How did Christianity become an excuse to be mean? Or, Why I resigned from the doctrine police
By Helen Mildenhall |
| |
|
| |
About seven years ago I had a realization that changed my life: my Christian beliefs had given me the excuse to be mean.
I never intended that to happen. I didn’t notice the day I crossed the line and signed up as a member of the doctrine police force.
I think it began in August 2000 when I found out that a creator of a workshop taken by evangelical Christians openly denied the doctrine of the Trinity. I was righteously indignant about it. I had a computer and I wasn’t afraid to use it. I e-mailed every church I could find on the Internet which hosted the workshop. I posted links on my website which defended the doctrine of the Trinity.
Christianity Today and even the Wall Street Journal picked up on the story as fall got underway. They both ran pieces covering controversy about the workshop and its leader. These mentioned me by name. The Wall Street Journal described me as ‘angered’, which made me somewhat uncomfortable. Was that really how I was coming across? If so, was that how Jesus wanted people to perceive me: angry?
I enjoyed the attention I was getting. The newsletter of a local cult awareness expert described me as a ‘heroine of the faith’. I felt like I was doing something worthwhile by warning people about this heretical leader. I hoped she would repent and realize her beliefs were wrong. However she entrenched and sent out newsletters about how she was being persecuted for the sake of righteousness.
Around the beginning of December I made the mistake of thinking about the leader as another human being. I realized “Wow, I am being so mean – what did she ever do to me?” I had taken her workshop some time before this and it actually had some tips in it I found helpful. I also realized that holding up one particular measuring stick against her gave very distorted results – it was unfair. If I was honest, I knew from the workshops that she had great trust in God and great faith in him. He was her loving Father – there was no doubt about that.
Once I realized how mean I was being I couldn’t continue. I took down my Trinity website page and posted an apology to the leader in place of it. I sent her a written apology in the mail. I received a response back from her with a photo of her family. That response meant more to me – and still does – than all the acclaim I received for my stint in the doctrine police.
I’ve never regretted handing in my doctrine police badge even though some Christians remonstrated with me for jumping ship. It was the love of God that drew me to him in the first place. I knew the Bible said God is love. If any of my actions were not motivated by love, how could I think God approved of them? I knew deep down that love was not behind my anti-Trinitarian witch-hunt. It was my desire to prove I was right and she was wrong and it was fueled by the attention I was getting. Even the title of my website, which I chose in 1997, testified against me: “Love is the most excellent way”.
Jesus affirmed that the greatest two commandments (which are alike) are “Love God” and “Love your neighbor”. He also said to his disciples in his parting words: “Love each other”. Obviously it was very important to Jesus that his followers would be people characterized by love.
In view of this how did I get so off-track? I take responsibility for it; I also think the world I was in made it too easy to redefine love until it becomes the opposite of what Jesus meant. It happens something like this. Conservative Christians define love as “acting to bring about the best for the loved one”. So far so good: I like this definition. However it gets subverted when a group of Christians presumes certainty about what is best for another person.
In my opinion, only God can be certain about anything. Therefore, it would be best if human beings were open to some feedback on whether their ‘loving behavior’ is perceived that way by its recipients. Surely there is a point at which a reality check should be done. If you are being perceived as mean, nasty, arrogant, patronizing or irritating then maybe ‘loving behavior’ is not in fact an accurate description of what you’re doing. Or, if it is, don’t be surprised when people say “Thanks but could you please go love someone else instead of me?”
There’s a Bible verse which implies Christians will grow spiritually as they “speak the truth in love”. The same Christians who are certain also tend to be very intent on sharing what they’re certain about with others. They consider this to be inherently loving, since it’s best for others to know the truth. However, if sharing the truth is inherently loving, why did Paul add ‘in love’ to ‘speaking the truth’? That would make it redundant, wouldn’t it? Perhaps Paul intended his readers to understand it’s possible to speak the truth in a mean way.
Since the word ‘love’ has been devalued by some Christians, I prefer to think of what it’s comprised of, as a safeguard against me failing to love and becoming mean again. 1 Corinthians provides a helpful breakdown of love. For example, love is kind – so, if I am being unkind clearly I am failing to love. I also think it is respectful. I don’t see how you can claim to love someone if you are being disrespectful towards them.
Humor is often used as a cover for meanness. Friends have enough relationship with each other that they can tease each other without taking offense. When strangers interact on the internet, the circumstances are different. Ridicule is not likely to be well-received. When people who have more power in a given situation – such as a blog host and his/her friends on his/her own blog - get together and unkindly make fun of a person with less power – such as a blog visitor, the world calls that bullying. In this case I think the world is right. How did some adult Christians get so off-track that they engage in behavior which is considered unacceptable from children in every school my children have attended?
