[Peace-discuss] RE: The Christmas He Dreamed for All of Us

[Phil Stinard]

>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:46:16 -0600
>From: "Paul M. King" <pmking at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Christmas He Dreamed for All of Us To: 
>Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Message-ID: <ea7c4da3.70ca9c5f.81b3200 at expms3.cites.uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>These are some of my personal thoughts on Christianity. I hope
>it helps some of our Good Christians understand how many
>people of their faith are viewed. Please don't take it as an
>attack.

Thanks for your comments, Paul.  I already understand how many Christians 
are viewed by others--I used to have the same point of view as you do.  I 
don't take your comments as an attack, I take them as an opportunity for 
enlightenment.

>>Why the desire to erode Christmas of its spirituality
>>for the secular popular sector?
>
>I don't believe most people want to erode Christmas of its
>spirituality. The problem with the Christians I knew when I
>was growing up, though, is that they do not recognize
>spirituality outside of Christianity.

I don't think the fact that Christians view Christianity as the only way to 
salvation is a "problem."  It's a belief.  We have the right to our beliefs. 
  Calling it a "problem" means that you have a "solution," which if taken to 
its logical end, would imply persecution.

>>We have to decide whether or not we are willing to build
>>coalition with believers that Christ is the one and only
>>Messiah, Savior of the World. We have to decide whether
>>we want our movement for social justice/ peace/ etc to
>>be completely marxist-materialist or not.
>
>I don't know how we can or should build a coalition with
>groups of people who believe "that Christ is the one and only
>Messiah, Savior of the World." These people seem to be
>fanatics to me. And rejecting such groups of fundamentalists
>does not reduce the social justice movement to a materialist
>position.

I really appreciate your honesty here, Paul.  I've been talking with the 
people in the AWARE church "presence" group, discussing whether they really 
want dialogue or coalition-building with the churches they are protesting in 
front of.  My impression from the long, drawn-out discussion on the UCIMC 
web-site, is that they do not.  They seem to have a view of Christianity 
more in tune with yours.  The sad thing is, I'm here, I'm a Christian, I'm 
in favor of peace, I'm interested in dialogue, real dialogue, and no one has 
taken me up on it.  However, you choose to brand me a fanatic, worthy of 
rejection, and if your views are similar to those of other AWARE members, it 
explains a lot.

On the issue of materialism, would you agree that rejecting fundamentalists 
reduces the social justice movement to a humanist position?  If God is 
removed from the equation, doesn’t that just leave humanistic reasons for 
supporting social justice?

>Why are people threatened by Christians? Because most
>Christians believe that their God is the only True God.

Yes, we believe that.  Why is that threatening?

>Because many believe that anyone who doesn't feel moved by the
>story of Jesus is going to hell and needs to be converted.

That's a pretty crude way of putting it.  It's more than being "moved by the 
story of Jesus," it's accepting that He died on the cross for the 
forgiveness of our sins, and for the promise of eternal life.  And we don't 
feel that everyone "needs" to be converted.  We feel that it is our duty to 
spread the word of the Gospel, and it's up to the listener to make the 
choice of whether to be converted or not.  Other religions have a similar 
philosophy about spreading the word about their beliefs.  It's interesting 
to me that Christianity is singled out for disapprobation in this regard.  
But, why is this threatening?

>Because they can reduce the ignorance of indigenous and Pagan
>genocide to a surgical term like "syncretism".

I don't.  I think that it is a shameful part of church history.

>Because the
>rhetoric of Christianity is replete with pejorative phrases
>full of self-righteousness such as "Our Savior" and "other
>gods".

Again, it is a belief system.  You just happen not to agree with it.  Again, 
why is this threatening?

>It is personally difficult for me to listen to these
>words without disgust and anger; and the offense is on a very
>basic, gut level. Many Christians simply sound fanatical to me.

That is your opinion, but I don't see the basis for it.  If you want, you 
can explain further.

>The most exasperating thing about a lot of Christians I've
>known is their inability to consider the story of Jesus as
>only one of any number of methods capable of effecting
>spiritual transformation in the life of a human being, that
>salvation can come in many forms, that Jesus is not the only
>Savior.

Um, Paul, we're Christians.  Jesus is our only Savior.  It's what we 
believe.  It's what our Owner's manual, the Bible, says.  It is not our duty 
to hold beliefs that are watered down, more convenient, or less offensive to 
others.  We don't deny that there are other methods capable of effecting 
spiritual transformation, but we believe that those lead to perdition.  We 
believe that Jesus is the only Savior, and we don't apologize for that.  
There is no "Christianity Lite" that is in keeping with what the Bible says. 
  In fact, the Bible condemns watered down or distorted versions of 
Christianity.  Why do our beliefs exasperate you?

>I believe that if Jesus were alive today he would tear
>down his churches and scatter his people into the arms of
>other loving faiths.

You don't believe in Jesus, or you’re not sure, but you want to say what you 
think He would do if He were alive today?  I hear this a lot.  If you don't 
believe in Christianity, why would you care what Jesus would or wouldn't do, 
and why would you invoke His name?  What it sounds like you're saying is 
that you'd be happy if Christianity were destroyed, although I’m sure that 
was not your intention.

>Why are people threatened by Christianity? Because the most
>powerful nation in the world is a Christian nation.

