The Crisis And
The Challenge
Of The Christian Faith
By Doug Soderstrom
09 May, 2005
Countercurrents.org
On
the surface, Christianity is, above all things, most simple. It was
Jesus who said that it could all be summed up in two rather succinct
phrases: Love thy God with all of thy heart, thy mind, thy soul, and
thy strength. And like unto the first----- love thy neighbor (and perhaps
even thine enemy) as thyself. Although rather difficult
to put into practice, Jesus quite nicely reduces religion to its very
most common denominator.
On the other hand,
if one moves beyond the surface, it does not take very long to discover
the utter complexity of religion. Although the command, that we should
love others, forms the basis of all the great religions, the specific
differences are a cause of great concern (as in the ongoing conflict
of the Moslem faith with that of Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism).
There is the Catholic Church vs. the Protestant Church------ and then,
those factors that so fiercely divide one protestant denomination from
that of another in their competitive struggle to please God, a struggle
so divisive that it is threatening to destroy the foundations of the
Christian Faith. But now only two sides remain; the Christian Fundamentalists
(the fundamentalists) and the more liberal faction of the church (the
liberals)------- each determined to win. Yet, we are left to wonder,
in this bitter battle over the minds of men-------is it
possible for the church to survive?
It would be instructive
to know where these two rather embattled foes fit into the overall ontology
of life. The author has proposed that there are four basic levels of
human existence, each with its own specific source of authority (the
reality to which one gives allegiance). First is the carnal level of
which the source of authority is ones own (most depraved) self.
This, I believe, speaks for itself. The second level is that of society.
For it, the primary source of authority is the status quo----- which
means choosing to live the life of an obedient, tradition-oriented,
patriotic American (assuming, of course, that one is an American). The
third, in the ontological hierarchy, is that of the moral level. At
this point (given the fact that the moral individual, in order to move
to the moral level, had to reject society as a source of authority)
chooses his own conscience (the highest and best values to which one
can aspire) as that which is most ultimate in life. And, of course,
the highest level is that of the spiritual realm, of which, God is the
ultimate source of authority. At this level, the will of God becomes
the primary purpose of ones life.
So then, where do
these two adversaries of The Christian Faith fit into this ontological
scheme? The fundamentalists (rather oddly) seem to be simultaneously
stuck at (but certainly not in between) two very different levels-------
that of the social and the spiritual level. And this is what, as you
will see, accounts for their status quo, rather conventionalized, and
very ethnocentric approach to God. It is as if they are not able (or
should I say, not willing) to make a choice between the sacred (God)
and the secular (mammon). On the other hand, the liberals, at the moral
level, tend to be social reformers. Many of them would like
to move to the spiritual level, however, due to their propensity for
logical and rational thought, it is not an easy thing for them to do.
They find it very difficult to commit themselves to something that they
cannot readily see such as that of The Spirit of God. In
terms of their relationship to each other, it could be said that: they
do not understand each other; they do not like each other; they tend
not to agree with each other; the fundamentalists (as good patriotic
American citizens) tend to defend society, whereas the liberals tend
to challenge, and therefore want to change, society; and they each tend
to look upon the other with a mournful sense of disdain, scorn, and
contempt. In conclusion, it could be said that they simply do not tend
to get along with each other very well.
Now, concerning their gods----------their perception of
the one who they believe to be in charge. The fundamentalists
worship a conservative-republican god, one who is committed to maintaining
the status quo interests of society--------- one who is concerned about
controlling the personal morality of men. This god seems bent on punishing
those who drink alcohol, engage in illicit sex, dance, swear, and gamble,
but with little concern for the sins of society, the sins
of the rich and powerful as they continue to abuse and enslave the huddled
masses of our world. On the other hand, the liberals worship a
liberal-democratic (perhaps even humanistic) god; one who is committed
to challenging the social misdeeds of society, a god of social justice---------one
who is interested in the social morality of men. This is a god who is
inclined to punish the sins of racial injustice, materialism, greed,
chauvinism, war, and the destruction of the environment, yet with a
blind eye toward the more personal sins of men. Biased gods indeed!
Gods, whose reality, exist only in the minds of men, and men,
whose sins, define the reality of God. God and men in arms
bent upon destroying each other!
