Bumperstickers are fascinating. Not because they are clever, or because they impact society in any conceivable way, but because the exact opposite is true. Bumperstickers are often stupid. I would argue that, next to anything George Lucas is a part of, bumperstickers are the lowest conceivable form of art (please argue that point below).
Quality art makes a statement in a way that effects those who receive it, it is showing the world from a different perspective than the recipient is accustomed to. Bumperstickers put statements right in everyones' faces without regard for the quality of said statement or its delivery system. In essence they are often brash and lack any sort of creativity.
Art is the film American History X, that comments on the empty hatred and ignorance that comes with racism, fully realizing its futility and consequences. It does so with a two hour running time that leaves the audience often feeling shocked, uncomfortable, and appalled.
A bumpersticker would just say "racism is stupid!" and that would be that.
See the difference?
Today I saw a gorgeous car that perked my interest. I'm not too into cars, I can't afford to have a nice one so I chose not to torture myself by lusting after them. But this one got my interest partly because it was a very slick looking automobile, but mostly because of how it was uglified (new word!) with stickers all over the rear of the car, not just on the bumper but covering the whole back end (rear window, trunk, and bumper). To add to the interest even further each sticker was more hateful towards religion than the last. There was a "Darwin Fish" that said "Evolve" in the middle and a plethora of others. I generally find people who despise what I stand for interesting, for the most part because I believe I am obligated to understand that hatred as a human being; if I'm not willing to hear their side with all respect than they won't hear mine. So I listen to people who attack my faith and me personally. And I try to respect their opinions as I would hope mine would be respected. But these bumperstickers were where I drew the line.
The bumpersticker that took the cake said "The Dark Ages were caused by religion."
Boom! Roasted! I was almost set to ditch my belief system that had impacted my entire life because of this bumpersticker* until I started actually thinking about it (it took all of three seconds.)
If this sticker is meant to just anger religious people than it might be a very bold form of art. But I doubt that this driver has that much knowledge of what it means to be subversive. I think they believe they were actually making a point. Which made me sad.
The writer of this bumpersticker and the person who bought it and decided to permanently fix it to their car were suggesting that religion was dominant during the Dark Ages therefore religion is bad.
This statement can only be really effective if its converse is pointed out too, such as explaining that it was something other than religion that brought the Dark Ages to an end. But it wasn't.
You can say "Tyler, religion is wrong because it was the reason for the Dark Ages." And I can respond "Religion did help in creating the Dark Ages, but religion also helped bring us out of the Dark Ages." You can't have it both ways cynical bumpersticker lover!
The Dark Ages were the result of an unequal class system, a disrespect for learning and education, financial crisis, a plague, and a myriad of other reasons. Certainly religious systems (not religion itself) helped perpetuate this class system that kept people poor, uneducated, and dependent on the upper class. I will concede to that.
[side note: what was happening in the east during all of this? Islam was thriving and having a golden age in philosophy and science. While most of the historical documents were disappearing in Europe many in the east were safely compiling and copying historical documents that came in handy to get us out of the Dark Ages. We wouldn't have any of Aristotle's writings if it wasn't for religious people cataloguing and maintaining them. Certainly I don't agree with Islam, but I have to give credit where credit is due. They saved a lot of literature during a time when Christian Europe was unable to. That in and of itself should debunk the brilliant bumpersticker.]
As there were many causes for the Dark Ages there were an equal number of reasons that it ended. One of them was the rise of the Protestant religion that both perpetuated and was impacted by the advent of the middle class. Protestantism encouraged learning for not only the clergy and elite but for all people. Now normal farmers, blacksmiths, housewives, etc. were learning how to read and write. They were becoming educated. With that the demand for learning increased. Now people were interested in what Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, etc. had to say. And it was being brought to them in their own language! That would have never happened if Luther hadn't begun writing in German rather than Latin in his addresses to the Church and the people.
Humanist thinking also helped pull Europe out of the dark ages (hand in hand with Protestantism), and who were the major humanist thinkers? Catholics and Protestants, religious people!
The Renaissance also brought an end to the dark ages with an increase in scientific thought and study, new writings and philosophical ideas, and high art that was accessible to the masses. And who did most of this art, or at least commissioned it? Religious thinkers and religious groups.