Ours is a secular, materialistic nation.  There is an unofficial public 
religion that is professed by many of our nation's leaders, but it has as 
much to do with Christianity as Santa Claus has to do with Jesus' birth.  
There is no state religion, no prayer in public schools, no Ten Commandments 
in our courthouses, and if there were, it still wouldn't mean anything.  
Christianity, true Christianity, is not about public appearances or doing 
lip service, it's about deep abiding faith, and transforming your life to 
serve God.

>Because
>there is a man in a suit who stands within arm's length of
>ending the furious saga of human settlement on our planet by
>delivering us to his Christian God in a firestorm of nuclear
>annihilation.

I don't think that even Bush views things in quite that way, although 
truthfully, I don't know what that man is thinking most of the time.  It has 
little to do with Christianity, though.  See above comments on public 
religion.

>Because the history of Christianity exhumes a
>retched and horrific violence no less bloody than that of any
>nation vying for geopolitical hegemony.

A lot of people have used Christianity to rationalize horrific behavior, but 
again, that has everything to do with the evil that is in men's hearts, and 
little to do with Christianity.  Godless people use Christianity to 
rationalize things that they would do anyway.  God-fearing people use their 
lives to glorify God by helping others.  There are too many of the former, 
and not enough of the latter.

>Because Christians
>today are the most visibly hypocritical people in the western
>world.

Okay, now you're ranting :-).  You're free to explain what you mean, though.

>Because mainstream Christianity spectacularly fails to
>enlighten most people I know, even though ministers and
>preachers have the ears and hearts of hundreds of thousands of
>followers who crowd into their sanctuaries and open their
>minds to a new hope for a few crucial moments each week.

You don't seem to know a very broad range of Christians.  The Christians I 
know and associate with live every moment of their lives worshipping God, 
not just for a "few crucial moments" on Sunday.  I don't have a very high 
opinion of televangelists.  They can be helpful to some people, like 
shut-ins, but if you really want to make a difference in your life, you need 
to be involved in a local church where you can associate with real people in 
a state of fellowship and mutual support.

>To most people I know the Christian metaphors are old, the
>stories are stale and the passion is dead. When someone has
>The Answer, when they are absolutely sure that they've found
>The Savior, The One And Only True God, what happens to
>curiosity? to empathy? to humility? to understanding?

Well, Paul, there are casual Christians, and then there are Christians.  If 
you're not dedicated, you'll get bored and fall away from the faith.  That 
happens.  As for me, my curiosity, empathy, humility, and understanding are 
more vibrant now than they were before I was a Christian.  Truly, I didn't 
have a reason for living before.  Now I do.

>Being
>reborn is not something that happens once. It is continuous
>and it is painful. It happens when we realize we are wrong.

That's the most profound thing you've said so far, Paul.  Being "born again" 
is accepting Jesus as your Savior.  However, it doesn't just end there.  
What you're describing has a Christian counterpart called the indwelling of 
the Holy Spirit.  It's a continual process, and exceedingly fascinating.  
It's joyful, at times painful, and it does have something to do with 
realizing when we are wrong.  I assure you, Christian faith doesn't stop 
when you're born again.

>For most Christians I've known, love is enshrined within
>emotion and idolatrized, violence is debased by sin and their
>hearts are constricted with fear. Such people could live in a
>dying world and they would do nothing.

Okay, let me set you straight.  For Christians, idolatry is thinking that 
anything is more important than God.  Love is an ideal for both Christians 
and non-Christians alike, and both are emotional.  The love and emotions are 
just channeled towards different goals.  For Christians, love is 
externalized, focused on God and neighbor.  (Okay, I admit that this is the 
ideal that Christians strive for, and some people have a harder time 
achieving this than others.)  For non-Christians, there seems to be a 
greater love of self.  For Christians, violence IS sin, and the most fearful 
people I've known are definitely non-Christians.  Such people DO live in a 
dying world.  They fear for their jobs, for their lives, for their health.  
They desire wealth and personal ambition.  I fear nothing but God, but I 
know that He is a just and loving God.  And, I have confidence in eternity.  
My world is a world of life.

>Nevertheless, I believe that Christianity is essentially about
>love and it's difficult to go too far astray if one simply
>tries to observe this. So, after having said all these things,
>I have to say that I love Christians for this. I just wish
>more of them were better lovers. Who am I to criticize,
>though? Love is quite a terrifying proposition in the world
>today and I have a lot to learn too.

You're ending on a very nice note.  Hopefully, some of what I've said makes 
sense to you.  Not everyone who claims to be a Christian follows the faith 
that Jesus taught in the Bible.  The ones who do follow this faith are what 
I would call fundamentalists (and true Christians), but they don't coincide 
with what you call fundamentalists.  Part of the problem is that we're using 
the same words to describe different phenomena.  You're using the word to 
describe trigger-happy televangelists who are bent on assassinating world 
leaders.  I'm using the word to describe people who would give their lives 
to help other people.  I admit that we have beliefs that you might find 
arrogant, but we're not going to change them to please the world--that would 
be spiritual suicide.  On the other hand, not all of us are the 
warmongering, bloodthirsty, greedy, hypocritical people you think we are.  
Thanks for the challenging discussion--we can both learn a lot.

--Phil