So what is the relationship between a person’s personal philosophy and that person’s individual role in the society with which he or she lives? Of particular note is the growing tide of American religious followers who believe that Christian’s should be more active inside social and political organizations for varying reasons (spread the Gospel, help the poor and downtrodden, protect the weak, uphold moral standards, etc.). Does close examination of their primary scriptures (Bible) support the many permutations of actions these beliefs result in? How should a person claiming membership as a Christian function in society?
These questions seem to fall into two major categories: A.)Does the bible instruct Christians to support or subvert the current political/social system? and B.)Does the bible instruct Christians to hold nonbelievers to the same moral/ethical standards and actions it demands of Christians? The first question addresses what the individual Christian should do; the latter question addresses what the individual Christian should expect/require nonbelievers to do. Both questions are critical because dependant upon the answer, conflict between devout or fervent practitioners and the rest of the citizens may be incited or appeased.
For the purposes of this discussion, Category B [Does the bible instruct Christians to hold nonbelievers to the same moral/ethical standards & actions it demands of Christians?] will be addressed first. Category A will be addressed in a later post. Rather than go line-by-line through the entire bible, let’s pull out 2 small passages of Scripture every Christian should agree on, and then use the remainder of the bible as a historical commentary.
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20 NIV.
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all our soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:29-31 NIV.
Assuming for the moment that there is obvious and recognizable destinctions between believers and nonbelievers, a Christian is commanded first to love a neighbor. The usage here implies something different than the current conventional meaning of love; it implies something closer to the ancient greek forms of agape or phileos, the kind of unconditional love or love between family members. If it stopped there, there should be little conflict between Christians and nonbelievers since it basically commands a compassionate, proactive version of The Golden Rule.
However, the other passage clearly extends the role of a Christian much further. A Christian is to make, baptize, and teach disciples. Of question is whether the ‘all nations’ refers to individual people or the societal groups as a whole. The distinction is relevant because it could mean the difference between
Of additional concern is the meaning behind the words ‘go and make disciples.” If this phrase is taken literally (without the additional passage as context), it would seem that conflict between nonbelievers and Christians is inevitable. However, nowhere in this passage does it delineate how those disciples are to be made. This is where the command about loving neighbors comes in. Since the word ‘disciple’ literally means: “one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another; a convinced adherent of a school or individual (Websters Dictionary),” the manner in which someone becomes a convinced adherent willing to spread doctrine is at issue.
Quite simply, there is no reason to assume the process of converting people should be done by force, since it is hard to reconcile the idea of a loving way to force someone to believe. I’ve heard some people try and make the argument, that if you truly love someone and know they are making a mistake, you should force them to stop. I don’t buy it. Freedom is the opportunity to choose to do the right thing. Forcing someone to decide what you want them to decide removes the opportunity for them to choose. There is no way that can be considered loving them: rather it is dominating them.
But when an individual rejects Christian doctrine, there is little incentive for that person to abide by the philosophical and moral dictates of Christianity. For that individual it would be akin to asking them to abide by the dictates of your invisible friend. Not only would that person consider you foolish, but following your guidelines would (from that person’s perspective) be irrational. But we come to an important caveat here. The philosophical and moral dictates of Christianity may not be unique to that religion. Point-of-origin claims aside, many religions share similar philosophical and moral underpinnings, though the core details may differ. Some secular stances share philosophical and moral underpinnings with Christianity; what they differ on is usually the rationale and purpose behind them. Consequently, Christians cannot claim exclusivity on the dictates any longer.
If Christians cannot claim exclusivity on the dictates, then they can no longer demand adherence to their version from others either. If the secular stance defines marriage as something different than Christianity, there is no section of the Bible that demands forced adherence by nonbelievers; rather it is laid out that there are simply serious eternal consequences for rejection. It is not the job of Christians to bring the consequences, simply to inform nonbelievers of them and live the rightly by example, while attempting to persuade through word & action.
No comments:
Post a Comment