Criticising The Church by Non-Believers

[Tetra]

Two things are true:

1. We are not above error
2. Non-believers can recognize that error.

YET, I don't know about you, but I get the distinct impression people in the church dislike being called out on their ethics, especially by those not in the church.

Western Christendom "seems" to set itself up in a position of, it's the world VS the church. I hear things like... that's "worldly", "fleshly", "...are you a believer (when challenged)", "the logic of man", "desires of the flesh".

These statements are designed to protect a Christian from being challenged so that they can disregard the challenges from non-believers. However, we are not above being wrong, and we are not above correction from those outside the church.

I'm I alone in seeing this trend?

 

[AlexDTX]

Two things are true:

1. We are not above error
2. Non-believers can recognize that error.

YET, I don't know about you, but I get the distinct impression people in the church dislike being called out on their ethics, especially by those not in the church.

Western Christendom "seems" to set itself up in a position of, it's the world VS the church. I hear things like... that's "worldly", "fleshly", "...are you a believer (when challenged)", "the logic of man", "desires of the flesh".

These statements are designed to protect a Christian from being challenged so that they can disregard the challenges from non-believers. However, we are not above being wrong, and we are not above correction from those outside the church.

I'm I alone in seeing this trend?

It is natural to be defensive when criticized. So on that note, I agree that we are not above error, but I have problems with your second point. On the one hand I agree that non-believers can recognize error, but on the other I don't believe they are in a position to judge the Church.

This is why I have a dialectical tension on the point. On the first hand the knowledge of right and wrong is in the heart and conscience of everyone. But without the circumcision of heart the new birth brings that knowledge is seared and hardened.

On the second hand Paul brings this argument up to the Corinthians when he says that it is wrong for believers to bring their problems to the courts of the world. Instead the believers should settle their disputes amidst themselves. Why? Because the unregenerate can not understand the things of the Spirit since they are carnal and natural in their thinking.

For a believer to resist truthful correction, even from a non believer, shows a lack of humility and maturity in Christ. Is the church filled with immature and proud believers? Just read some of the comments in this forum and you have to say yes. Mature believers accept correction and let the Lord be their defense when they are right.

 

[Strivax]

So, often the most pertinent criticisms come from those outside the Church. I am less concerned by this, than by the reaction that wants to put the Church above such criticism; 'you are not a believer, so you wouldn't understand'. 'It's not Biblical, so it can't be true'. 'The magisterium is infallible'. This sort of attitude cannot help the Church, or its people, develop. It makes of the faith a closed philosophical system, immune to criticism, to be sure, but also immune to progress.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Shempster]

This was a heavy subject to bring up.
I believe it is the main cause for church strife and divisions. That is "calling other people out on their sins".
Super scary and risky. I have seen many folks leave a church and retain a poor opinion of the whole group because of it.
I have a friend who's church teaches that it is ones DUTY to not only call their sins out but do it openly so others hear it as well. That person has many many issues with people.

On one hand, our intentions and motives can be pure, but the outcomes are normally negative. We might care for them and don't want to see them get hurt. Think about this......that is what the prophets did. They called out the Israelites on their sins. Even Yeshua did that. All of them were killed. So does this really mean we should confront and point out every persons sin?
How could it be possible to live at peace with anyone if that is how they get treated? Are we supposed to make the entire race of people angry at us?

The last point is that people have varying opinions on what a sin is, so if I tell you that watching television is a sin and you need to stop it, it will not resonate with you. Plus the normal response to getting attacked is to defend yourself and return the favor.
In fact, they will probably shoot you right back and say "you really shouldn't eat all those sweets and meats".

Then each part ways, thinking they are still right and the other person is still wrong.

 

[Strivax]

So, I just think that genuine humility is the answer here. The humility the Church preaches laity should have, so as to accept their teachings. If the Church had that humility too, I think we would have an altogether better Church, more inclusive, more accurate, more loving, more practical, and more advanced.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[RaymondG]

This is who us religious guys are. We are the pharisees of today. i point out the sins in the world and the reverse is not possible. If Jesus Himself came telling me i am wrong or speaking anything other than what i have been taught and studied i would call him a blasphemer and crucify Him. i am proud. i know the scriptures back and forth. i pray thinking...."i'm glad im not like the sinner over there, they should be thinking like i think and doing like i do" then i tell them they are wrong and bound for hell.

i am the one being called to the feast, but i am too busy, studying and worshiping and going to church to come. So God goes on the highway and picks up anyone standing there....and they enter. i follow and listen only to those who think and believe like i do....So i end up walking in circles in the wilderness of pride for 40 years...till i die. Then my children will come along, not knowing anything, with no beliefs, and see the narrow path, between the trees. The path that leads to the promised land.