The best way to
explain the nature of the problem is to put it into the form of a question:
What is it that we, as Christians, must do in order to please
God------ what is it that we must do in order to be saved;
is it required for us to believe in Jesus Christ, or, on
the other hand, is it necessary for us to live like Jesus
Christ? However, at present, there seems to be no common ground, no
place to meet, no way for reconciliation to occur. Yet it is crucial
that a resolution be found, for the implications (the consequences)
of getting the answer wrong are beyond calculation. The stakes are indeed
very high, for, in this contest of wills, the winner will
take all. For those who triumph, the reward will be Heaven------ an
eternity of joyful bliss. But for those who lose, their punishment will
be Hell------ an eternity of agonizing pain.
So, how do the Christian
Fundamentalists fit into the crisis----- what is their problem? Fundamentalists
believe that in order to be saved, one must believe in Jesus
Christ----- he must accept Jesus Christ as his own personal savior.
And, for them, there are no exceptions------ not even one. It is this
that has placed them into an extremely difficult bind. Given the rather
severe nature of this requirement, it has been estimated that approximately
90% of all human beings who have ever lived upon the face of the earth
have gone to Hell. 1
One reason why many
of these individuals will have ended up spending an eternity in the
fires of Hell is that they did not know about Jesus-----simply said,
they had never heard of Him. For example, it is likely that individuals,
who had, lets say, been living in China during The First Century
AD, may well have not heard about Jesus Christ, since word of Jesus
probably hadnt spread to that part of the world yet. There are
others who, as a result of having been trapped
(that is, culturally
conditioned by the religion in which they had been raised), would likely
have had
1Approximately one
third of the worlds population is of the Christian Faith. Assuming
that one third of this group has not accepted Jesus Christ as their
own personal savior, then, according to fundamentalist theology, it
would be correct to conclude that approximately 90% of all people living
on the earth today will end up going to Hell.
little opportunity
to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior. Many of these people
may have been raised in India as Hindus, in China as Buddhists, in Iran
as Moslems, or in Israel as Jews. Pairing this information with the
fundamentalists belief that God is all powerful, all knowing,
as well as all loving, places this faction into a rather precarious
situation. This is the question that a skillful critic of fundamentalist
theology would ask: How is it possible that an all knowing, all
powerful (yet simultaneously all loving) God would dare to create such
a situation in which perhaps as many as 90% of all human beings who
have ever lived upon the face of the earth (none of whom were even given
the choice to be a human being) would end up suffering for an eternity
in the fires of Hell? Indeed, a very, very difficult question
for which to formulate a reasonable response------ in fact, a question
so severe that, as of this date, as far as this author knows, no fundamentalist
has been able to develop a reasonable rational response. 2
There is not time, nor is this the place, to elaborate upon those things
that have thrust the fundamentalist faith into such a quandary. So allow
me to list just a few of the questions that seem to be driving this
group to their knees.
-----How could a
loving God allow so many of His own children to end up in the fires
of Hell?
-----How can you
be so absolutely sure that you know the Truth of God when there are
so many different ways of interpreting the Bible; how can you be sure
that your interpretation is the one, and only, correct interpretation?
-----How can the
fundamentalist church be so in touch with the Truth of God, while, at
the same time, having had such an absolutely horrid history of supporting
slavery? And, even though the fundamentalists may have repented for
this terrible sin, how could it have taken them such a long time to
figure out what they had done was wrong?
-----How is it possible
that being a homosexual could be such a terrible abomination to God
if, as research has shown, people have literally no control whatsoever
over their sexual orientation?
-----With all of
our knowledge about the evolution of the earth, how can you still believe
that the earth is no more than six thousand years old?
-----Why do you
place more emphasis upon symbolic behavior that implies salvation (e.g.
a death-bed confession) than you do upon a reality such as one actually
having lived a good and decent moral life; in your mind does this represent
a better ticket (or perhaps even the only such ticket)
to Heaven? 3
-----If it were
possible for Jesus Christ to live upon the earth today, do you really
believe that He would be a proud supporter of capitalism, capital punishment,
war, racial intolerance, corporal punishment, the right of every American
to carry a gun, as well as actions that seem to be destroying the ecosphere?
