Here’s an excerpt of the main point I was trying to make in a comment I posted on a good friend’s blog recently. This lacks full context, so please excuse any apparent gaps in reasoning, but this helped me organize my thoughts around the subject:
I think of statistics showing the fact that today’s Christians are statistically no different, in terms of overall morality, than non-Christians. And so this is an assertion that some postmodern Christians are trying to make: Orthodoxy may not be the transformative thing we have thought it to be for the past thousand years or so.
So what is that thing that really transforms us? If right belief seems only to create exclusive social groups that only welcome those who submit to their criteria for inclusion, and if this right belief, before which we have prostrated ourselves for centuries, statistically is not the essence that both initiates and sustains transformation, perhaps we need to admit the value of semper reformanda, humble ourselves before God and each other, and keep searching…Or at least admit that we may not be so sure as we have led on.
As a reminder, the Fathers said to each other during the canonization process, (you know the exact council more than I do, I’m sure), “This seems right to us and the Spirit…” They were not certain. I think we have all become so certain that all we are about is proving the validity of our certainty. And I’m willing to venture beyond that.
March 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm
While I appreciate that statistics say that Christians are no more moral than non-Christians, I wonder if that stat oversimplifies the issue. It seems like there ought to be 5 or 6 follow up questions to a) are you a Christian and b) are you moral. What do we mean by Christian? What do we mean by moral? Is it possible to call yourself a Christian and have neither right beliefs or right practice and, therefore, make the statistic itself a moot point? Whatever the statistics might say, my doxy is the reason for my praxy.
March 19, 2009 at 1:04 am
I probably should have noted/clarified this earlier…To answer your question, most of the stats I’m referring to define Christians as…
““Born again Christians”…people who said they had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that was still important in their life today and who also indicated they believed that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “born again.””
I’m primarily referring to these stats from the Barna Group, the independent, evangelical Christian research firm. ..And here’s the summary of a small sampling of stats from the book unChristian…
2007 findings indicated essentially no statistically significant difference in behavior between Christians and non-, concerning things like: lying, back-biting, drunkenness, drug use, viewing pornography, etc. Another example: 30% of Christians engage in sexually inappropriate behavior (outside marriage)…35% for non-Christians.
The list goes on.
I’m sure you may have already read this book (unChristian). But if not, I recommend that every Christian picks it up. I know stats can be slanted and everybody has a point to make, but these guys have a pretty good reputation of conducting scientific-quality, objective surveys.
Anyway, good points on your last two sentences. My beliefs also drive my practice, but the difficulty is in defining whether those beliefs are “right,” and if that really matters. I’m not talking about the nature of truth here, but rather the definition of a Christian. Of course, defining the “ortho” is easy for some, but my opinion is that that is the problem: The ease with which one party or group of parties (sometimes arrogantly) declares what is and is not right regarding matters that may not have any impact whatsoever on positive transformation. Certainly, there must be some ultimate absolute, but my point is that maybe absolutes are created, defined, and handed down too liberally.
Then again, I see your point in that one also must ask, “If there are no ‘rights’ what standard do we have?” And I agree with you that there is a risk of/in oversimplifying the issue.
Thanks so much for your comment. It’s really wonderful to have your input.
March 19, 2009 at 4:38 am
Your thing about a standard is a big issue for me. How can we try to put things right or do what’s right, and then proclaim, when it comes to belief, there is no “right”? That troubles me.
I would agree that we can be too committed to the latest “absolute” or too willing to accept the ones we’re handed. But that critique ought to apply outside religion as well as inside it. It seems that philisophical, political, and simple popular truths are deemed more acceptable to embrace than religious ones. Which is why “tolerance” is something everyone should shoot for and “religious” is something suspect. But aren’t both based on handed down absolutes?
March 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The problem is not the presence of a standard. The problem is when groups claim with certainty that the standard is from God himself. One can’t really argue with that. It’s a closed case with no room for discussion, and groups take full advantage of that, consciously or not. Sure, many of the religious absolutes we have today were already debated centuries ago, but just because that is a fact should not mean that those things are closed cases. Debate rules and consequences were different then.
And while we have absolutes in culture, the culture does not claim to speak for God, so there is the possibility for one to debate the validity of a cultural absolute without being labeled a heretic or told they’re going to hell. (They may be social outcasts for a while, but certain discussion processes usually end up confronting those…slavery or gay marriage, for example…but they are not condemned to an eternity of damnation.)
So, in response to your question, while both religious and cultural standards may be based on handed-down absolutes, only the religious make the “from-God” claim and leave no room for discussion.
I do agree with you in that “tolerance” sometimes overrules “religious.” It’s sad. But I think my statements above may explain why that is the case. For the most part, the religious law-makers have brought this upon themselves by claiming to speak for God and then living out hypocrisy. Then when they get chided, they claim they’re being persecuted. Are they being persecuted for righteousness-sake…or self-righteousness-sake?
Does that make sense? Please, definitely feel free to point out any more holes in my perspective. I need that.