I’m all for constructive criticism. It’s much less fun to receive than praise, but much more useful to me. But shouldn’t we make sure it’s motivated by love? Not by a desire to score points; not by a desire to prove I’m better than you. Only because I care and I want to see you become the best possible person you could be. The person Jesus wants you to be.
 Helen Mildenhall lives in Illinois with her husband and two children. She hosts the blog Conversation at the Edge and is blog manager for Off The Map, an organization promoting otherlyness, the spiritual practice of serving.
|
| |
|
Chuck's comment struck home for me. Our pastor really got into the book "Jesus Mean and Wild." Now he is truly mean. He even remembers when he was a street fighter and bar-room brawler, although he got saved at 17 and into his late 20's he was a 120 pound weakling with coke bottle glasses! Noone seems to remember anything from the Bible about gentleness. We always wanted to be horse's butts and now we have excuses!
Our pastor really "got into" the book "Jesus Mean and Wild" and the new "Macho" men's movement. Since then he has been meaner and wilder than before. I hate to see it when people get an unbalanced view and use it as a license to do what their flesh wanted to do in the first place. "I love so much that I will slap a couple of knuckleheads to fix that situation!" :(
Mike, I think the starting point for someone who wants to offer constructive criticism has to be that their heart motivation is love towards the person who concerns them. Not anger or frustration.
It seems to me that anger and frustration motivate a great deal of the 'rebuking' that goes on in Christian circles, even though it is said to be done 'in love'.
One way I know this is - if you ask the people protesting 'Have you prayed for that person?' they often haven't. To me that's a sure sign there's not much love behind what they're saying.
Even if they have prayed, if their prayer is like the Pharisee Jesus described: "Thank you God that I am not like this other person", then still I would say they have not attained the love which needs to be the basis of Jesus-like constructive criticism.
Jesus would never have gone to the cross had he not had that love. He would have just yelled at people instead. And there's no way he could have hung on the cross and prayed "Father forgive them because they don't know what they're doing" at his darkest hour. Often Christians aren't even personally hurt by those they seek to criticize yet they manage to get personally angry and frustrated anyway. But when Jesus prayed that prayer on the cross there was no doubt he was praying it for people who were personally hurting him - they were putting him to death.
If Jesus could have this attitude and love surely it's something for Christians to aspire to and make the starting point before they rush into criticizing others. Even if they are sure their criticism is valid.
I agree. People who you think are the sweetest and kindest folks in the church -- virtual pillars of the church -- can turn on you in a heartbeat if you cross them. Unfortunately being present for 40+ years at a church doesn't mean that you've matured accordingly -- it takes more than just warming the pews.
Helen, How do you think you could have addressed the disbelief of the workshop presenter in a loving way? I agree VERY much that Love should always be the motive for "rebuke"...but being rebuked, we almost always think that the person is being unkind.
Thanks for your comment Robert. I agree about people who feel threatened. Emotionally they are like cornered animals, who snarl and bite because they are afraid.
In my case - and I suspect in the case of some other Christians - I lost sight of the human being at the receiving end and that's why I was able to be mean. I think that happens a lot online; people don't think about the human being at the receiving end.
I don't think all Christians feel they have license to be mean.
In my recent experience those that are usually are feeling threatened by something they don't agree with and feel that maybe there might be some validity to it.
If their faith is strong enough there's no need for them to be mean!
:)
Robert
|
It seems to me that anger and frustration motivate a great deal of the 'rebuking' that goes on in Christian circles, even though it is said to be done 'in love'.
One way I know this is - if you ask the people protesting 'Have you prayed for that person?' they often haven't. To me that's a sure sign there's not much love behind what they're saying.
Even if they have prayed, if their prayer is like the Pharisee Jesus described: "Thank you God that I am not like this other person", then still I would say they have not attained the love which needs to be the basis of Jesus-like constructive criticism.
Jesus would never have gone to the cross had he not had that love. He would have just yelled at people instead. And there's no way he could have hung on the cross and prayed "Father forgive them because they don't know what they're doing" at his darkest hour. Often Christians aren't even personally hurt by those they seek to criticize yet they manage to get personally angry and frustrated anyway. But when Jesus prayed that prayer on the cross there was no doubt he was praying it for people who were personally hurting him - they were putting him to death.
If Jesus could have this attitude and love surely it's something for Christians to aspire to and make the starting point before they rush into criticizing others. Even if they are sure their criticism is valid.
In my case - and I suspect in the case of some other Christians - I lost sight of the human being at the receiving end and that's why I was able to be mean. I think that happens a lot online; people don't think about the human being at the receiving end.
In my recent experience those that are usually are feeling threatened by something they don't agree with and feel that maybe there might be some validity to it.
If their faith is strong enough there's no need for them to be mean!
:)
Robert