2 Based upon many
years of research, debate, and personal discussion, the author has found
that it is extremely difficult for the Christian Fundamentalist to respond
in a logical manner to such questions. However, for those of you who
believe that you are capable of defending fundamentalist thought, please
feel free to contact the author. The author would love to discuss this
matter with you, and if there is enough mutual interest, we could choose
to have a formalized (and, of course, quite civilized) debate on the
subject-------------with all profits, of course, going to a worthy,
agreed upon, cause.
3 The author has developed an idea that explains why the fundamentalists
tend to place such a great emphasis upon symbolic-ritualistic behavior
such as going forward, baptism, speaking in tongues,
etc. The idea, The Deification of Symbolic Behavior, refers
to the antecedent assignment of divine qualities to volitional activity
(e.g. the initial acceptance of Jesus Christ as ones own personal
savior) in such a manner that it essentially begins to take the place
of what it was meant to lead toward (i.e. salvation).
It is no wonder
then that the fundamentalists are so often on the defensive when it
comes to their faith. There is, no doubt, a lot to defend!
This is why it has
been so extremely difficult to find fundamentalists who are willing
to allow their beliefs to be challenged in a logical-rational manner.
From my own experience, the fundamentalist nearly always ends up saying
something like this; It doesnt matter if something does
not seem to make sense, because religion is based upon faith, not facts.
Anyway, the entire Truth of God is contained in The Bible and it is
not something that we should question. When we come across something
that we cannot understand, we should pray about it. And if after that,
we still cant figure it out, perhaps it is not Gods will
for us to understand. It is important to remember that Gods ways
are not our ways, and He is much more intelligent than we are. It is
His responsibility to question (and eventually to even judge) us; not
the other way around. My responsibility is to simply have faith in Jesus,
and to leave the rest to him.
On the other hand,
the liberal Christian, as well, has been forced into a rather difficult
position. The more liberal Christian tends to believe that, in order
to be a Christian, one must be willing to live like Jesus.
Now that is all nice and good, however, what if it turns out that the
one who decides to live like Jesus is a Jew, a Hindu, a
Buddhist, or even a Moslem? It is quite likely that any of these fellows
could go a long way toward emulating the life of Christ without ever
once having expressed a belief in (or even a knowledge of) Jesus Christ.
For example, look at the life of Mahatma Gandhi. There can be no doubt
about the fact that this was a man of outstanding moral character. Surely,
if anybody were to end up in Heaven-----it would be Mr. Gandhi! But
we must remember that, as far as we know, Gandhi never did accept Jesus
Christ as his own personal savior. So where does this leave the liberal
Christian?
The skillful critic of the liberal Christian would ask this question:
If you believe that all that one needs to do in order to be saved
is to live like Jesus, then why is it necessary for anyone
at all to believe in Jesus, since anyone of any religion
is quite obviously capable of such a feat? A very good question
indeed. So good, in fact, that most liberal Christians today are trying
to figure out if there is any good reason for anyone to be a Christian-----since
it obviously makes no difference in who or in
what one believes, because all that one needs to do in order to
go to Heaven is to live a half way decent life. And since Jews, Hindus,
Buddhists, Moslems, and, for that matter, even agnostics or atheists,
are obviously quite capable of doing such a thing, why all the
rush to convert others to Christ------and even more importantly,
why do I, as a liberal, need to be a Christian? As one who
has studied this question for going on four decades now, this is what
I hear the liberal Christian say: I have come to the point that
a lot of this Christianity stuff just doesnt seem
to make any sense any more. How can anybody say that their religion
is the one right religion, and that all the others are wrong? I have
studied all of the great religions, and to me they are all just fine.
And when you really get down to it, they are all saying just about the
same thing. As it turns out, all that is really important is to love
your neighbor, and maybe, if you can, your enemy too. Basically, it
can all be summed up in one simple phrase; Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. And thats just about all there is
to religion. So I have come to the point that it really doesnt
make any difference to me what religion I, or anyone else, believes
in, because, in the end, all that matters is if you have lived a good
life or not. If you have, then you will probably go to Heaven, and if
you havent then you might perhaps go to Hell------that is, if
there is a Hell, which I really do sincerely doubt. 4
But, not to let
the liberals off the hook, a couple of questions do need to be asked.
