Reactionary Christianity

Did you see the news in late August when the American Atheists organization put up some billboards for the Democratic National Convention? Fox News reported on it, then the advertising company was bombarded with "a national outpouring of 'vitriol, threats and hate speech against our staff, volunteers and Adams Outdoor Advertising,'" (according to a spokesperson for American Atheists).

Fox News' original story is here and the post-billboard story from the Bradenton Herald is here.

As a result of the outpouring of negative feedback, whether or not it was as ugly as the American Atheists spokesperson described (I wouldn't be surprised if it was), the advertising company and the atheist organization decided to take the signs down.

In other words, Christians "won."

Or did we?

In the original Fox News article, a pastor from Christian Life Center said, "Of course it’s not appropriate, it’s never appropriate to insult another person, it’s never appropriate to disrespect another person."

I have nothing disparaging to say about that pastor because I realize that there's little context within which I can weigh that statement. Taking it at face value, though, the first thing I thought of when I read his statement was what Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (NLT) Now, Jesus didn't give specifics on how to react, but the implication is that we're not to retaliate. In verses 38-40 He says not to resist an evil person and if something slaps us on the right cheek, we should offer the other one, too.

I believe reactionary "Christianity" messed up again. Although the deluge of responses surely wasn't made strictly by the Christian community, we can safely say that they will get "credit" for it. Here are some questions I have about this set of events:

1. What does this incident tell non-believers about Christians and by extension, about Jesus?
2. What would have been a better response, if any, from the Christian community?
3. If I'm wrong about all this, what am I missing or misunderstanding?

The FoxNews.com and American Atheists logos above are the property of their respective owners.

Read more »

A USA Today Commentary on the State of Religion

My friend Leroy directed me to an article by Oliver Thomas in the opinion section at USA Today entitled "Faith in America: Get ready for change". To jump right in, here are a few excerpts:

"Most interesting of all is the fact that what is happening to Christianity might be taking it back to its historic and theological roots. Perhaps the problem with the 'old-time religion' was simply that it wasn't old enough."

Okay, nice. I'm on board with that. Within a few hundred years after Christ, man had implemented a hybridized religious/business system that bore little resemblance to the Way that it claimed to follow. We perverted Christianity, and I can plainly see that there is a desperate desire among followers of Christ to strip away anything that is not honoring to Him, most often including tradition.

But in suggesting that the "new" message of Christianity must be relevant to current events, he goes way off-base:

"Such common New Testament imagery as 'washed in the blood,' for example, might have been borrowed from other religions in the Mediterranean world, including the cult of Mithras, in which devotees were literally drenched in the blood of a bull."

Surely the author is versed enough in foundational Old Testament Scripture to know that this imagery was not invented in New Testament times, but has its roots in how God instructed the very first humans after the fall. Further, any supposed ties or parallels Christianity may have had to the cult of Mithras have been quite thoroughly refuted. Blogger Prayson Daniel has a very accessible summary at his blog.

Here's another statement that is true, but terribly invalid in affirming any movement:

"Young adults appear largely uninterested in our denominational joustings over 'correct' doctrine."

Well, duh. Business meetings are boring (okay, they're entertaining sometimes). But simply because someone -- or even a multitude -- is uninterested in something makes zero case for that position being invalid. I believe the better point would be that "denominational joustings" have become one of the most prominent features of modern Christianity. On the whole, I've seen that "serious" Christians love to be right far more than they love Jesus Christ. I've been in that camp, and it's an awful place to be. As I read the Word I don't see Jesus worrying so much about things along those lines.

I believe the author has a solid position in the end (of course, he's technically not supporting one position or the other; just stating what he sees about the climate of religion in America). However, the points he uses to try to argue his case are all over the place, often invalid and denying the Spirit inspiration of Scripture.

I'm interested in your take on the article. Again, it can be read here.

Read more »