Tags
I would much prefer to talk about the kindness of Christians, about those serving in soup kitchens at this very moment, about those helping neighbors, visiting people in retirement homes, going on mission trips, or perhaps about the Christian values that helped shape this country, that built the culture so many of us now take for granted.
Let’s just take childhood for example, the very concept of childhood is actually a Christian invention, as is education for kids. In the absence of those values, children work in factories and brothels, they dig through garbage dumps for sustenance, they beg on the streets, they fight in wars. Believe it or not, life among the humans in the absence of Christian values is not so good if you are one of the smaller, weaker humans, also known as prey.
So, there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of those who follow Christ do good things in the world, that Christianity itself has done amazing things and been a force for positive change. We used to crucify and torture people for goodness sakes, as a matter of routine. We would execute our own family members to claim a throne, even poison our own children to establish our position in the social order. That is the truth of human nature, that is what lurks in our hearts, that is who and what we are in the absence of our higher selves. Christ calls us to our higher selves.
I would much prefer to speak of these things and they are all true, but one does not honor the Truth by pretending that the bad things are not real too, that Christians are all perfect, that all those professing to be Christians are really following Christ. Over and over again the bible tells me “none are worthy, not one.”
So that means that there are pedophiles sitting in our churches, adulterers, women who have had abortions, people who struggle with homosexuality, people who abuse wives and children. Sin is a real thing in the world, it is what it is, and it doesn’t just magically disappear when someone sits in a church or calls them self an “evangelical.” There is a process of justification, sanctification, cleansing that comes from the blood of the Lamb, a better way, The Way, His way, but not everyone is there yet, and not everyone even goes there.
All that sin sitting in our pews doesn’t concern me nearly as much as those who believe they don’t have any sin, as those who believe that Christianity is like a corporate brand that must be protected and defended, an exclusive club for the worthy only. Cultural Christianity, pretty much a blight affecting the Western world. Few align themselves with Christianity as status, as social acceptance, in countries where you are more likely to be persecuted for faith rather than praised for it.
Faith in the midst of persecution is simply going to separate the wheat from the tares much better than faith in the Western world is. Conversely, faith is growing in countries where it is authentic and genuine, and declining in our own. Ours is actually full of hypocrisy, let us not deny this, but face it, confront it, change it! So many of us pray desperate prayers for revival, “Lord, please save all those sinners out there,” never thinking it might be us who are the sinners, it might just be us where the revival must start.
I’ve said it a million times, but those who pick up the blame also pick up the power. So confronting the truth of faith, of Western Christianity, is not about self flagellation, it is about taking personal responsibility and leading.
There are people who are abused by those professing Christ’s name, that is a real thing in the world. We do actual harm to genuine victims when we deny this truth, this reality, when we act as of the very label “evangelical” somehow means we are the good guys and those on the outside looking in are the barbarians. No, sometimes we are the barbarians. How we walk with the broken is far more important then how we rub elbows with our “brand.”
part one is here
john zande said:
Again, well said, although your statement “the very concept of childhood is actually a Christian invention, as is education for kids,” is patently ludicrous. I have no inclination to research this further, because i just know it’s insane. The Persians invented universities for goodness sake, but to give you just one example which proves you wrong, Yehoshua ben Gamla (cir. 64 C.E.) appointed teachers in every town and village of every province throughout Palestine to provide an education for boys aged six and up. He was not a Christian. As far back as the 5th Century BCE the Greeks were teaching all children. Indeed, it was considered essential for a functioning democracy.
You see, Insanity, by accident, you’ve actually displayed here one of the reasons why the “evangelical” brand is toxic. It’s built on patent lies and absurd statements that simply cannot be defended. It’s eye-roll material. Literally. Listen, I don’t think you’re a Creationist, you’ve been quite agile in the past in avoiding the conversation, but here inside this particular conversation Evangelicals display what Tarico identifies (correctly) as Evangelical means ignorant.
Statements like that (“the very concept of childhood is actually a Christian invention, as is education for kids”) just don’t serve you well. I mean that honestly.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you for your honesty Zande. I’m afraid you continue to underestimate me, to assume I must be ignorant or something, unintelligent, incapable of doing my own research.
You want to talk about childhoods, let’s talk about Islam. Let’s speak of those young girls who were buried alive in times of scarcity, about how it is said that on judgment day the buried girls will rise out of their graves and cry for justice. About the young girls and women still being buried today. Or we could talk about the brothels and sex trafficking all over Asia, and the sex tourism of the West that often fuels it. Or perhaps you’d like to talk about the US, where children were burned alive, once chained up in factories or forced to dropout of school in fifth grade to work on farms.