----- What are you
going to do if it turns out that the task of pleasing God was as simple
as the fundamentalists had claimed, that all that was required was to
simply accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior?
-----What are you
going to do if, after having demanded that religion must make sense,
you are left with nothing in which to believe, and even worse, if your
skepticism leads you to Hell?
To summarize, in
relation to what they believe, it seems that the fundamentalists are
at war with the rest of the world, whereas the liberals are on the verge
of leaving the church. There is no simple solution, and no matter how
you cut it, there are big problems in the River City of
The Christian Faith. At this point then, I suppose that it could be
said that the fundamentalists are fed up with all of the questions that
others are asking about their faith, while the liberals have yet to
begin to ask all of their questions. It would be nice to believe that
there is room for accommodation, some place for them to meet, something
upon which they might agree, some way for them to get along---------
but, at least at this point, there isnt. The gulf is just too
great. There have been too many wounds; too many bruises and too much
hurt. The time for healing has not yet come, and unless things change,
it may never come.
But now, in order
for you to internalize, perhaps even to deepen, the ontological significance
of this rather difficult problem, take a look at the characterization
of three different individuals; Charles, Chep, and Chowyan. Then, after
having read them, try to figure out which of the three God would be
more likely to allow into the Kingdom of Heaven (and conversely, who
He would allow to descend into the depths of Hell).
4 Benton Johnson
and his colleagues decided to survey church members in order to see
if they could figure out why the more liberal protestant churches were
losing so many members. They concluded that the primary reason for such
a loss was the fact of lay liberalism, of which, the defining
characteristic appeared to be a rejection of the view that Christianity
is the only religion with a valid claim to truth. In order to
avoid the nihilistic implications of such a view, many indicated that
they felt that there was an element of the divine in all of the major
world religions-------- that other faiths such as Buddhism, Judaism,
and Hinduism were just as likely to embrace elements of the truth. Their
findings tend to reinforce the authors thinking in regards to
why liberals have been leaving the church. Johnson, B., Hoge, D. R.,
Luidens, D. A. (1993, March). Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for
Decline. First Things, 13-18.
Three Individuals
Charles: An individual who, for the first 75 years of his life, was
very selfish, greedy, unkind toward others, and prejudiced, but then,
after having discovered that he had contracted a fatal disease and would
therefore die within a month or so, decided to accept The Lord Jesus
Christ as his own personal savior.
Chep: Having lived
his whole life in a small village hidden deep within the rain forest
of Brazil, this 75 year old Holy Man and healer of the sick, although
once having had an opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ presented
to him by a Christian missionary------- was unable to make a personal
commitment to Jesus Christ as The Lord of his life.
Chowyan: A Buddhist
Priest, having lived the entirety of his life in a communal setting
in the back country of China, was very loving, extremely kind toward
others, and always ready to forgive those who would do him harm. He
spent the final sixty years of his life dedicated to helping those less
fortunate than himself---------- however, he ended up dying at the age
of 75 without ever having had an opportunity to hear about Jesus Christ.
So, what do you
think? Who would God be more likely to welcome into His kingdom? And
which, of the three, would He allow to descend into the depths of Hell?
How would God go about making such decisions? What factors might He
take into consideration? Would His decisions be a matter of black
and white, or would there be various shades of gray
that God would have to contend with? What do you believe God will
take into consideration when it is time for Him to figure out where
you will spend eternity? And finally, given the way that you have chosen
to respond to these questions, what does this have to say about the
kind of person that you have chosen to be?
How we choose to
think through such questions will enable each of us to better understand
who it is that we, as a human being, are and what it is that we believe.
Dealing with this dilemma will
enable us, as Christians, to better understand the depth of our confusion,
as well as, the depth of our division, concerning what it means to be
a Christian, what it means to follow in the footsteps of Christ, what
it is that we must do in order to go to Heaven and thus avoid the horrors
of Hell.
The Challenge
Clearly then, the
Christian Church is beset by conflict, a mighty chasm that has risen
out of the diverse complexity of a simple need to worship God. Each
party wanting to worship God in its own chosen way, yet a way that the
other does not, and perhaps may never, be able to understand. A diversity
of worship that is beginning to destroy the church from within---------unless
a path toward reconciliation can be found. However, it is the authors
opinion that the seeds for reconciliation can be found within the very
ground of contention that, at present, divides the one from the other.
