DiaBlogue<A>: What I Hate About Christianity (As We Know It)
I have finally concluded that my primary
DiaBlogue strategy -- trying to invent a "common ground" of shared understand --
is unlikely to succeed. Virtually none of the various proposals for ontology and divinity I floated have met with Alan's
approval. Worse, even though we managed to
agree on a
shared epistemology, I fear we still don't
understand
it the same way (as evinced by our differing interpretations of how "community" relates to
"truth").Well, if I can't bring Mohammed to the mountain, I may as well
bring the mountain to him! Rather than trying to persuade Alan to adopt
my
ground, I believe I ought to visit Alan on the ground that
he has
already staked out.In particular, I
suspect one of Alan's greatest frustrations is that I don't seem to fully
appreciate his critiques of Christianity. So, while he works on the
"reasons that [he] find Christian
beliefs
untenable",
I may as well join him and summarize the reasons that
I
find Christianity objectionable. [Read more], to see if we can at last find some
overlap...
A few caveats, before we get
started:
A.
CAWKI
To avoid endless debates
about definitions, I propose we explicitly limit the field of our critique to
"Christianity As We Know It" (CAWKI), which basically means American
Evangelicalism, or more broadly "historic orthodoxy as interpreted through the
lens of Western Protestantism." This partly due to necessity -- after all, both
Alan and I came out of that tradition. However, it also appropriate, since
American Evangelicalism has interacted with modern rationalism far more than,
say, Argentinean Pentecostalism or Ugandan
Revivalism.
B. Love and
Hate
Perhaps even Alan wouldn't say
he hates Christianity; nor do I, for that matter. In fact, it is because I
love
Christianity that that I
hate
those things which disfigure it. Unraveling that paradox may ultimately prove
crucial to helping Alan understand my position. For now, though, hopefully
seeing that I hate many of the same things he dislikes will help provide our
sorely-lacking common ground.
With that
out of the way, here in no particular order are my Top Ten gripes about
Christianity-As-We-Know-It:
1. Non-consequential
ethics: defining 'good' and 'right' by
adherence to some abstract intellectual principle or social structure, rather
than by how well we love our neighbor.
2. Non-empirical
speculation: differentiating theologies on the
basis of unobservable assertions about the afterlife and end times.
3.
Pseudo-gnosticism: starting from the
assumption that "our group" has the unique ability to properly interpret
scripture, and thus (alone) surely discover transcendent truth.
4. Impotent
evangelism: defining Christianity primarily in
terms of nominal
(in-name-only)
or notional
(in-intellectual-belief-only)
membership in a club, pretty much as an end in itself.
5. Power
politics: defining truth --in practice -- in
terms of who's strongest, or at least most adept at wielding the levers of
power.
6. Unquestioned
authority: placing absolute, uncritical
reliance on a particular person, structure, or interpretive method.
7. Exclusionary
paradigms: an empirical method that justifies
dismissing contradictory evidence using platitudes, rather than directly
grappling with them (e.g. "all Buddhist religious experiences are of the
devil").
8. Convenient
agnosticism: the attitude that since we can
never know inconvenient truths (e.g, the age of the earth) with absolute
certainty, we are justified in not believing them
9. Worst-case
comparisons: demonstrating our superiority by
comparing the best of our tradition with the worst of someone else's, rather
than vice versa.
10.
Nostalgia: seeking to recreate an imagined
golden age of the past -- including those very flaws which led to its downfall
in the first place!
With all these
problems, one might wonder why I still believe in Christianity at all! The short
answer is that these are all
human
flaws, and not really peculiar to Christianity. The longer answer (which I took
pains to make more verbose this time, Alan :-) is that I believe there is
more to
Christianity than this. In fact, it is precisely that "more" which provides the
basis for this critique.
In other
words, I
honor
Christianity as being worthy of critique, since it sets forth standards so high
it can even judge itself!
So, my
questions to Alan are:
• Do you agree that these are legitimate
gripes, or do you think some of them are unfair/invalid?
• Would you agree than any proposed
replacement for Christianity needs to do better in some or all of these
dimensions?
• Where do you feel I did not go far
enough? What additional gripes do you have that I may not have sufficiently
addressed here?Even if we can't agree
about Love, perhaps we can at least join in Hate!
:-)Love,--
Ernie P.P.S. I should confess that
this is largely inspired by Chapter 3 of Brian McLaren's
A
Generous Orthodoxy, and partly for the
same reason: I believe our authority to judge others stems directly from our
ability to judge ourselves, and our willingness to be similarly
judged.
Posted: Fri - June 16, 2006 at 08:55 AM