You won’t understand this Zande and I don’t mean it as an insult at all, but sometimes I envy you your own anti-intellectualism. Don’t ever look down on the ignorant and scoff as if intelligence is some kind of great blessing or something.
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
Who’s talking about Islam?
You made a statement which was patently false. Stupidly false, in fact. That is one reason why “Evangelical” is toxic. It’s why 280,000 young people flee your brand of religion every year in the US.
However, to your credit, you’re admitting this and calling for it to be addressed. That’s a good thing. And you’re far smarter than making such silly statements which only distract from what could be an essentially good message.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“However, to your credit, you’re admitting this and calling for it to be addressed”
Far more interesting to me is your own concern that (allegedly) 280,000 young people are fleeing my religion and that you believe that addressing problems within the church is a good thing that needs to happen.
Shouldn’t you be out celebrating the 280,000 kids who will now no longer suffer the horrors of Christian love?
LikeLike
john zande said:
Can never have enough love in this world. If that can be served up without the side-plates of fear, hatred, political single-mindedness, and anti-science nonsense, then wonderful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Fabulous, Zande. We’re on the same page then. There can never be enough love in in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
It must be great to find someone who agrees with your ‘branding’ of evangelicals jz, one who so shares your righteous villification of scripture and people who profess faith, as in vt who also despises people of faith. (remember.your no contact with children………….?)
So the auto salesman is to be blamed because the new car has mechanical issues? You may as well cite the diamond as the greatest of defects when a man scratches a magnificent piece of stained glass with it.
There are no defects in God…………..(the diamond maker), and the sins of men and women, and the shortcomings of people who actually try to get it right, leave God blameless, so you may as well stop trying to put God on trial, as if it is His fault that people cultivate weeds.
‘Evangelicalism means ignorant. It means toxic.’ Please. Go outside and clear your head will you. Paul the apostle was ‘evangelical,’ dare you find fault with him, as he brought the diamonds. He was entrusted with a message not his, and his gems of writings were proof that God’s word works.
Go ahead, and claim that he too was toxic for saying ‘the greatest of these is love.’ Go ahead and say that he was ‘ignorant’ when he wrote of the peace OF God that surpasses understanding, as well as having peace WITH God. Try telling Paul that ‘sin’ was a construct, try telling him there was no God…………tell him he doesn’t know ‘regional history,’ and try telling one of the most brilliant minds on earth that he was out of his mind. Tell him he was doing ‘evangelicalism’ all wrong.
Tell him he was mistaken when he taught of the ‘angels of light.’ Tell him of ‘another’ gospel and see if he tolerates your absurdity. Tell him ‘evangelicalism’ is toxic, and he just may do you a favor and say nothing.
But do tell how this ‘evangelical’ was out of his mind when he explained election, propitiation, redemption, atonement, grafting, sanctification, do tell how he was unlearned when he spoke of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac,, Adam, Eve; do try to defend his ‘error’ when correcting the apostle Peter, and try to fault a man who was sold out for being ‘evangelical.’ Do tell him that he knew nothing of the shadow of the law, and tell him he had the grace of God all wrong. Tell him how his giving of thanks to God with a crew which survived shipwreck was simply ‘evangelical.’ Tell him he knew nothing about spending and being spent.
Tell him his 39 stripes times three were a figment of his imagination. Tell him that the sufferings of Christ were an illusion. Tell him he knew nothing of discipline, respect for authority, and spiritual warfare. Tell him his understanding of the Old Testament was all wrong. Tell him there was no Exodus, tell him Joshua never lived. Tell him that his missionary journeys were nothing but toxic.
Try it, to your own embarrassment. Others have, and their mouths were stopped. God is perfect, much to the chagrin of they who would fault him for ten thousand reasons.
The ‘brand’ of evangelicalism as described in scripture is perfect. It appears that ‘part 2’ here agrees.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
I do agree, God is so perfect, so worthy, and the evangelicism described in scripture compelled people to lay down their very lives loving others who were not so gracious about it. Paul was one of the best, truly understanding what it means to be sanctified, gifting us with his leadership and his wisdom for thousands of years now.
Before that however, he was busy out torturing and executing Christians, standing by while Stephen was stoned. I imagine that those who had suffered at Paul’s hands may not have felt so charitable about his sudden conversion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
Your last line there. Remember Ananais? You want ME Lord to see Paul? Perhaps you haven’t heard what he did………… (yeah, God was asleep) lol
But we do forget about his past life………and it would have been a valid concern to question his new ‘allegiance,’ but wow, how the grace of God found fertile ground in him!
