Let’s catch up.

Here are the original questions.

(1) What evidence is there that Christianity works?

(2) Is there a higher percentage of good people now amongst humanity than     there was 2000 years ago?

(3) Is the percentage of good people greater amongst Christians than non-         Christians?

(4) If you think the answers to these is “yes,” I would like to hear why you think so because I don’t see it.

 If the answers are “no,” then one must ask he question, is it just a fraction of people who “really get it” who turn out better? And, if so, what good does that do? Why would God make it so difficult to succeed for so many people? Or is it just about the struggle, in which case that sound like Hinduism? And, if the answers are really complicated, then de facto they are not available to most people, because most people can’t deal with anything complex (to some degree because they are taught to believe, not question, and not think for themselves.

In my last post, I brought up the following points.

• We have to define terms like Christian, good, and how we know if something works.
• Christianity is a religion made up by men to organize a common set of fundamental beliefs, all of which are centered in who Jesus was and why he came.
• Jesus emphasized two primary commandments about fully loving God and other people.
• Regarding what it would take for salvation, I referred to the famous story of the rich man and what it would take to be good. The message leaves us with the point that there’s nothing we can do to be truly good. Instead, we need to surrender everything to God and follow Jesus. Whether or not a listener would like that statement, that’s what he said.
• Therefore, the key to being good begins with an act of surrender and the willingness to become a person who loves God and others above all else.

All of this raises some very interesting problems, which are the basis of the author’s objections.

To summarize, if Christians believe all of this stuff and it’s true, then shouldn’t they collectively behave better than non-Christians and, then, wouldn’t the world be a much better place given all of the Christians in it?

While I could happily work my way through with an answer, I’m going to turn to one of my favorite writers, Tim Keller, who addresses a piece of this much better than I could ever hope to.

He says:

“Many people who take an intellectual stand against Christianity do so against a backdrop of personal disappointment with Christians and churches. We all bring to issues intellectual predispositions based on our experiences. If you have known many wise, loving, kind, and insightful Christians over the years, and if you have seen churches that are devout in belief yet civic-minded and generous, you will find the intellectual case for Christianity much more plausible. If, on the other hand, the preponderance of your experience is with nominal Christians (who bear the name but don’t practice it) or with self-righteous fanatics, then the arguments for Christianity will have to be extremely strong for you to concede that they have any cogency at all.”

He continues:

“So we have to address the behavior of Christians – individual and corporate – that has undermined the plausibility of Christianity for so many people. Three issues stand out. First, there is the issue of Christians’ glaring character flaws. If Christianity is the truth, why are so many non-Christians living better lives than the Christians? Second, there is the issue of war and violence. If Christianity is the truth, why has the institutional church supported war, injustice and violence over the years? Third, there is the issue of fanaticism. Even if Christian teaching has much to offer, why would we want to be together with so many smug, self-righteous, dangerous fanatics?”

Ok then. While the author of our original questions may have other reasons that gave rise to his concerns, I suspect these and their variations would be included.

Now, let’s turn to Keller’s first issue, that of Character Flaws.

He begins by admitting that anyone involved in the life of a church must be aware that the average professing Christian has many character flaws. These communities often have a lot of infighting and the moral failings of Christian leaders are well known. He continues that church officials seem to be at least as corrupt (if not more so) than leaders in the world at large. He then asks the same question as our author. “If Christianity is all it claims to be, shouldn’t Christians on the whole be better people than everyone else?”

You have to admit, Keller is not shying away from taking the issue head-on!

He points out several things that are central to Christian theology. One is that all people are seriously flawed. None of us rise to the standard God seeks for us. None of us is THAT good. We are made right with God through grace and grace alone. Keller argues that it’s a mistake to believe that a person must “clean up” his or her own life in order to merit God’s favor. That is just not a Christian principle. The church is full of “immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally and spiritually. As the saying goes, ‘the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.’”

Authentic Christian discipleship (consistently turning to Jesus for help to be more loving, giving, forgiving, etc…) despite all our predispositions and temptation to act otherwise, can and does often result in character transformation. We’ll come back later to what this can look like.

The second issue Keller addresses is that of Religion and Violence.