Now I don't want to be completely deconstructive. If you wanted to get a bumpersticker like this I don't want to take all the wind out of your sails. So here is the constructive part of this essay. Change the bumpersticker to say this:
"Religion caused the Dark Ages, but it also ended it. So I guess we're pretty much even."
*I hope you can pick up on sarcasm in written form, if you can't let me help you, this was sarcasm.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Christian Cliches That Need to End VI: Romanticizing Persecution
Date: Spring of 2008
Location: random classroom at Moody Bible Institute (the college that gave me a B.A.). Its a Systematic Theology class if that helps (systematic theology is where you study all aspects of theology and attempt to make them cohesive so that they compliment rather than contradict each other, if that helps).
Situation:
Location: random classroom at Moody Bible Institute (the college that gave me a B.A.). Its a Systematic Theology class if that helps (systematic theology is where you study all aspects of theology and attempt to make them cohesive so that they compliment rather than contradict each other, if that helps).
Situation:
- Presidential elections are gearing up into full swing.
- Fox News' fear mongering is in full swing.
- college students at my school attempt to appear informed about said election (often through Fox News information) and discuss it before class begins.
- I'm bored
- and tired from staying up late the night before playing milk chugging games (obstacles courses were involved)
- and drawing pictures of classmates to amuse myself.
- my professor is asked what he thinks of the election and how it may impact the separation of church and state and the effect that will have on the evangelical community.
- He gives a thoughtful, if not evasive answer that shows that our ability to understand and explain the complexities of the Trinity might be as (if not more) important than hypothetical assessments of the result of an election of the president that is still over eight months off (I don't think Obama had even won over Clinton at this time, but memory isn't so great with these kinds of things).
- Speculation about how a democrat in the White House could result in the downfall of all freedom for Christians in the United States continues, apparently my professor was too subtle.
Suddenly I'm awoken from my artistically (and milk chugging) induced stupor to hear this from a very pretty blond (who looks more like a Precious Moments doll than anything else) girl say this (and I quote exactly):
"Maybe Christians will start being persecuted now!" With a smile on her face. Yes! you read that right:
WITH A SMILE ON HER FACE!
WITH!
A!
SMILE!
ON!
HER!
FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I understand what her thought process was. I get it. Tertullian (the third century theologian who came up with the term Trinity who you shouldn't feel bad you've never heard of, after all he doesn't wear horn-rimmed glasses or have bleached hair or write in easily digestible pros that are designed to look more profound than they really are... he doesn't even write in English, who needs that headache?!) said that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." If anyone knows about this kind of thing it would be a Christian who was living and writing in the time of some of the worst persecution in the history of the Church. What he is saying is that it is a historically provable fact that when the Church undergoes persecution its numbers grow.
This idea is what prompted the Precious Moment to get excited about the idea of persecution. In her mind its a positive because of the result. Christians often do this. They hope for persecution with (what I sincerely believe and hope is) good intentions. But they are missing the point of Tertullians famous quote.
Tertullian is NOT saying that martyrdom or persecution is glamorous. It isn't something to hope for or be excited about. He is giving an encouragement to those already in persecution, not an endorsement of it.
The intent of persecution is the destruction of the belief system of which you're persecuting against, or at least to render them ineffective in their ability to recruit or have any impact on society.
The way this has been done in the past is through fear, torture, and death. The result of which was in fact the opposite of what was intended (as Tertullian pointed out), instead of people being scared of becoming Christians they converted to Christianity despite the dangers. This was NOT because those who converted thought that persecution or immediate danger to their persons, families, livelihoods, etc. was cool. They converted because in the face of persecution the Church became aware of their need for the Holy Spirit to protect, guide, and comfort them, and for their need for the support of the Church, like they never knew in the times when their lives were not in danger. This is what attracts people to the Christ: the Church's dependence on God, and their unwavering love and devotion to Him in the face of certain death. When the Church is persecuted it becomes aware of its need for Christ and acts in right relationship with Him. People who are concerned that they might die that day are no longer concerned with how much money they have, or how big their house is, or what car they drive (or I guess what chariot in the case of Tertullian's time), or whats happening in pop culture, or how attractive they are, or how attractive their spouse is, or if they are up to date on the latest technology or fashion. They are more concerned with surviving and (more than that) sharing the hope that is inside of them, and remaining faithful to the One who saved them. In essence they stop looking like the world and start looking like Christians. That is what attracts people to Christ and the Church: people being transformed by and dependent on the Holy Spirit! And that is what persecution has provided.