But how does MY garden grow………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“..but wow, how the grace of God found fertile ground in him!”
Yes, amen! Perhaps it is even Paul’s awful history, his eventual conviction and sanctification, that makes him so willing to suffer, not cheerfully perhaps, but faithfully. That seems to be how it works in the modern world, too. So who better to lead Christians through persecution than one who had once persecuted Christians?
LikeLiked by 1 person
dpmonahan said:
Every society cares about the education of the young, that is what societies do, whether formally or informally, in order to perpetuate themselves. The argument is never over whether the young should be educated, but how, and in what. IB could make an argument that universal formal public education in the U.S. was a cause championed by mainline Protestantism, but I think that would be 1900 years too late to mean anything.
On the other hand, you don’t seem to know very much about Greek formal education. It was never universal, but was reserved for male citizens who (with rare exceptions like Socrates) could pay for it, which is how formal education generally functions: it is a luxury commodity.
In Greece it was accepted behavior for educators to rape their charges, something you somehow forget to mention. As IB says, the sexual exploitation of children was accepted practice in the ancient world, as was abortion and infanticide. Those things did not disappear with the rise of Christianity in the west, human nature remains what it is, but they were denormalized and had to take place on the margins of society.
So while it is a stretch to say Christianity “invented childhood” it has some basis in fact.
https://truthandtolerence.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/some-thoughts-on-christ-and-culture/
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Formal education for children of nobility was established as early as 2070 BCE (Xia Dynasty) in China. During the Zhou Dynasty (1046 BC-221 BC) schools for common children were established. In India during the Vedic period (1500 BC to 600 BC) education was available to all children, before the caste system came into being. Sparta had free education for all children. Rome taught both boys and schools. Insanity’s statement is also to cast all indigenous societies as totally care-less for their children, which, quite frankly, is a ludicrous statement. And free public education in the west is the result of secular governments, not the church. I went to a private Catholic school, and I assure you, it was not free.
LikeLike
dpmonahan said:
You utterly missed my point, and your historical examples are stupid.
I’ll repeat the essence of my argument with short words:
1. All societies educate. IB is mostly wrong.
2. The pre-Christian west was not friendly to children. If you think teachers buggering their students is wrong, or that leaving infant girls to die of exposure is a bad idea, or there is something fishy about owning a rent-boy, you have the church to thank for it. In that sense, IB is right.
I don’t know much about pre Vedic India. I do know however that Romans did not give formal education to girls. The only exception I can think of was Julia, daughter of Augustus.
Now that I think of it Sparta may have paid for the education of their children, because Sparta was an oppressive state obsessed with keeping the Helots (whose children were not educated) subjugated at all costs, and so trained their sons to live in barracks and fight and kill from a young age.
China had formal education for noble boys like every other culture? Great. What does that prove?
Formal education is a luxury good, as I pointed out above. As with all luxury goods, it is often pursued not for its own sake but as a positional good, with teachers pretending to teach, and students pretending to learn, as you seem to have done with your expensive education.
LikeLike
john zande said:
The pre-Christian west was not friendly to children. If you think teachers buggering their students is wrong, or that leaving infant girls to die of exposure is a bad idea, or there is something fishy about owning a rent-boy, you have the church to thank for it. In that sense, IB is right.
Right, and priests never molested a single child. Absolutely! What about the church-sanctioned slave trade? That was a carnival for children, wasn’t it, DP?
China had formal education for noble boys like every other culture?
Try reading, DP, you’ll avoid embarrassment. Education for common children was implemented by the Zhou Dynasty (1046 BC-221 BC).
This entire argument is retarded. The claim was Christianity introduced childhood. I’m glad you think this is insane…. but you just can’t help yourself, can you?
LikeLike
dpmonahan said:
Priests who molested boys had to do it in secret and the affair was hushed up. We have the moral baggage to call it evil. It was not like that in ancient Rome or Greece, where it was accepted. As I said above, Christianity denormalized that kind of behavior and pushed it outside the margins of what was considered acceptable.
The claim that Christianity invented childhood is not insane, smarter people than I agree with it. See the link above. I partly agree, partly disagree.
But you are right, I have a hard time resisting the temptation to point out that you are not half as smart as you like to imagine yourself to be.
LikeLike
john zande said:
Right, so every culture on earth prior to about 500 CE murdered and molested all children. Every parent from Japan to Australia, from Russia to the British Isles loathed their children and would often set them on fire because, well, you know… they hated their children. No education was afforded to any child. Not by the Chinese, not by the Japanese, not by the Indians, not by a single indigenous culture. Ever. Why? Because all parents hated their children. Jesus’ mother hated him and abused him, didn’t she. It’s all in the bible.