There is no question that practitioners of nearly all major belief systems have fueled violence. Keller mentions one of our most widely known and outspoken current atheists, Christopher Hitchens, who argues that religion “poisons everything,” that is like racism in that it is “an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred.” Keller concedes that Hitchens’ point is fair. Christian nations have promoted imperialism and violence through the Inquisition and Slave Trade. Japan, greatly influenced by Buddhism and Shintoism, gave birth to the totalitarian and militaristic culture we saw in the middle of the last century. Both Islam and Hinduism have been the source of significant violence against those who don’t abide by their tenets. However, argues Keller, this is equally true of atheistic communism under Russia, China and Cambodia. Or their forerunner, the French Revolution, which celebrated the triumph of reason yet produced massive violence.

Keller: “Violence done in the name of Christianity is a terrible reality and must be both addressed and redressed. There is no excusing it. In the 20^th century, however, violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it. We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be – whether socialist or capitalist, whether religious or irreligious, whether individualistic or hierarchical. Ultimately, then, the fact of violence and warfare in a society is no necessary refutation of the prevailing beliefs of that society.” (Bold highlighting is mine)

So, of course, Keller is defending religion and Christianity against the charge that they are the cause of violence … a poisoning of society in Hitchens’ argument as against a belief that the absence of religion will promote peace. Now, this is not exactly what our questioning author is getting at. For, the astute reader (and the author) will note that his question is not directing “blame” for the bad stuff upon Christians. He is merely asking for evidence that they are less to blame than non-Christians. I included Keller’s piece on this as it is a common objection about whether Christianity is, indeed, true to its principles. We will return to this later.

Finally, we turn to Keller’s third issue, which is Fanaticism.

Keller: “Perhaps the biggest deterrent to Christianity for the average person today is not so much violence and warfare but the shadow of fanaticism. Many non believers have friends or relatives who have become ‘born again’ and seem to have gone off the deep end. They soon begin to express loudly their disapproval of various groups and sectors of our society – especially movies and television, the Democratic Party, homosexuals, evolutionists, activist judges, members of other religions and the values taught in public schools. When arguing for the truth of their faith they often appear intolerant and self-righteous. This is what many people would call fanaticism.”

Forgive me for quoting Keller at some length and in such detail. Hopefully, by the time I conclude this entire series of essays, my reasoning will become clear.

Keller continues: “Many people try to understand Christians along a spectrum from ‘nominalism’ at one end to ‘fanaticism’ on the other. A nominal Christian is someone who is Christian in name only, who does not practice it and barely believes it. A fanatic is someone who is thought to over-believe and over-practice Christianity. In this schematic, the best kind of Christian would be someone in the middle, someone who doesn’t go all the way with it, who believes it but is not too devoted to it. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the Christian faith is basically a form of moral improvement. Intense Christians would therefore be intense moralists or, as they were called in Jesus’ time, Pharisees. Pharasaic people assume they are right with God because of their moral behavior and right doctrine. This leads naturally to feelings of superiority toward those who do not share their religiosity, and from there to various forms of abuse, exclusion and oppression. This is the essence of what we think of as fanaticism.” (Bold highlighting is mine)

Bear with me for his response.

“What if, however, the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer grace is profoundly humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are so not because they are too committed to the gospel but because they’re not committed to it enough.” (Bold highlighting is mine)

“Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding – as Christ was. Because they think of Christianity as a self-improvement program they emulate the Jesus of the whips in the temple, but not the Jesus who said, ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ (John 8:7). What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and the gospel.”

I will conclude this portion shortly.

I assume that the author is suggesting that either the answers to his questions should be simple or else there’s a fatal flaw in Christianity in that most people won’t understand it. And, here I am proceeding through a meticulous rendering of the whole thing, not yet having come close to a conclusion. I may run out of gas (as you, the reader well might) before I’ve addressed the questions to my satisfaction … or his. I will say this: The Christian faith is earth-shattering. No one could make this stuff up. I continue to be amazed at both its incredible complexity and its remarkable simplicity. Whether in these essays tied to the questions or in later ones, I hope to reflect how it takes very little intellect to grasp the eternal truths and their implications. But, we’ll have to see how that goes. For now, thank you for listening and God bless.