News flash: We don't need persecution to make that happen! We can be dependent on the Holy Spirit for everything if we are just willing to block out the distractions of the world now! If we could only be more concerned about the Gospel of Christ and the hope that brings to us than who Jennifer Aniston is dating, or why Britney Spears shaved her head, or how cool our cars look, or how much money we have in the bank, or what college we went to (or are going to, or what that college says about us or our dreams or our futures), or what movie we went and saw last weekend, or that our steak was slightly more pink than I would prefer, or how much gas costs, or how many pairs of shoes are in our closets, or the fact that the dress your mom bought for you is so last fall, or if Red Dead Redemption is the best video game to ever exist on the face of the planet, or how many comments we get on facebook a day, or what a tweet is, or that we don't make enough money, or whats happening on The Hills, or how popular we are, or who is taking us to prom, or how bad the last episode of Lost was, or whatever else occupies our days, then we can have that same impact on the world as the persecuted Church has had for nearly two thousand years. We can start living for Christ now. If we only want to. And if the present state of things is any indication that is a big if.
Here is another thought that at least I find interesting (because I thought of it), if the goal of persecution I gave earlier is accurate (and I believe it is) then its working in the United States right now. We are under severe persecution and we don't even know it. We're being eaten up from the inside without realizing it because everything looks nice on the outside. We are under persecution right now. But the persecution isn't right in our faces declaring war against us. Rather than the world opposing Christians and punishing them and intimidating them the world is seducing Christians into being just like the world. So what that they aren't putting us in jails and torturing us, they are getting the intended result without us even realizing it. Christians are compromising their faith, not sharing the hope that is inside of them, and discouraging people who aren't Christians from joining them. Not because they fear the cost of being a Christian, but because they don't see any difference between Christians and themselves. Instead of being threatened with pain and suffering we're being lulled into laziness, complacency, and compromise. And we're smiling the whole time! Because we have our nice cars, cultural savvy, 401ks, five year plans, good looks, etc. We feel as though we don't need Christ because we have everything the world has to offer. And we're wrong!
We need Christ now as much (if not more) as we ever have to help us think rightly about the world around us. But it is certain that the intended result of violent persecution is coming to pass in the United States. We are scaring off people from coming to a relationship with Christ because they don't believe Christ is real because they don't see Him in our lives and we're not sharing the hope that is inside of us. We look just like the world that we're supposed to stand against.
If we can't stand against that form of persecution than I don't see why we should think we can stand against the other. We need to be dependant on the Holy Spirit now, we need to find joy in Christ now, and not wait for some magic catalyst to come tomorrow.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Christian Cliches That Need to End V: Saying "Its not about a religion, its a relationship"
Here is the problem with saying this: its just more guilt and apologies given to the world. "Oh, so sorry World that some people have ignorantly done horrible things in the name of religion. What? You won't like us because of that one word: 'religion'? Okay, well dump it. It was a stupid word anyway. We're not about a religion. We're about a relationship. You like relationships don't you World? Those are happy things. So there, will you be our friends now?"
It is getting tiring seeing people make apologies for things that we don't need to be apologizing for and it is getting even more tiring seeing Christians being influenced by John Lennon's world view. No John Lennon, I don't think the world would be better if there were no religions, I think you were wrong.
The problem isn't just that we let our thinking be influenced by hallucinogenic induced hippys (although that is kind of annoying) it is that when we are influenced by them we become tragically correct in our semantics.