Bless Christianity for saving children. The church was pivotal in the establishment of anti-child labor and sexual protection laws, as well as the implementation of free public education. None of those things came from post-Enlightenment secular governments, did they, DP? Of course not.
Don’t be an idiot, DP.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Actually Zande, there is some truth to your words, every culture on Earth has murdered and molested their own children, Western culture included. What is different about Christian values is that we said no to slavery, no to children working in factories, no to brothels and child pornography. Those horrors may still go on in the world, they still exist in the West even, but it is Christian values that have said no way, kids should not be executed as adults, kids should not be forced to work, child brides should not be happening.
LikeLike
john zande said:
The Chinese ended slavery first, then the Indians hundreds upon hundreds of years before Jesus is said to have even lived. If i recall, good Christians were fighting for slavery to be maintained in the US right up until you had a little war over it 😉
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Actually both the Indians and the Chinese had slaves until very recent times, Zande. Also, modern day slavery is probably worse than it’s ever been before, from a global perspective.
Like it or not Zande, the Western world, heavily influenced by Christian values, has granted children a better quality of life than they’ve had anywhere in the world under any other culture. The same is true of women. You can quibble if you want, declare that the well off children of some distant king somewhere may have had it better, but I am speaking in broader terms, as a culture at large. The Western world invented the Western ideal of childhood, something many often forget. You don’t see that same kind of childhood in parts of Thailand or Africa or the ME.
LikeLike
john zande said:
The first formal abolition of slavery was enacted in India, by Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, who abolished slavery in the 3rd Century BCE.. In China, the Qin Dynasty eliminated slaves in the late 200’s BCE. When the Qin Dynasty fell, many of these laws were overturned, only to be abolished once again in 26 BCE by Wang Mang (Xin Dynasty) who abolished slavery altogether.
Sorry, I got that backwards. Either way, you’re wrong.
But let’s look at what Christianity has to say about slavery:
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Zande, calm down. There’s no reason to bring up some 3rd century emperor, as if that somehow invalidates what I have been saying to you.
Christian values have produced a wonderful system. Some have perverted that system and harmed kids anyway, but that doesn’t mean that over all Christianity hasn’t been a force for good in the world.
LikeLike
john zande said:
There’s no reason to bring up some 3rd century emperor, as if that somehow invalidates what I have been saying to you.
LOL! Nicely played. Unfortunately for you, you said slavery was ended by Christians, and ”Actually both the Indians and the Chinese had slaves until very recent times, Zande”
Both remarks, false… and you know they were, so why make them?
So, when did Christianity become a force for good, Insanity? Can you put a date on this? Was it the first voice to end slavery? No. Was it a voice for slavery? Yes, even your beloved Paul encouraged slavery, and Jesus certainly didn’t say anything against the practice. Was it the first voice for the end of war? No. The first 800 years of Christian dominance were amongst the most brutal and intolerant in all of recorded human history. Was Christianity the first voice to end child labor? No. Was Christianity the first voice to promote free public education? No.
Shall I continue?
LikeLike
dpmonahan said:
Straw man much?
LikeLike
john zande said:
*both boys and girls
LikeLike
TT said:
Reblogged this on 40+/Single/Clueless and commented:
And sometimes, we have to understand that people must be offered the benefit of the doubt in order to give their gift to others, even if it is not immediately evident. Christianity is not a brand. Faith, acceptance that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, is a lifestyle. And, when you are honest with yourself you accept that you are riddled with sin which you confess in order to break through the shame of the past to live in the joy-filled present. As Paul says something to the effect of, “Does this mean we are to continue sinning. Hell no!,” but we are to press on to that which we have been called. We find a purpose, and we live it to the best of our ability knowing we will fail miserably and that the only true success is the Victory that is the cross.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen! You got it. 😉 Great comment and thanks for the reblog, too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rajiv said:
I don’t believe in religion per se… However, I like the comment on faith in the middle of persecution… For me, faith in humanity is what is key
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vincent S Artale Jr said:
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you for the reblog. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vincent S Artale Jr said:
You’re welcome!