Pray for us religious guys.

 

[Victory-N-Christ]

Hi.Well it does get under your skin when a non believer corrects or challenges you.You might think "You rubbishy peasant how dare you correct Me.I am above you....sleaze bag sinner!!" This kind of thinking is arrogant and God hates a proud spirit.So..(twiddles thumbs) in the immortal words of Elsa..."Let it go.let it go..."

 

[FireDragon76]

Two things are true:

1. We are not above error
2. Non-believers can recognize that error.

YET, I don't know about you, but I get the distinct impression people in the church dislike being called out on their ethics, especially by those not in the church.

Western Christendom "seems" to set itself up in a position of, it's the world VS the church. I hear things like... that's "worldly", "fleshly", "...are you a believer (when challenged)", "the logic of man", "desires of the flesh".

These statements are designed to protect a Christian from being challenged so that they can disregard the challenges from non-believers. However, we are not above being wrong, and we are not above correction from those outside the church.

I'm I alone in seeing this trend?

That's something you'll find more in certain conservative churches. Some people act like religion gives them a free pass to be right all the time.

One thing about western religion is the tendency to treat the Gospel as an answer to a philosophical question, that our problem with God is a matter of lack of knowledge rather than a bad relationship. It's sort of a result of the Hellenization of Christianity- Greeks want wisdom, after all. We get mad when certain of our pet philosophical assumptions are challenged by the world, and we confuse that with our relationship to God.

 

[Victory-N-Christ]

Unless of course you simply can't let it go.

 

[victorinus]

after awhile one gets numb to all the irrational attacks -
it is easy for us to believe we belong to the church He built on a rock -
it is true many have left -
it is true many have converted -
many of our converts are truly impressive -
one of the latest is tony blair -
before scalia died, we had six on the supreme court and that is no accident -
something about the church and its schools produces critical thinking like no other institution -
thomas proved that faith was reasonable -
augustine proved that without faith there is no reason -

 

[FireDragon76]

after awhile one gets numb to all the irrational attacks -
it is easy for us to believe we belong to the church He built on a rock -
it is true many have left -
it is true many have converted -
many of our converts are truly impressive -
one of the latest is tony blair -
before scalia died, we had six on the supreme court and that is no accident -
something about the church and its schools produces critical thinking like no other institution -
thomas proved that faith was reasonable -
augustine proved that without faith there is no reason -

This is just part of the problem. It's Constantinian triumphalism, not servanthood. More like a dictator with a chest full of cheap medals celebrating his own greatness.

To be like Jesus in the world is to be authentically vulnerable, to a person for others. Reading Bonhoeffer's letters from prison is helpful here. So often Christians operate with a false view of transcendence, they feel the need to defend the indefensible, to escape the world and its problems. This is not really true to the Gospel or the deepest truths of the Christian tradition.

See this series of blogs for more details:

Experimental Theology: Letters from Cell 92: Part 1, A New Theology

 

[victorinus]

It's Constantinian triumphalism, not servanthood.

thanks to constantine you are not reading the koran

 

[FireDragon76]

The story of the Syrophoenician woman or the woman at the well are good examples of Jesus being vulnerable. He intentionally lets his guard down so that somebody else could take a swing at him, and that leads to a real conversation rather than just people exchanging talking-points.

 

[FireDragon76]

thanks to constantine you are not reading the koran

I'm not saying I don't appreciate Christendom for all it's glory. But its glory is nothing compared to the one who came and died for the sins of the whole world. Let's not confuse the two.

 

[victorinus]

I'm not saying I don't appreciate Christendom for all it's glory. But its glory is nothing compared to the one who came and died for the sins of the whole world. Let's not confuse the two.

let's take a look at who is confused

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Two things are true:

1. We are not above error
2. Non-believers can recognize that error.

YET, I don't know about you, but I get the distinct impression people in the church dislike being called out on their ethics, especially by those not in the church.

