Christmas is the celebration of love. This past Sunday was the fourth Sunday of Advent, and the
theme for that last Sunday before Christmas was love.
There are various Advent traditions and practices, but according to the Christianity.com website, the selected Bible passage for Dec. 18 was the third chapter of John, with those best-known words of the Bible,
Christians were long known for their love. “They’ll know we are Christians by our love,” is one title
given for a gospel song written in the 1960s by Peter Schottes, a Catholic
priest.
In the 1970s and ’80s, I enjoyed singing that song with
Christian friends and fellow church members in Japan. Here is its second verse
and the chorus:
We
will walk with each other, will walk hand in hand,
We will walk with each other, will walk hand in hand,
And together we’ll spread the news, that God is in our land
And
they’ll know we are Christians,
By our love, by our love.
Yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.*
The lyrics of that gospel song are loosely based on words of
Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of John: “By this everyone will know that you are my
disciples, if you love one another” (13:35, NIV)
In addition, though, until perverted by its alliance with political power, Christianity from its beginning was a religion of love for all people—and it still is when it is faithful to Jesus Christ.
Some Christians are now known for their hate. In my Dec. 10 blog post, I
introduced Octavia Butler and her two dystopian novels. I have just finished
reading the second of those, Parable of the Talents (1998).
In that prescient book, the U.S. elects a new President in
2032, a man who is an ardent advocate of Christian nationalism. In fact, he
formed a new denomination, the Church of Christian America (CA).
The most alarming characteristic of that new church is its
horrendous persecution of those considered to be “infidels.” Lauren, the
protagonist of both novels, experiences unthinkable suffering at the hands of
fanatical CA believers. They, indeed, were “Christians” known for their hate.
Perhaps you have seen the recent news stories about a
restaurant that refused to serve a Christian group because of what they deemed was
the “hatred” of that anti-gay group toward their employees.
Metzger Bar and Butchery
in Richmond, Va., posted on Instagram (here) that they “denied service to the group to protect its staff, many of
whom are women or members of the LGBTQ+ community.”
After reading about that happening, I came across a YouTube
video titled “Hate Preachers: Bigotry and Fearmongering by Extremist Christian
‘Leaders’.” That video includes several clips of preachers saying almost
unbelievable things, especially about LGBTQ people.**
Posted on YouTube eight months ago, that video has had
117,000 views, and when I accessed it last week, the first of the more than
1,600 comments said, “I simply don’t have enough hatred in me to be a
Christian.”
How exceedingly sad that this is how some people view
Christians now!
During this Christmas week, my plea for all of us is that we will fully accept the love of
God manifested on that first Christmas and broadly implement that love. And,
indeed, may all of us Christians be increasingly known by our love for all people.
____
* Here
is the link to a YouTube video with those words
being nicely sung.
** Some of these are affiliated with New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches,
a relatively new organization you can read about here.
Thanks for the message on love and for your plea. Indeed, the comment, "I simply don't have enough hatred in me to be a Christian," is startling and telling.
ReplyDeleteI found myself thinking about the Bible and that most irrational belief in it as an infallible and inerrant book of words from God. And I thought about the sentiments in it that can fuel wrath and hatred--such things as the commands to kill found in some of the early texts, psalms that plead with God to destroy one's enemies, epistles that encourage separation from sinners, and, although it at some point promotes love, the book of Revelation with all its gory details of mayhem against those who have not given their allegiance to Christ. The Bible appears to be quite a Rorschach test.
Thinking about these things this morning, I'm tempted to conclude that those of us who embrace and promote Christianity and argue that it is fundamentally a loving phenomenon might be in denial of how deeply flawed this faith is.
Anton, I appreciate you sharing your candid comments about this morning's blog post, although I strongly disagree with the conclusion you were tempted to reach. I do, however, agree with that Bible is "quite a Rorschach test," and you may (or may not) recall that back in September 2017 I posted a blog article titled "The Bible is Like a Rorschach Test."
Delete(Here is the link to that post:
https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-bible-is-like-rorschach-test.html)
I still strongly contend, as I wrote in the post, that "until perverted by its alliance with political power, Christianity from its beginning was a religion of love for all people—and it still is when it is faithful to Jesus Christ."
Well, Leroy, you've hooked me this morning and stimulated a lot of thought, which I'm going to be arrogant enough to argue. A central doctrine of Christianity is love, but another is that there is not a person or human creation without, if you will, sin; in other words, a doctrine of fallenness. It’s not possible to claim that there was ever a pure or even a thoroughly loving Christianity. There has been within Christianity many sub-Christianities, some more loving, some less so, but none without the taint of our fallenness.
