Matt reminds me that Thomas Aquinas advocated killing heretics. And while Christianity does not currently advocate killing non-believers, the attitude of Christians towards non-Christians is a major impact on American Society.
First off, there are two very different issues wrapped up in the issue of non-believers. One issue is: What does American Christianity teach about how to treat non-believers? The other issue is: What does American Christianity teach about the fate of non-believers?
A. Treatment of Non-believers
Matt indicates that Christianity has moderated over time and wonders whether that is a response to Western thought. I would suggest that what has happened is as Christianity spread through the west it initially adopted the belief system of the society it spread to. Then, the values of Christianity percolated through the society, transforming it into a more Christian society.
1. The origins of the faith require tolerance.
The example we're looking at now is that of tolerance. The Judeo-Christian faith clearly requires hospitality toward the stranger and outsider. Jews & Christians did not always behave that way, for sure, but it is the mandate from the faith.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites are reminded that they began as strangers in a strange land:
The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor.
Deut. 26:4-6. The book of Hebrews, most Jewish of the New Testament letters concludes with:
Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
Jesus actually required loving not just brothers, or even strangers, but enemies. See, e.g., Matthew 5:43. Furthermore, the parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates, that Jesus professed judging people not on whether they were from a rival nation and religion, but based on their deeds. The foreigner with his heretical religion was the neighbor to be loved as oneself, not the priest or pharisee.
2. American Christians have run the full spectrum.
Whatever the origins of Christianity say, the discussion we're having is the impact of American Christianity. The Calvinists were absolutely not tolerant, to be sure. I will concede that. However, Christians were also Quakers who worked to end slavery. During the Civil War some denominations split over the issue of slavery, which I think illustrates that society can influence religions pretty dramatically.
3. Look at some tolerance issues today.
Consider the anti-gay today. Now, at first, they seem to be arguments for you. But I would suggest it demonstrates the work of Christian values toward compassion. The anti-gay movement is abandoning the hatred of difference in favor of reaching out to help the mentally sick. Now, I still think that is horrible--to call gay people sick--but it is more compassionate that hating people. My point is that people who are different are distrusted. But that Christianity acts as a moderator encouraging compassion--even if patronizing and misinformed--as a first step toward real tolerance.
B. Fate of Non-believers
This is the sort of pure theological question that will always be trouble for me. Many Christians will say that non-believers will go to hell. I frankly don't think Jesus was talking about the after life. I think He was talking about a Kingdom of God that was at hand. So, I don't worry about the afterlife much.
Still, the notion that everyone unlike you is eternally damned certainly encourages intolerance. It can serve as a vehicle to marginalize and dehumanize your enemies.
C. Conclusion
While it is true that the notion of damnation is bad for society, the overall admonition to treat the stranger with kindness and love is a Christian influence on western society. It has helped to moderate the fear of others that comes from man in his natural state. Love of the stranger leads directly to tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Forgive this next challenge, not for the question itself, but for the blunt and clumsy wording -- I can't seem to figure out a better set of adjectives.
Above you quote the Bible, which brings me back to my original issue with your saying that the Bible is not the one moral guide for Christians. You quote it (even the Old Testament) where it fits your interpretation of a moral (i.e. Christian) life. But of course you aren't willing to quote as a guide those portions which advocate the stoning of adulterers and what not -- and thank goodness for that. But this cherry-picking (there goes an adjective I didn't like using) is an implicit admission on your part (is it not?) that "Christianity" is simply the prevailing mores of the culture in which you choose to live (or where you found yourself), not a definitive objective standard. In other words, you're using Christianity's sacred literature to justify your culture's ethics, not finding in it a guide for your culture.
Matt
Matt: But this cherry-picking (there goes an adjective I didn't like using) is an implicit admission on your part (is it not?) that "Christianity" is simply the prevailing mores of the culture in which you choose to live (or where you found yourself), not a definitive objective standard. In other words, you're using Christianity's sacred literature to justify your culture's ethics, not finding in it a guide for your culture.
Jim: For some clarification, I acknowledge the Bible is the most significant text in the Christian tradition. It is not the infalible word of God. So, I was quoting the Bible to demonstrate what the Christian tradition requires, not as divine and infalible authority.
I would hope that the scriptures I cited demonstrated the morals of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I don't think they are the direct word of God, but they are evidence of the foundation of Christianity.
However, I obviously have to go beyond that because of all the reasons I've put forward in the post.
Is there an example of calling for the mistreatment of non-believers? God treats non-believers harshly, but I don't think the traditions requires believers to do so.
Jim: Okay, I actually need to give a better answer.
The scriptures I quoted were valid for me because they demonstrate large themes that are present in the tradition. Kindness to the stranger is an important idea throughout the Old Testament. Likewise, loving one's enemies is a major teaching, oft repeated by Jesus.
Stoning your mother for wearing mixed threads (a law I'm quoting from NBC's The West Wing) is not left out because its inconvenient, but because it is not important. The federalist papers contain language in support of large republics and against paper money. I think it's fair to only quote the former.
Stoning your mother for wearing mixed threads (a law I'm quoting from NBC's The West Wing) is not left out because its inconvenient, but because it is not important. The federalist papers contain language in support of large republics and against paper money. I think it's fair to only quote the former.
I'll need a lesson on what "mixed threads" are so I can be properly offended next time I see my mom.
But I understand the point, especially given your strong contextual reading of the Bible -- i.e. at one time, in one place there was a group for whom some laws were important, and these specific laws were not to be laid down for Christianity forever, and evidence of that is that these specific laws are not recurring themes from scripture nor from church leaders through the succeeding ages. A good, fair argument. I'm convinced as far as all the quoting specific stoning laws that is so popular. I'll strike that from my language and arguments and replace it with your more nuanced one (except for when talking to literalists).
Post a Comment