These two (the fundamentalists and the liberals) are at war simply because
neither one of them is whole. What the one needs, the other one has.
What could have made one strong has been used to make itself weak. What
the one knows, the other cannot seem to understand. A solution can be
found,
but it will take everything that each of the two adversaries have to
offer, absolutely every single ounce of honesty, integrity, understanding,
courage, and humility that each possess. Just as a coin must have each
of its sides in order to be whole, it is no different for the church.
In order for The Christian Faith to be restored to wholeness, to move
toward a singleness of spirit, it must allow The Spirit of God to transform
its swords of hate into the ploughshares of love, to convert
its adversaries who choose to hurt into allies who want to help. So
that each might have the humility to accept for itself what it needs
from the other, just as each must have the courage to give to the other
from the strength that it has.
Pragmatically, and more specifically, there are two things the church
can do in order to heal.
First, it is important
to recognize the simple fact that most, if not all, of us have developed
some sort of political bias. Some, like the fundamentalists, have become
rather conservative in their thought. On the other hand, there are liberals
who may be to the left of center. Given the fact that our
political opinions are likely near the center of how we tend to think
about life, there is little doubt that such thoughts can skew our efforts
to understand The Truth of Scripture. Indeed, it does little good to
have available a source of truth, if we approach it with
a preconceived state of mind, if we are essentially unable, or perhaps
even unwilling, to take an honest look at it. Clearly, neither Jesus
Christ, nor His followers, were, what we conceive of today as being,
biased toward a more conservative or liberal political agenda. The Truth
of Christ, of course, stands far above the puny wisdom of
our political ideologies. Rather than choosing to see only what we want
to see; rather than choosing to modify Scripture to conform to the ignorance
of our own petty biases---------- rather than allowing our biases to
distort our capacity to understand the Truth of God (The Truth of Scripture,
as well as, The ascribed meaning of Jesus life), it would be a
far, far better thing for us to invite The Holy Spirit to change (even
perhaps to radically modify) how we think, in order that our thinking,
might once again, be brought back into one accord with that of our Heavenly
Father. Then, and only then, will the church be in a position to learn
from itself. Until that time arrives, it will simply be a matter of
the blind leading the blind!
Second, if there
is to be reconciliation it will originate out of strength. So then,
what is the strength of the church? Concerning the fundamentalists,
their strength seems to lie in their capacity to believe in,
that is, to accept, the divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ. Whereas the
strength of the liberal church seems to be rooted in an assumption that
a God who is truly divine will, out of necessity, be one who is rational
and moral; one who would be described as being loving, caring, kind,
forgiving, understanding, rational, and fair. Such a synthesis would
yield a much kinder God than that in whom the fundamentalists believe,
and, on the other hand, a God much stronger than the God whom the liberals
follow. If such a transformation could take place, what might the faith-works
continuum look like? Faith would begin to be conceptualized
as The Power of Gods Love living within us, and works
understood as The Power of Gods Love moving between us. Not two
dichotomous entities, but rather one continuous reality; one as a natural
extension of the other--------faith as the empowered reality upon which
works are based, and works as the inevitable outcome of a spiritually
empowered faith. If such were the case, I believe that we, as Christians
(those who wish to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ), would begin
to realize that it is The Power of Gods Love within us that makes
it possible for us to have the capacity (an authentic desire) to emulate
the life of Christ, so that we, as a church, might eventually become
able to love others in a manner that would truly please God. If each
of these two rather embattled forces of god could find the
courage to confront the weakness of their own footing before
the presence of God, perhaps the miracle of two having become
one might enable The Church to once again stand tall
as a mighty force for God. However, if such a transformation fails to
become a reality, the church will remain a kingdom divided, a church
unto itself, a group of mere mortals fighting for the
leftovers of a world without God.
But, regardless
of the outcome, even if the church does not survive, we can rest assured
of one thing-------if we, as individuals, remain true to The Holy Spirit
of God, He will, in all of His greatness and glory, welcome each of
us home, and in the end------------------- His Love will make us whole.
Doug Soderstrom,
Ph.D. is a Psychologist
E-mail address: [email protected]