (if oftentimes "symbolic") book, I would think to see behavior that could at least indicate what it is you might be aiming for. I'm not even totally sure what this might be, since my memory of all the rules and proscriptions and whatever in the book are fuzzy with years.
In general, I suppose there's the oft-brought-up contradiction of the last(?) commandment with the very premise of capitalism and consumerism--competitive desire for what other people have.
Or working on the sabbath.
Or a married christian woman's proclamation that, though she is married, she is still allowed to look (at other guys).
Or prayer in public, or, at least, the Lord's prayer, which I guess is kinda said in private; just among other Christians.
I'm sure there's other things. Maybe all the things are those which don't really come up in a public line or across the cubicle wall. And I know terms like jealousy and impatient and such are incredibly broad. And lots of Xianity's commands might be outdated.
I guess it goes back to what I was asking in the initial Questions for Breakfast. Oftentimes Xianity seems to be less adherence to hard laws laid out in a book, and more of "exploring and developing one's own philosophy" only through a Xian context/mythology. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; but then it seems like less a religion and more a giant book club or something.
A few years back, my Dad told me about a survey that had been done. In it, people (xtian and non-xtian) were asked what behaviors they thought would separate the xtians from the rest. The results were about what you'd expect; more charity, more forgiving, etc. They also asked them what their own behaviors were. The only category in which the Xtians had a statistically significant edge over the non-xtians was in the use of naughty words. In every other measurable way, they behaved the same.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I think that for many xtians, even church-going xtians, their faith is just as you say: a book club, or a weekly social group. That's what you get when you have a culturally dominant faith: people who are members only because it's never occurred to them not to be members. But among those, there will be people who have made specific, measurable changes to the way they live to be in keeping with their understanding of Christ. These certainly are not exclusive behaviors - a muslim or an animist can behave just as well as a xtian, obviously - but within their own lives, Christ was the idea that sparked the change. But you will never see someone by whose actions you think, 'oh, he MUST be a xtian'; at least, not in a positive way. You might, however, see someone you want to be more like, and that person MIGHT have become that way because of a xtian influence. Or not. You never know.
I enjoy your blogging, Brian. I started one myself a few months back, with the same idea of getting ideas and opinions out for feedback, but I've yet to put up a second post. I oughta see if I can catch up one of these days.
I don't doubt that there are individuals who have been truly inspired and even made serious changes to their life because of the character of Jesus. In a way, that doesn't really bother me, because people can be inspired by all kinds of characters, whether real or fictional. (I do think it kind of unfair that Jesus gets a Church all to himself though).
ReplyDeleteHowever, and I think this applies to both the "passive" and "active" Xtians, there is something else that kinds of bothers me, and I'd like to use the analogy of Guy Fawkes.
In popular culture today, especially with V for Vendetta, Fawkes (or his likeness, or V portraying his likeness) has become a symbol of revolution, of sticking it to the man, of the faceless member of society (the 99%) toppling the 1%, etc... However, as our good friend Andrew haw pointed out, Fawkes was a conspirator in a plot to restore a Catholic monarch to the throne, and the celebrations on Guy Fawkes day are not about Fawkes' rebel spirit, but rather his defeat and the king's escape from assassination. The message has turned around. A similar story could be said for Machiavelli, and the popularity and lessons of The Prince vs his other works.
While these revelations may be initially disheartening to a pseudo-Machiavellian or pseudo-Fawkesian advocate, their positions may be defensible because it is not like they have been carrying around the original letters of Guy or the other works of Machiavelli. Secondly, many of the non-members of these groups are unlikely to be aware of these revelations either. All there is to be done, really, is either accept the designation of pseudo-Fawkesian, or simply agree that Fawkesian now refers to V rather than to Guy, while the tidbit of the reversal of philosophy become one for only history buffs and triviaphiles.
While I am not suggesting that all the philosophies in the bible have been reversed (some, though), my feeling is that Jesus is like Fawkes--there is the popular version, and the "real" version. My question to Xtains, both the active and passive, is 'which one are you following?' Even the for the more theological, progressive Xtians, those who more freely interpret the bible as symbolism and culturally-focused, I have to wonder how much of the theological work done is an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) to make the text fit the popular version of Jesus rather than the "real" version.
This question is, I think, more important in light of the fact that many Xtians will follow a popular version of the christ while holding in their hand a text concerning the "real" version. It'd be like a psueod-Machiavellian holding the Discourses on Livy, or a pseudo-Fawkesian fighting an intended theocracy while simultaneously holding words penned by Fawkes which endorse the papacy.
So, I guess, when Jesus is or becomes that spark that initiates the better in someones life, which version of Jesus is it? How much of the literal Bible is actually necessary to being a Christian? And why does Jesus seem to get a monopoly on it? Why does being inspired by christ make you a christian, above any other individuals who might inspire you more or less? Why not a Ghandian, or Saganist, or Humeian? Why is Kantianism (maybe) reserved only for philosophers?