When we say we're not religious we are saying we are not attached to a system that for indicernable reasons brings about evil. I suppose because it divides people when we really should be united as one (ironically this is ideology taken from a... religion. But an eastern one so that seems cooler). Or maybe because rich people have used it as an excuse to do evil things (meanwhile other rich men used its absence as an excuse to do evil things, but thats besides the point isn't it Mr. Lennon?). But in that case it wasn't really religion that causes that evil, but man's corruption of that religion. So we should be more saying that we are a religion, but we are not in the habit of being those types of religious people who uses their religion to achieve personal (or evil) ends. But I'm getting off the point...
If we take our definition for being religious from the Bible and not from John Lennon or anyone else then our statement is still absolutely true. And thats the real tragedy in all of this. James 1: 27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
WE! ARE! NOT! DOING! THIS!
I know I'm not. This verse has bothered me for years because I know I'm doing next to nothing to help orphans and widows. I'm getting more and more of a feeling that this will have to change sometime soon, I don't know how it is going to look but things have to be different (see my post on abortion/adoption for one possible means of change). But what I am also bothered by is this idea of being unstained from the world. I don't do that. I don't hate the world so much that I try to keep it from affecting me. More often I try to indulge in as much of it as I can without crossing that imagined line into sin. I like the world, and as I grow older and familiarity grows too I learn to like it more and more. As I do so the imagined line into sin gets blury, then faint, and then it disappears.
I am aware this turned out to be a bit more intense than the rest of this series, but this sincerely bothers me. I don't believe its evil, I just think its misguided. My hope is that (this is a sincere hope, if all my ramblings come to nothing but this it will not have been a waste of time) the word "religion" and the desire to say the aformentioned phrase will send a flare in your brain to make you think of James 1:27 and be challenged to consider what true religion is defined as. And if you're not truly living a religious life that you will make the necessary steps to change that.
It is getting tiring seeing people make apologies for things that we don't need to be apologizing for and it is getting even more tiring seeing Christians being influenced by John Lennon's world view. No John Lennon, I don't think the world would be better if there were no religions, I think you were wrong.
The problem isn't just that we let our thinking be influenced by hallucinogenic induced hippys (although that is kind of annoying) it is that when we are influenced by them we become tragically correct in our semantics.
When we say we're not religious we are saying we are not attached to a system that for indicernable reasons brings about evil. I suppose because it divides people when we really should be united as one (ironically this is ideology taken from a... religion. But an eastern one so that seems cooler). Or maybe because rich people have used it as an excuse to do evil things (meanwhile other rich men used its absence as an excuse to do evil things, but thats besides the point isn't it Mr. Lennon?). But in that case it wasn't really religion that causes that evil, but man's corruption of that religion. So we should be more saying that we are a religion, but we are not in the habit of being those types of religious people who uses their religion to achieve personal (or evil) ends. But I'm getting off the point...
If we take our definition for being religious from the Bible and not from John Lennon or anyone else then our statement is still absolutely true. And thats the real tragedy in all of this. James 1: 27 says "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
WE! ARE! NOT! DOING! THIS!
I know I'm not. This verse has bothered me for years because I know I'm doing next to nothing to help orphans and widows. I'm getting more and more of a feeling that this will have to change sometime soon, I don't know how it is going to look but things have to be different (see my post on abortion/adoption for one possible means of change). But what I am also bothered by is this idea of being unstained from the world. I don't do that. I don't hate the world so much that I try to keep it from affecting me. More often I try to indulge in as much of it as I can without crossing that imagined line into sin. I like the world, and as I grow older and familiarity grows too I learn to like it more and more. As I do so the imagined line into sin gets blury, then faint, and then it disappears.
I am aware this turned out to be a bit more intense than the rest of this series, but this sincerely bothers me. I don't believe its evil, I just think its misguided. My hope is that (this is a sincere hope, if all my ramblings come to nothing but this it will not have been a waste of time) the word "religion" and the desire to say the aformentioned phrase will send a flare in your brain to make you think of James 1:27 and be challenged to consider what true religion is defined as. And if you're not truly living a religious life that you will make the necessary steps to change that.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Christian Cliches That Need to End IV: Calling Me Brother
Spiritually speaking I understand doing this. I am a big advocate for seeing fellow believers as family, that the Church is a place to belong, a refuge and unit one can rely on. So I think an emphasis on the familial relationship is cool. Being reminded that we are brothers and sisters in Christ is an amazing thing. But this always feels weird.