Western Christendom "seems" to set itself up in a position of, it's the world VS the church. I hear things like... that's "worldly", "fleshly", "...are you a believer (when challenged)", "the logic of man", "desires of the flesh".

These statements are designed to protect a Christian from being challenged so that they can disregard the challenges from non-believers. However, we are not above being wrong, and we are not above correction from those outside the church.

I'm I alone in seeing this trend?

You might have to be more specific. You're description is rather general, Tetra, so while I might agree that I've bumped into other Christians who do obfuscate on various issues by relegating opposing opinions to the junk-heep via "renaming" and "shaming," this doesn't by necessity mean that Christians are at fault. Sometimes, the world really does ignore what the Church says as a representative of Christ; and the world really may bemoan the fact that certain social situations and/or acts are morally wrong in the eyes of God.

Surely, when Christ says "take up your cross and follow me," the deeper implications there don't simply mean "Ya'll need to try to be nicer to other people..." No, the deeper implications are that we each have proclivities toward various sins, and we actually do need to 'kill' these ways of thinking in our minds so we can understand what it is to be 'like Christ' and then actually take steps, and make efforts, to then be like Christ.

As it is, we have entered an age where the advocacy of pluralism represents a social and spiritual thrust to not have to "take up any kind of cross," whether of one with Christian implications, or even of any other kind where we might need to suppress the wanton desires we might have. If anything, we all (even Christians nowadays) kind of want to "have our cake and eat it too." And we not only want to do that, but we want to eat our cake by the ocean, and do it with a cheesy smile.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Rajni]

I'm not saying I don't appreciate Christendom for all it's glory. But its glory is nothing compared to the one who came and died for the sins of the whole world. Let's not confuse the two.

^This.

Sometimes one's religion becomes one's God, rather than the One to Whom that religion points.


-

 

[Strivax]

...and the world really may bemoan the fact that certain social situations and/or acts are morally wrong in the eyes of God.

Indeed. The problem I have with the Church is that while it is pretty quick to point out sex and sexuality problems, about which I don't really care all that much, it is far more reticent about greed and avarice issues, and the inequality in the distribution of wealth which allows some few to be obscenely rich, and condemns most others in the world to be miserably poor, even to the extent that they cannot afford to feed their children, and have to watch them slowly starve.

If non-Christians viewing our faith, the rich Christian west, see it as hypocritical, well, I think that an entirely fair point. If we entirely forgot about sex for a generation or so, and focused on money, I think the Church would be far closer to what is morally right in the eyes of God.

But I am a non-conformist, so what do I know? The Church thinks itself right, in all moral matters.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed. The problem I have with the Church is that while it is pretty quick to point out sex and sexuality problems, about which I don't really care all that much, it is far more reticent about greed and avarice issues, and the inequality in the distribution of wealth which allows some few to be obscenely rich, and most others in the world to be miserably poor, even to the extent that they cannot afford to feed their children, and have to watch them slowly starve.

If non-Christians viewing our faith, the rich Christian west, see it as hypocritical, well, I think that an entirely fair point. If we entirely forgot about sex for a generation or so, and focused on money, I think the Church would be far closer to what is morally right in the eyes of God.

But I am a non-conformist, so what do I know? The Church thinks itself right, in all moral matters.

Best wishes, Strivax.

But,................I'm not just referring to sex, which is also why I asked Tetra to be more specific. Otherwise, his criticism just comes across as polemic. Sure, there's always the real possibility that Christians today, especially those living in comparatively prosperous nations, really exhibit not much more than a Laodicean type of 'religious response' to Jesus Christ. But, I don't want to make that judgment upon fellow Christian brethren without knowing and understanding specifics, just like I wouldn't want people jumping to conclusions about me based on just a few tidbits they think they might surmise about me.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Strivax]

Dear 2PhiloVoid. I have far too much respect for your intellect to jump to any conclusions about you. I was just making the general point, not aimed at you or any other individual, unless they wish to take it on board, privately, between themselves and their God.

Best wishes, Strivax.