DeleteIt is, in my view, a false myth (the Anabaptist mistake) that there was an original Christianity, pure and untainted from the worldly powers and that its downfall was its alignment with “worldly” political powers. Christians were arguing and getting violent with one another long before their adoption by and adaptation to Rome. Although most of the Anabaptists got it right that followers of Christ were not to kill others, even their enemies, the record of intolerance and coercion within their own communities is too well known to argue that they were somehow spiritual pacifists who loved everybody inclusively. I’m not sure it is enough to reduce the concept of agape to simply not killing people.
Related to this myth is the belief that Christianity at the beginning was thoroughly a religion of love. From the very beginning, it was filled with conflict, arrogance, and politics. The evidence in the New Testament is overwhelming; its books are shot through with reflections of conflict and ideological construction. Once the early followers of Jesus adopted the arrogant claim that only those who believed Jesus was the long-anticipated messiah could know God’s grace, it became a religion of arrogance and incipient authoritarianism. When they turned Jesus into one claiming he was the only way, truth, and lifeline to God, they crossed a Rubicon and burned the bridge behind them.
Indeed, Christianity has a side that is light—a side of active love and care. There is plenty of scriptural and historical evidence for that as well, and one can easily pick plenty of texts and examples to show it. But there is also a dark side that is not the result of some kind of “infection” from worldly powers outside itself. The church militant is not an aberration; it is inherent in Christianity. Walt Kelly’s Pogo got it right when he said, “We have seen the enemy, and he is us.” Those bigoted and intolerant white evangelicals we rightly condemn are not some “other”; they are our brothers and sisters in a very flawed religion, a religion with a light and loving side but also a shadow side of resentment, anger, intolerance, and oppression. Nietzsche was on to something when he wrote, “The very word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding: in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.”
Thanks, Anton, for continuing the discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have the time and energy (or wisdom?) to respond fully, but I do want to make a few (inadequate) comments. (To respond fully would involve writing far more than I do inmy blog posts, which I limit to 700 words.) I will make some response to each of your four paragraphs:
Delete1) You mention sin/fallenness, which certainly has been a constant emphasis of traditional Christianity, although some liberals now seem to deny that emphasis. But I recognize the truthfulness of the assertion regarding the reality of sin and fallenness. But there is an equal emphasis on grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Along with John 3:16, a central point of the Christmas message, I believe, is found in the words found in 2 Corinthians 5:19 -- "in Christ God was reconciling the world to [God]self,"
2) As you might well guess, I disagree with what you referred to as "the Anabaptist mistake." They primarily sought to follow the teaching of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount" -- and some of them also sought to practice the type of "koinonia" seen in Acts 2 and 4. Sure, there were disagreements among the early Christians, but I wonder what you have in mind regarding them "getting violent with one another" prior to the fourth century. As for the 16th century Anabaptists, they could perhaps be faulted for "intolerance and coercion" as "shunning" was one of the core principles of the Schleitheim Confession (1527). That was intended to be done, however, with loving concern for erring members in order to protect the integrity of their community.
3) You wrote that from the very beginning Christianity "was filled with conflict, arrogance, and politics" and that "it became a religion of arrogance and incipient authoritarianism." That, I think you will have to admit, is a rather harsh, judgmental statement, and one that perhaps indicates an implicit bias against the beliefs and practices of the early Church. It was the Gospel writer who referred to Jesus as "the way, the truth, and the life (John in 14:6), in the very next chapter after stating that Jesus said (as I cited in the blog article), “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (13:35). And, it needs to be noticed, that mutual love was noted by non-Christian observers of Christ's followers in the second century C.E. (and, doubtlessly, before and after then also).
4) I strongly disagree with your contention that "the church militant is not an aberration," at least "militant" in literal terms. There is no indication of that before the end of the 4th century C.E. And while Nietzsche makes an important point to consider in his statement that you quoted, there are many Christians through the centuries who were not crucified, but who died as martyrs because of their allegiance to Jesus--and many others who suffered greatly because of being a follower of Jesus but who escaped martyrdom--and I am thinking of people like Francis of Assisi (who has been called "the last Christian") but also people in our lifetime, such as Clarence Jordan, whom I wrote about in my Nov. 25 blog post (and in other posts linked to in the labels at the bottom of that article).(See
https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2022/11/in-praise-of-koinonia-farm.html)
Wow, this is a spirited conversation! My 2¢ is in deconstructing the concept of love, which may not apply to agape, which may have a more specific meaning. Loving your friends and family and your nation may propel you to hate others, to lay down your life and kill others, to defend the people you love. It does not automatically overcome the us-them divide. Then there is the problem of love compared to tolerance. Should you love anti-semites or racists? Should you even tolerate them? How can you love Jews and anti-semites, or Blacks and racists, at the same time, in the same degree? Maybe you can love the person but hate the behavior. It’s like loving a murderer but also sending him to prison or to the gallows. That’s not a common use of the word love. And would that kind of love be specific to Christians?