Without exception these are the only times calling me (or really anyone) brother is acceptable:
1) If you're Scottish.
2) If you're saying it ironically with a Scottish accent (like if you're quoting Desmond from Lost).
3) If you're Jamaican.
4) If I am, in fact, you're sibling (Statistically this really only applies to 3 in ever
7,000,000,0000 people).
5) If you're quoting Cool Runnings.
6) If you (or I) are a Benedictine or Augustinian monk.
Without exception these are the only times calling me (or really anyone) brother is acceptable:
1) If you're Scottish.
2) If you're saying it ironically with a Scottish accent (like if you're quoting Desmond from Lost).
3) If you're Jamaican.
4) If I am, in fact, you're sibling (Statistically this really only applies to 3 in ever
7,000,000,0000 people).
5) If you're quoting Cool Runnings.
6) If you (or I) are a Benedictine or Augustinian monk.
Christian Cliches That Need to End III: Saying Brian Regan Is Funny.
He isn't.
Stop acting like he is.
Stop acting like he is.
Christian Cliches That Need to End II: Saying "Its God's Will" As A Reason To Break Up
The names in this little play have been changed to protect the innocent (and not so innocent-it would seem). Genders can be reversed depending on circumstances.
[in the living room of some non descript house, there is probably a Bible on a shelf nearby, very close to a collection of the Left Behind Series.]
Gwendalyn: We need to talk...
Fernando: ... Um... okay. We have been talking for like the last hour and a half. But I suppose you mean we need to talk about something other than how disappointing the last season of Lost was or the weird customers I talked to at work today.
Gwendalyn: Yeah.
Fernando: Okay. Let's hear it.
Gwendalyn: I've been thinking...
Fernando: [looks to ground, shoulders sink low, all hope is lost] Okay...
Gwendalyn: I'm just not so sure about... us... You know?
Fernando: We've been hanging out for the last hour. You couldn't have brought this up any sooner?
Gwendalyn: Sorry.
Fernando: You've been feeling this way for a while?
Gwendalyn: You must have too.
Fernando: No!
Gwendalyn: I just don't have any peace about us anymore. I've been praying about it and getting advice from friends.
Fernando: Like who?
Gwendalyn: Laquisha.
Fernando: You mean your over possessive friend who is always jealous whenever we hang out without her? That Laquisha?
Gwendalyn: Yeah! Her! Well I just don't think this relationship is God's will for our lives. I don't think we're supposed to be together.
Fernando: Funny God is only filling you in on this, you'd think he'd tell me too.
[awkward silence. gaze is averted by each individual]
Gwendalyn: I'm really sorry. I don't want to hurt you but...
[sound of vibrating phone]
Oh, its Laquisha... she is having a problem with her equally possessive, overly critical, emotionally unstable new boyfriend. I have to go. Bye.
[scene]
If you're not one of those strange people (yes, you are strange!) who married the first person who agreed to go on a date with you then you have probably had this conversation in some varying degree, whether you are the unsuspecting victim or the naive antagonist. If you have never been directly involved chances are you know someone who has (in my case I've know about 50 someones who have) and have gotten to hear the tirade that follows. This is the most common line in Christendom... I mean Christianity, when breaking up with someone and it needs to stop now!
Here is the thing about using this line on an unsuspecting boyfriend or girlfriend, it's the ultimate trump card. It cannot be beaten. It is like double-dog-daring someone, you can't go any further than that.* If someone you're dating tells you it's no longer God's will for your relationship to continue you have no course for debate. Because what you are now debating is the validity of the will of God in your own life. How do you go against the will of God? How do you fight for the relationship when so much stands against you? It's impossible. You really have no other option than to give in and accept what seems to now be inevitable. Because by fighting the proposition of the break up you're no longer fighting the person, nor are you fighting for your relationship, you're fighting against the forces of the universe (well, not literally, but this is the inevitable conclusion of this reason for breaking up).