LikeLike
Salvageable said:
I just had the chance to read your two-part post and (some of) the comments that follow each post. First, very well written, as always, IB. Second, lost in the discussion is the original meaning of the word “evangelical,” which comes from the Greek words for “good news.” The word is used by the gospel writers to summarize the teaching of Jesus and is usually translated into English as “gospel.” Martin Luther wanted to use that word to label congregations that were faithful to the Bible rather than to corrupt church leadership–in fact, it is the proper label for “Lutheran” congregations in Germany, and many Lutheran congregations in the United States include the word as part of their name. During the twentieth century, though, it became a label for many congregations and parachurch groups (especially in the United States) who wanted to stress their faithfulness to the Bible rather than to “liberal” studies of the Bible which deny miracles, prophecy, and the unchanging truth of God’s Word. With that perspective, we see how the label becomes twisted first by opponents of the movement and then by members of the movement, so that by now the evangelical movement is hardly connected to Christ’s good news. How does this happen? Because we all, even evangelical Christians, are sinners living in a sinful world. The members of the Church are sinners, desperately needing God’s forgiveness and healing. When their sins become confused with Christ’s good news, the label loses its meaning. When evangelical Christian sinners begin blending their sins into the good news–their perversions, their arrogance, and their hatred–then the label loses its meaning. The Church is in constant need of reform, from the individual lives of its members up to its corporate identity. Only the Head of the Church can reform the Church (although he works through individuals such as Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther to accomplish institutional reform). He is, in fact, constantly reforming the Church, one life at a time. I understand your frustration with those who use the names Christian and evangelical in ways that insult God and his Word. Modern technology makes them easier to find, but it’s been happening for two thousand years and will continue to happen until Christ reveals his glory to the world. Thank God, though, that the victory is assured, and that it can be seen in the individual lives of Christians who are being transformed into the image of Christ. J.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen, Salvageable! Victory is assured, Christ reigns over His church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. We never really get it perfect of course, because in the end He still has a bone to pick with the churches, but it is that striving towards His standard that matters.
There really is nothing new under the sun, this has been going on for thousands of years, but God is merciful and patient. I suspect He knows we are never going to be perfect, but He loves us even in our imperfection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
anitvan said:
I grew up in the “original evangelical” – aka Lutheran – church, and remain a part of it to this day. I’m kinda chuckling here (and I apologize to any of you who identify as Evangelical for having a laugh at your expense) but
LikeLiked by 1 person
anitvan said:
Lol, why does this always happen to me when I post from my phone?? I lose half of my comment! Please, feel free to laugh at me now. Payback’s a bitch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Ha! Well, I was wondering if you were going to continue with that but… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
anitvan said:
Well, I think it’s kinda funny because Evangelicalism actually grew out of Lutheran pietism! It was a reaction to what was perceived at the time as an over-emphasis on purity of doctrine over purity of the heart. And so a movement within the Evangelical (Lutheran) church began in the German provinces, which was eventually exported to the Americas. The current evangelical movement grew out of those beginnings.
Those 280,000 individuals per year who are leaving Evangelicalism? I have no idea how accurate that number is, but I do know that whatever the actual number is, a good number of those former Evangelicals are moving back to Lutheran churches. We’ve been seeing this phenomenon for about a decade now. And do you wanna know what the number one reason they give for leaving?
Doctrine.
How’s that for irony on a whole bunch of levels?
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
“How’s that for irony on a whole bunch of levels?”
Ha! That is funny. I often see the same thing, “we need to change the church, make it more youth friendly, create a nightclub feel”….and then people leave because the church is now offering them something that can be found anywhere, the same old, same old, the world. It is the uniqueness, the adherence to doctrine, the stability and tradition, that draws us to the church in the first place. We don’t need a Starbucks in the lobby, we have those on every street corner.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Living By The Terms Of The Treaty | A Christian Worldview of Fiction
madblog said:
I like that you clarified what is meant by a “Christian” and that these charges do not characterize many people in the true church (although, of course, those too are ‘not righteous, no, not one’). I also note that as soon as you do so, claiming that there are people who can be called Christian who are rather a good force in the world, Zande is back to taking an antagonist stance. This is not surprising and kinda illustrates what some of us were trying to say…that the portrait in that article did not represent all Christians, but that Zande was claiming that it did and dancing on the grave of Christianity with what he supposed was your agreement. (Wrongly.)
I do not think a single person who differed with you was claiming that Christians don’t sin, that we are perfect, or was defending a corporate brand. Charges of such simplistic thinking and self-righteousness was rather surprising coming from you.
That we are all sinners desperately in need of grace, that even our good intentions are poisoned by self-interest, that our hearts are desperately wicked…all these things are understood by most of your believing commenters here. No one is “the good guys”…but:
“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
God is glorified when we acknowledge that there ARE good works for the right motives going on in the world, by His grace, under His power.
That’s all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Emma… | See, there's this thing called biology...