DeleteThanks, Phil (Pip), for your comments and for raising far more questions and issues that I can address now. But I have written from what Anton referred to as "the Anabaptist mistake," and I re-affirm that position as being what I consider to be original/authentic Christianity, even though I know there were conflicting ideas even among the early Christians.
DeleteMy understanding of Christian love is that which was expressed by Dirk Willems in 1569 and by conscientious objectors through the years--and this is the type of love that I think we Christians need to uphold/maintain now. See what I wrote about this in my May 20, 2017, blog post:
https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2017/05/honoring-cos.html
Pip, you raise challenging and difficult questions even for those of us who want to practice agape. Life’s circumstances present us sometimes with excruciatingly painful decisions. I think I’ve read some of the books Leroy has mentioned in this thread. One of the best I’ve ever read, often grossly misrepresented but which deals with questions like yours, is Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics. —Anton
DeleteBefore 6 a.m. I received an email from local Thinking Friend Bruce Morgan, who along with some personal words wrote, "Thanks for sharing your Christmas blog, which is timely."
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading and responding, Bruce.
DeleteAnd then about 6:30 a Thinking Friend in North Carolina, whom I first met in 1966 when she was a teenager, sent the following comments:
ReplyDelete"I appreciated the clarity with which you described this nearly unthinkable move toward hatred in the 'I don’t know what to call them' community. I am thinking (like a psychologist) that so many could not go where love leads, to the sharing of power and respect with women and people of color and the LGBT community, with all peoples. They do not have the tools or the skills to ward off the self-serving politicians and extremist evangelists. I join you in deep sorrow about this reality.
"With not a lot of data I sometimes share my hypothesis that the Tea Party practiced with taking over the Southern Baptist Convention before they began in local and federal politics!
"Thank you for speaking for those who have chosen the path of love, each and every day!"
I much appreciate these comments from this Thinking Friend who through the decades has helped struggling people as a psychologist and as a loving person.
DeleteHere are brief comments received a few minutes ago from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"The anti-LGBTQ movement seems very strong among evangelicals, Leroy. Thank you for calling attention to this distorted expression of Christianity,"
Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson. It was uncanny how similar the contemporary "hatemongers" on the YouTube video were to the hateful Christian nationalists in Octavia Butler's dystopian novel, which was published in 1998.
DeleteThank you for this blog post, Leroy, with your emphasis on love as central to the celebration of Christmas, and the tragic distortion and perversion of Christianity by those who promote hatred of others.
ReplyDeleteLike you, the song, "They'll know we are Christians by our love," brings back fond memories of the late 60s and early 70s, when I enjoyed singing it in church and college then.
Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago shares these pertinent comments:
ReplyDelete"I fully agree with your wish for a Christmas full of love and with your comments.
"I too had read about the restaurant in Virginia that refused to serve a homophobic religious group. I think it could have been an opportunity to engage the members of the group in a civil discussion about homosexuality, but if the group's homophobia was particularly virulent, then I can certainly understand the concerns of the restaurant staff. One caveat is that conducting a civil discussion, with those who hold opposing views, requires some skill.
"You cited a comment on the YouTube video about hate preachers, "I simply don't have enough hatred in me to be a Christian" struck as one of the most perverted views of Christianity I have ever read. The writer was perhaps being sarcastic. The issue of course is just the opposite. Does one have enough love to be a Christian?"
Thanks for your comments, Eric--and for your challenging question at the end. Indeed, our ongoing challenge is to experience God's love more fully in order that we are able to love more broadly--and inclusively.
DeleteAs it happens, my bookclub, AKA Zoom Sunday School, just finished reading a book you recently recommended, DO I stay CHRISTIAN? by Brian McLaren. It was a powerful read, and the first section of the book is 10 chapters outlining 10 strong reasons to stop being a Christian. The last is especially relevant to this blog, "Because Christianity Is a Sinking, Shrinking Ship of Wrinkling People (Demographics)." It even inspired him to use a new word, "shrinkling." Now part two is reasons to stay Christian, and part 3 observations about how to proceed whichever path you take. What kind of world do we live in that even Brian McLaren has been driven to confess that Christianity has become too toxic for many people? McLaren ends his latest book with these words:
ReplyDelete"If you have the inner fire to stay in the struggle, may you know that you are walking a path that reformers, prophets, mystics and sages have walked before you, including a fellow who grew up in Nazareth of Galilee and died just outside Jerusalem."
Indeed, McLaren found his way close to where another blog recommendation took us in "The Gospel in Dostoyevsky." It was a jolt to me to revisit "The Grand Inquisitor" from "The Brothers Karamazov" where Jesus returns for a visit only to be arrested by the Grand Inquisitor, who then lectures Jesus on how he had to "fix" the gospel Jesus had left. At the end Jesus kisses the Inquisitor on the lips and then leaves. I remain amazed that Dostoyevsky put this story into the mind of the atheist brother, so long ago. Perhaps, someday, Christians truly will be known by "our love."