There may be some truth to the fact that God does not desire for you to be together. I honestly don't know how that whole thing works and I am not going to pretend to**. But I am pretty confident that God makes that desire clear through varying means to show you you're not supposed to be together (i.e. you're lives going in different directions, or your personalities are too different, or the person chews their food too loud, or your parents hate them, or their bizarre fondness for The Incredible Hulk, or because they write an obnoxious blog, etc). Perhaps, out of respect for the break-y you can give those as reasons for breaking up. You risk hurting the other person but at least it is constructive criticism, which is painful but helpful.
*Some people will argue for the existence of a triple-dog-dare, those people are stupid and are not respecters of the institution of the dare.
**You're welcome.
[in the living room of some non descript house, there is probably a Bible on a shelf nearby, very close to a collection of the Left Behind Series.]
Gwendalyn: We need to talk...
Fernando: ... Um... okay. We have been talking for like the last hour and a half. But I suppose you mean we need to talk about something other than how disappointing the last season of Lost was or the weird customers I talked to at work today.
Gwendalyn: Yeah.
Fernando: Okay. Let's hear it.
Gwendalyn: I've been thinking...
Fernando: [looks to ground, shoulders sink low, all hope is lost] Okay...
Gwendalyn: I'm just not so sure about... us... You know?
Fernando: We've been hanging out for the last hour. You couldn't have brought this up any sooner?
Gwendalyn: Sorry.
Fernando: You've been feeling this way for a while?
Gwendalyn: You must have too.
Fernando: No!
Gwendalyn: I just don't have any peace about us anymore. I've been praying about it and getting advice from friends.
Fernando: Like who?
Gwendalyn: Laquisha.
Fernando: You mean your over possessive friend who is always jealous whenever we hang out without her? That Laquisha?
Gwendalyn: Yeah! Her! Well I just don't think this relationship is God's will for our lives. I don't think we're supposed to be together.
Fernando: Funny God is only filling you in on this, you'd think he'd tell me too.
[awkward silence. gaze is averted by each individual]
Gwendalyn: I'm really sorry. I don't want to hurt you but...
[sound of vibrating phone]
Oh, its Laquisha... she is having a problem with her equally possessive, overly critical, emotionally unstable new boyfriend. I have to go. Bye.
[scene]
If you're not one of those strange people (yes, you are strange!) who married the first person who agreed to go on a date with you then you have probably had this conversation in some varying degree, whether you are the unsuspecting victim or the naive antagonist. If you have never been directly involved chances are you know someone who has (in my case I've know about 50 someones who have) and have gotten to hear the tirade that follows. This is the most common line in Christendom... I mean Christianity, when breaking up with someone and it needs to stop now!
Here is the thing about using this line on an unsuspecting boyfriend or girlfriend, it's the ultimate trump card. It cannot be beaten. It is like double-dog-daring someone, you can't go any further than that.* If someone you're dating tells you it's no longer God's will for your relationship to continue you have no course for debate. Because what you are now debating is the validity of the will of God in your own life. How do you go against the will of God? How do you fight for the relationship when so much stands against you? It's impossible. You really have no other option than to give in and accept what seems to now be inevitable. Because by fighting the proposition of the break up you're no longer fighting the person, nor are you fighting for your relationship, you're fighting against the forces of the universe (well, not literally, but this is the inevitable conclusion of this reason for breaking up).
There may be some truth to the fact that God does not desire for you to be together. I honestly don't know how that whole thing works and I am not going to pretend to**. But I am pretty confident that God makes that desire clear through varying means to show you you're not supposed to be together (i.e. you're lives going in different directions, or your personalities are too different, or the person chews their food too loud, or your parents hate them, or their bizarre fondness for The Incredible Hulk, or because they write an obnoxious blog, etc). Perhaps, out of respect for the break-y you can give those as reasons for breaking up. You risk hurting the other person but at least it is constructive criticism, which is painful but helpful.
*Some people will argue for the existence of a triple-dog-dare, those people are stupid and are not respecters of the institution of the dare.
**You're welcome.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Christian Cliches That Need to End I: Using the Word Christendom in place of Christians or Christianity
You've probably heard this term used by a younger (or trying to seem younger; we call these people "progressive") pastor or Christian leader. The goal in using this word is to sound more intellectual or historical, but in actuality it accomplishes neither.
