The trouble with being a good Christian

In a blog post on CNN, Dean Obeidallah goes searching for the good Christians. After cataloguing a series of American Christian activists with extremely bigoted views, on homosexuals, especially, he quotes the deeply disturbing recent statistic that “65% of [college-aged voters] view Christianity as “anti-gay.”" He concludes,

The longer that mainstream Christian leaders don’t even bother to counter the rhetoric from the far right, the more likely that radical Christians will come to define Christianity.

It is time, in other words, for good Christians “to stand up to those who give your religion a bad name[.]”

I don’t want to imply that these categories are absolute, because it’s a fundamental Christian insight that no one is good and no one is bad. We all fall short of either one, floating somewhere between those poles. But exaggerating for the sake of the clarity of the argument and following Obeidallah, let’s divide Christians into two groups: Good ones and bad ones.

The bad ones are the ones for whom Christianity isn’t a transforming force for good in their lives and community, but rather a means for selfish power-grabbing, whether in personal relationships, in the church or in society at large. It’s a fiercely guarded social and psychological identity marker, to be defended at all costs. And it’s an unceasing source for self-righteousness. Bad Christians have no shame. They are loud. They elbow their way to the top, unfailingly confident in their own personal utopian agendas. They don’t hesitate to step on other Christians, especially the good ones. And, worst of all, they think they’re the good Christians, completely blind to how tragically wrong they are and to the damage, revokable only by the grace of God, that they are doing.

But most Christians aren’t bad Christians. Most Christians are good Christians. They live quiet lives, trying to be as good as they can. They try to embody the Christian virtues of neighbour love, forgiveness, humility, peace and long-suffering. They love Jesus and try to be like him. And that’s the problem. The problem good Christians have is that they follow the crucified Messiah.

This is the man who told his followers to turn the other cheek, to rejoice when they were hated and persecuted, to love their enemy and to forgive all. He not only taught this, but lived it out fully, and it got him brutally killed.

So, returning to Obeidallah’s question – Where are the good Christians? – one is confronted with the bitter, but holy irony written into the very DNA of genuine Christian faith: Just as Jesus didn’t resist those who sought to hurt him, even to the point of death, so good Christians because they are good Christians are ripe for the picking by bad Christians. Good Christians are silent when bad Christians take to the pulpit, the soapbox or the airwaves to spread their agendas of shameless self-righteous power-grabbing, thinly veiled as holy platitudes. To a significant degree, that’s what it means to be a good Christian.

I’m divided as to the extent to which what good Christians do is right. There’s a time and a place to clean out the temple, so to speak, and to stand up to those who take the Lord’s name in vain, using the faith to further their anti-Christian agendas. And I’m reasonably sure it’s something good Christians should do more of. To the extent that good Christians fail to identify those times and places and fail to do something about it, their non-action might not be wrong, per say, but it is certainly unfortunate and harmful. But on the other hand, what good Christians do and don’t do isn’t motivated by cowardice or apathy. The deep truth of Christianity is that for every cross, there’s an empty tomb. That’s the motivation – and the reason why non-violence and non-resistance (in all its forms) makes sense to good Christians: Things may look bad at the moment, but as sure as Jesus rose again, God will turn them around.

So, where are the good Christians? They are where they’ve always been: Filling the pews and humbly serving the Lord in all of life’s circumstances. You can’t miss them if you just scratch the surface and ignore those shameless and bigoted self-styled übermensches, who in no way represent genuine Christianity.

Posted by on Jun 23, 2012 | 2 comments
  • http://twitter.com/zugzwanged Alastair Roberts

    It seems to me that much of the problem here is that the media has a certain perception of the Christian faith that it is trying to preserve. There are plenty of bizarre, hateful, and extreme voices to be found if that is what you are looking for. What is generally less reported is that a significant number of these voices come from the crazy fringes, and that 99.99% of Christians already have no association whatsoever with them.

    For instance, I see no reason to dissociate myself from Westboro Baptist Church and its activities, precisely because I was in no way associated with them to begin with, save in the narrative that the media presents to the public. To dissociate myself from them is already to damn myself by implicitly admitting that some connection existed. It really doesn’t.

    I know countless sane and balanced Christian voices. However, the media isn’t interested in such voices. People want the titillation of self-righteous outrage and the media wants to provide it to them. To be frank, if that’s what they want, then let them have it. They are condemning themselves to their own darkness.

    In addition to this there is the fact that the media frames the good or bad Christian narrative. What does it really mean to be a ‘good’ Christian? If being a good Christian involves being affirming and non-disapproving of contemporary sexual ethics and prevailing sexual practice, pluralistic or universalist in one’s view of other religions, and thoroughly committed to the privacy and insularity of religious faith relative to the State, then I will happily admit that I am not a ‘good’ Christian. What it means to be a good Christian is defined relative to the teaching of Christ, not the prejudices of liberalism.

    The media so emphasizes and elevates the spurious values of ‘tolerance’ (which isn’t much like tolerance in the traditional sense of the word, which presupposed a degree of disapproval, but is about mutual affirmation in indifferent difference), pluralism, and sexual liberation, that everything is boiled down to these things. All of the great cultural antitheses of our age are framed in terms of these things. What the media conveniently misses is that, while Christians generally don’t give the ground that it wants on such issues, most Christians concentrate their activity elsewhere. Christians put considerably more of their money and energies into tackling poverty, pursuing justice for the oppressed, and forming loving communities.

    I have no interest in playing the good Christian game, and learning to be the domesticated lapdog of liberal pluralism. The Christian faith has its own distinct voice and values and it should have the nerve to speak openly about them.

    • http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibelieve Arni Zachariassen

      You are most certainly correct, Alastair, about the media. If it bleeds, it leads, as they say. Kind and humble Christians don’t sell newspapers and produce ratings, but insane ones do. 

      You’re also correct about the expectations of our liberal culture.

      That said, two things. 

      I wasn’t so much directly responding to the linked article as I was using it simply to pose the question in its title. My thoughts have developed not in response to Westboro Baptist Church or someone similar (though they certainly address certain question that arise in the face of the attention those voices receive). They have developed, rather, in my personal experiences, especially in church, where it seems that the people who gain most influence over how things are those who are the loudest – and, in my humble opinion, least concerned with the gospel. Those who get it – the gospel, I mean – are often the ones with least influence. Trying to sort through these experiences gave rise to my post. (Disclosure: I didn’t want to relate too much of my experiences with church, because I’m in the middle of them as we speak. Maybe I’ve ruined it now, but using a relatively uncontroversial CNN article seemed more prudent than relating some specific experience in church. I’m sure you’ll understand.)

      Also, while I agree that liberal society has very little tolerance towards those who dissent from the unquestioning love and adoration for all things gay, lumping everyone in with the most rabid homophobes, I don’t think it’s unfair to take exception to a Christian who claims that Hitler used homosexuals because they were more murderous than heterosexual. I think that qualifies for rabid homophobia. 

  • Pingback: Who’s protecting who? | I Think I Believe