Thanks for your comments, Craig. I'm glad you found the study of McLaren's book helpful, and thanks for citing his words at the end of that book. As you recognize, I'm sure, in the first part of the book McLaren deals with some of the issues that Anton mentioned above--and there are, certainly, problems of the past that must be taken seriously, as he does. But in my opinion, the second part gives adequate reasons for remaining Christian and those reasons are more compelling than those given in the first part.
Deleteシィート先生のクリスマス直前の記事に感謝します。私のつたない質問と意見を、日本語で書くことをお許し下さい！
ReplyDeleteシィート先生の「イエスこそ神からの人類への愛（Loving）のクリスマスギフトである。」という意見に賛同します。
ここで一つの質問ですが、英語圏で、「Ｌｏｖｅ」という概念は、一般に定着した考え方なのでしょうか？日本語の多くの聖書では、「アガペー」という言葉を「愛」と訳していますが、釜ヶ崎（日雇い労働者が多く集まる地域）でカソリックの神父をしておられる本田哲郎さんという方は、「アガペー＝愛」という翻訳に否を唱えています。彼は、「アガペー」を「大切にする」と訳する方が、より具体的に、「アガペー」の本質を伝えらるというのです。日本語において「愛」という言葉は、どこか曖昧なところがあるように、私も思います。ギリシャ語では、「愛」を、「フィリア＝友愛・兄弟愛」とし、「エロス＝男女間の愛」、「アガペー＝神の愛（これは、使徒パウロが意図的に主イエスに現された究極の愛を表現するために用いた言葉）」といった「愛」の具体的な区別があると聞いています。英語の「Ｌｏｖｅ」は、いつも、「アガペー」を指して使われるのでしょうか？
私も、いつか、「神の愛の神学」という題の本を書いてみたいと思っていますので、シィート先生が考えらえる「神の愛」というのは、いかなるものであるのか、教えて頂けないでしょうか？私は、やはり、聖書のイエス・キリストの生涯を見据えつつ、日々の生活で、その教えと行動に従っていく中から、具体的な「神の愛」という実態に迫っていけるのではないかと考えています。まさに、いかなる「イエス・キリスト論」を持っていくかが、我々の生活、社会、そして、世界をも変えていくのではないかと思います。
家畜小屋に産まれたイエス。貧しい大工の息子に産まれたイエス。そして、聖霊の力によって、母マリアから生まれたイエス。その後のイエスの生き様、死に様、そして、復活！
その主イエスこそ、神がこの人類の送られた（神の）愛なるギフトであったとされるシィート先生の結論に、アーメンです！
Thanks for your questions and comments, Yamada-san. I don't have time now to give a full response to your questions, but certainly the word "love" is used in many ways in English, as 愛 is in Japanese, that are much different from the meaning of the New Testament word "agape." The meaning and significance of "agape" is well explained in two older books that have been translated into Japanese--and which you have possibly read. One is "Strength to Love" (『汝の敵を愛せよ』by M. L. King, Jr., and especially the fifth chapter is relevant to this discussion. The other is "Four Loves" 『四つの愛』by C.S. Lewis, which talks about the different words for love as you mentioned above.
DeleteWhat I wrote about love in this blog article will likely be understood fairly well by those who are Christians or who have a good understanding of Christianity, but for those who do not understand the meaning of the Christian use of "agape," perhaps there will not be sufficient understanding of what I wrote about Christians being known by their love.
I'm finding it interesting here in Costa Rica starting a worshiping group in English with expats, mostly retired, along with a few Costa Ricans. Almost everyone I meet has "graduated" from some sort of conservative, fundamentalistic Christian faith that they can no longer follow. Many were deeply hurt in the process of leaving the faith they grew up in. Most have/had given up on ever finding a Christian group they could bear to be a part of. I don't know if we will succeed in providing an oasis of faith, but we advertise the worshiping group as, "refreshingly progressive, radically inclusive, and socially concerned." For me, I am too old and too retired to soft pedal or backtrack on progressive theology or social views. I'm enjoying this little experiment in faith. Maybe we can be known in the community as people who love and accept.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting these comments, Lydia, and I am happy to hear more about the English worship services you are leading in Costa Rica--and I really like the words you are using to advertise the nature of what you are doing. -- Perhaps you have read McClaren's book "Do I Stay Christian?" which Craig mentioned above. If not, I think you would find much that would be helpful in responding to those who have had bad experiences with narrow forms of Christianity in the past and who have resonated with some of the criticism of American Christianity by anti-Christian thinkers/writers.
Delete