Christendom (pronounced with the "t" silent) is used by these individuals as a more intellectual alternative to the word Christianity. They say things like "We in Christendom need to do blah blah blah," or "if those of us in Christendom don't begin doing such and such" etc. The word was never meant to be the thinking man's synonym to Christianity, In fact the use of the word denotes different ideas all together.
Christendom, throughout history, has had two meanings that need to be distinguished so this mistake can stop being made:
1) Christendom refers to all united believers from the three religious sects that confess Christ as Lord and savior: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants. This really has no Spiritual connotations at all. It merely addresses the three entities as one. In the sixteenth century when the Turks were moving west into western Europe all of Christendom had to be united to defend their land. This is not a spiritual word, and it does not mean an ecumenical union, it is meant to differentiate one group of people (Europeans who grew up under Biblical teachings) from another (Muslims who posed a military threat or Jews who denied the teachings of Christ as canonical).
From my experience most speakers using this word are not considering all of Christendom when they use it. If you aren't even aware that the Greek Orthodox believers exist (much less what they believe or how they are distinct from the other branches of Christendom or why they branched off in the first place) you probably shouldn't use that word.
2) Christendom also refers to a nation specifically guided under Christian principles by professing* Christians who believe themselves to be doing the Lord's work throughout the world. It is a government institution. When speaking about Christendom you are talking about Rome under the leadership of Constantine in the fourth century, not a body of believers who are united by faith throughout generations. Christendom can also refer to the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages, where the ruler was connected closely with the Pope, often doing the will of the Roman Catholic Church (loosely speaking the HRE provided the RCC with an unofficial military) and many European countries (such as Denmark) up until the end of the nineteenth century when Neitzsche's, Freud's, Kante's (et al) teachings dominated scholastic thinking. That's why the use of the word can be dangerous, Christendom carries with it baggage of military conquest more than it does the spirit of the teachings of Christ**.
Constantine was convinced he was helped in uniting all of Rome (through many battles with three different armies-each ruling a section of Rome at the time) by Christ. When engaging with the other potential rulers of Rome he claimed to see a sign in the sky that said "by this sign conquer" and then he saw either (I've never been sure of which one for sure, different historians have said different things) a cross or the chi-rho (the first two Greek letters in the word Christ, basically a P and an X where the P stems out of the top of the X. You can see this tattooed on a lot of "hip" kids who work at coffee shops and such, to my knowledge none of them have been too aware of what it means or the fact that it is connected with the military conquest of Rome in the early fourth century). The chi-rho became Constantine's emblem that he placed on shields and... pretty much everything. And he won! So then he claimed to become a Christian and made Christianity not only legal*** but mandatory. The number of Christians under Roman rule skyrocketed because to be Roman meant you were Christian. This decreased Christian persecution exponentially but also diluted the Christian institution, rather than being filled with sincere believers who followed Christ at the risk of death it was filled with true believers and those who followed Christ because it was the (for lack of a better word) trendy thing to do. Christendom in this sense (and Constantine's rule in general) was both positive and negative.
I won't deny it, Christendom is a cool word, it sounds cool (especially since you make the "t" silent, for some reason that just seems more intellectual) and its even fun to type out here. But that doesn't mean it can be thrown around to mean something it doesn't. For the sake of simplicity and the literary assumption that words should be used with their proper meaning in mind, just say Christianity or Christians, and stop trying to force Christendom into your daily vocabulary, unless you're an historian (or a nerd like me) it doesn't need to be there.
*I say professing because it's up for considerable debate the validity of their confession of faith.
**For more on how awful us Christians were in the crusades see Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven or Robin Hood, which do a fine job making the audience feel guilty for having ancestors who were from Europe in the middle ages.
*** up to this point you could be killed, or imprisoned, or at least moderately harassed for being a follower of Christ. This was because if you were a Christian you refused to bow to Roman gods or follow the gods' yearly celebratory/sacrificial calendar. Therefore you could greatly anger the gods and call their wrath down upon everyone around you. If there was a bad crop or no rain it was the Christian's fault. Under their religious system Christians angered the gods and put everyone else's lives at risk.
Christendom (pronounced with the "t" silent) is used by these individuals as a more intellectual alternative to the word Christianity. They say things like "We in Christendom need to do blah blah blah," or "if those of us in Christendom don't begin doing such and such" etc. The word was never meant to be the thinking man's synonym to Christianity, In fact the use of the word denotes different ideas all together.
Christendom, throughout history, has had two meanings that need to be distinguished so this mistake can stop being made:
1) Christendom refers to all united believers from the three religious sects that confess Christ as Lord and savior: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants. This really has no Spiritual connotations at all. It merely addresses the three entities as one. In the sixteenth century when the Turks were moving west into western Europe all of Christendom had to be united to defend their land. This is not a spiritual word, and it does not mean an ecumenical union, it is meant to differentiate one group of people (Europeans who grew up under Biblical teachings) from another (Muslims who posed a military threat or Jews who denied the teachings of Christ as canonical).
From my experience most speakers using this word are not considering all of Christendom when they use it. If you aren't even aware that the Greek Orthodox believers exist (much less what they believe or how they are distinct from the other branches of Christendom or why they branched off in the first place) you probably shouldn't use that word.
2) Christendom also refers to a nation specifically guided under Christian principles by professing* Christians who believe themselves to be doing the Lord's work throughout the world. It is a government institution. When speaking about Christendom you are talking about Rome under the leadership of Constantine in the fourth century, not a body of believers who are united by faith throughout generations. Christendom can also refer to the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages, where the ruler was connected closely with the Pope, often doing the will of the Roman Catholic Church (loosely speaking the HRE provided the RCC with an unofficial military) and many European countries (such as Denmark) up until the end of the nineteenth century when Neitzsche's, Freud's, Kante's (et al) teachings dominated scholastic thinking. That's why the use of the word can be dangerous, Christendom carries with it baggage of military conquest more than it does the spirit of the teachings of Christ**.
Constantine was convinced he was helped in uniting all of Rome (through many battles with three different armies-each ruling a section of Rome at the time) by Christ. When engaging with the other potential rulers of Rome he claimed to see a sign in the sky that said "by this sign conquer" and then he saw either (I've never been sure of which one for sure, different historians have said different things) a cross or the chi-rho (the first two Greek letters in the word Christ, basically a P and an X where the P stems out of the top of the X. You can see this tattooed on a lot of "hip" kids who work at coffee shops and such, to my knowledge none of them have been too aware of what it means or the fact that it is connected with the military conquest of Rome in the early fourth century). The chi-rho became Constantine's emblem that he placed on shields and... pretty much everything. And he won! So then he claimed to become a Christian and made Christianity not only legal*** but mandatory. The number of Christians under Roman rule skyrocketed because to be Roman meant you were Christian. This decreased Christian persecution exponentially but also diluted the Christian institution, rather than being filled with sincere believers who followed Christ at the risk of death it was filled with true believers and those who followed Christ because it was the (for lack of a better word) trendy thing to do. Christendom in this sense (and Constantine's rule in general) was both positive and negative.
I won't deny it, Christendom is a cool word, it sounds cool (especially since you make the "t" silent, for some reason that just seems more intellectual) and its even fun to type out here. But that doesn't mean it can be thrown around to mean something it doesn't. For the sake of simplicity and the literary assumption that words should be used with their proper meaning in mind, just say Christianity or Christians, and stop trying to force Christendom into your daily vocabulary, unless you're an historian (or a nerd like me) it doesn't need to be there.
*I say professing because it's up for considerable debate the validity of their confession of faith.
**For more on how awful us Christians were in the crusades see Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven or Robin Hood, which do a fine job making the audience feel guilty for having ancestors who were from Europe in the middle ages.
*** up to this point you could be killed, or imprisoned, or at least moderately harassed for being a follower of Christ. This was because if you were a Christian you refused to bow to Roman gods or follow the gods' yearly celebratory/sacrificial calendar. Therefore you could greatly anger the gods and call their wrath down upon everyone around you. If there was a bad crop or no rain it was the Christian's fault. Under their religious system Christians angered the gods and put everyone else's lives at risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)