How can we counter the historical bad example of Christianity?

This is a question I wonder about some times. There are some non-Christians that say Christianity has done some bad things in the past and it is a major reason they do not want to be a Christian. Some even compare the bad things done by radical Musims with that of the former Christians (such as the inquisitions, witch hunts, forced conversions etc). Yes I know there is much that Christianity has done the has been positive and served for the better of mankind throughout history but some people don't focus on that. What can we do or say as Christians to those that view our faith as negative because of the history of Christianity?

Unfortunately, there is only one Church, with as much historical reality as its Founder, and we cannot appeal to some better, ideal Church against the inadequacies and offences of the Church as it is. Unfortunately, we can only get hold of the ideal Church in the empirical Church. We have access to usage only in ill-usage, ab-use, which cannot be abolished but must be improved so that it can become credible and usable once again.
von Balthasar, Hans Urs – Truth is Symphonic [Ignatius Press 1972, trans. Harrison, Graham1987, p 75]

Having "said" that, Christian history, as opposed to European secular history, is less bloody than many modern critics like to imagine (the Inquisition sheltered accused "witches", for instance, and recent estimates of numbers of casualties for both outrages are far fewer than many realize). Apart from the Crusades (and see Firestone's Jihad - The Origin of Holy War in Islam) and Reformation, Christian history has many more folk like Catherine of Siena, William Law and Maximus the Confessor than Bernard Gui and Torquemada.

The great atheist/humanist political systems that reject Christianity - fascism and communism - have been responsible for the industrial slaughter of millions of human beings in a way and on a scale no Church persecution or popular pogrom ever did.

Atheist political correctness seeks to anathematize Western culture, history and religion, and distorts the truth for its own ends. To consider Christianity as the source of human evil is to overturn historical reality for ideologically fashionable nonsense, IMHO.

Dump 'sola scriptura', 'sola fide' and actually live what one preaches and believes.

E.C. said:

Dump 'sola scriptura', 'sola fide' and actually live what one preaches and believes.

Click to expand...

Dude,... nevermind.
How can we counter the historical bad example of Christianity?
Denial hasn't been working. Try living it down.

The historical good example of Christianity works for me.

Tell non Christians that any abuses in the name of Christianity are a distortion of the basic preaching of the Gospel. Some of the biggest pacifists are Christians like monastics, communities like the Amish & Quakers etc. That murderous tendencies were inherent in non Christian societies like the Aztecs, Attila the Hun, Gengis Khan, that the succession to Mohammad involved murders, that secular ideologies like marxism (Stalin, Pol pot, Mao, present day N. Korea etc.) & fascism (Hitler) are always murderous & founded on violence etc.

Tell 'em there was only ever one perfect Christian.

I think you have to go no further than the first few chapters of Genesis to see the answer. When the original sin was committed by Adam, God asked him about it, and instead of taking the blame for it Adam did something that is continued to this day, he blamed God. The woman you gave me she made me eat. It's her fault and your fault but I, poor Adam am just an innocent man led down the path to sin.

History doesn't change much, repeatedly throughout history, people have held themselves up as good Christians and they claim it is God's will they feed their insatiable appetites. It is God that made us do this, God is on our side. We murder and rape and pillage because these people are opposed to us, er I mean God.

Just because someone claims to be doing something in God's name doesn't mean he is. I would hope the person could understand that.

Now he might counter with the Old Testament and the slaying of entire towns including infants, that such is actually the will of God. No, again that is a misunderstanding.

The Old Testament graphically portrays the end times. The weak chosen people will receive the promised land, the strong in their city fortresses of wealth and power will be slain. Many will be slain, many will experience th second death in the lake of fire.

However, this is not God's will. He would have all men saved. Jesus died for the sins of the world. That includes the questioner.

If you take his chosen people, it was necessary to come through the water, to receive the baptism unto Moses to be the chosen people and receive the promised land. However, it was not absolutely necessary. What was absolutely necessary was faith. Those who had been baptised who lost their faith and would not enter into the promised land perished in the wilderness. The infants, they were the ones who received the land through faith. And anyone else who reacted in faith were also saved, even though they were not among the baptised. Rahab and her family were saved. Even the city who fooled the people into thinking they came from far away, they too were saved by their faith.

It's a strong testimony to the absolute necessity of faith.

Marv

pauljrose in OP:
"How can we counter the historical bad example of Christianity?"


One reason worth pointing out is that for centuries the Catholic Mass was performed in Latin, a language understood by few. Only in the early 1970's, within my lifetime, did the Roman Catholic Church start performing its mass in vernacular languages such as English.

Gothic churches may be lovely and awe inspiring but their acoustics are terrible. Here is another reason that, for centuries, the common people couldn't always understand what was being taught about their faith.

Today most Christians own at least one Bible and often more. We have access to multiple scholarly translations, concordances, and other study aids. For most of Christian history, Christians did not have these advantages.

The best thing we can do today is to set a better example.

*

*

Dale said:

pauljrose in OP:
"How can we counter the historical bad example of Christianity?"


One reason worth pointing out is that for centuries the Catholic Mass was performed in Latin, a language understood by few. Only in the early 1970's, within my lifetime, did the Roman Catholic Church start performing its mass in vernacular languages such as English.
*

Click to expand...

Really? Are you saying the bad example of Christians is due to the language they are worshipping in?

Dale said:

Gothic churches may be lovely and awe inspiring but their acoustics are terrible. Here is another reason that, for centuries, the common people couldn't always understand what was being taught about their faith.

Click to expand...

Last summer I had the oppurtunity to sing in some of these Gothic Cathedrals. I have to disagree. In my opinion, the acoustics are much better than in the modern warehouse style American churches. The Gothic dome acts like a speaker cone for the performers and naturally amplifies their voices to fill even a large cathedral. Once one gets used to the 1/2 second echo off the back wall, the sound produced is lovely.

Rick Otto said:

Tell 'em there was only ever one perfect Christian.

Click to expand...

Here, here!

tz620q:
"Really? Are you saying the bad example of Christians is due to the language they are worshipping in?"


Put it this way: If Christians can't understand the liturgy they attend, how are they to learn from it?


*

*

Dale said:

tz620q:
"Really? Are you saying the bad example of Christians is due to the language they are worshipping in?"


Put it this way: If Christians can't understand the liturgy they attend, how are they to learn from it?


*

*

Click to expand...

Simple: either 1) learn the language or 2) have a book with the language of the Liturgy on one side and the language of the vernacular on the other.


But if you really think that Latin was such a bad thing within the Roman Church than consider that after Vatican II when the Roman Church decreed that worshiping in the vernacular is okay, more people left the Roman Church than ever before.


Although if you truly want an answer to the question about 'how can a Christian learn from the liturgy if they don't know the language' (slightly paraphrased) than I would have to suggest going over to The Ancient Way subforum and asking there. Most of the Orthodox on CF are in the USA, yet some worship in Byzantine Greek, some in Old Slavonic and some of us (such as myself) worship in English.

I myself once visited a parish that worshiped in the Old Slavonic and even though I speak zero Slavic languages, I still 'learned from the liturgy' and knew what was going on.


Granted, there is a reason for all that but if you truly desire the answer to that question than I suggest you go to The Ancient Way (TAW) subforum and ask.

But if you really think that Latin was such a bad thing within the Roman Church than consider that after Vatican II when the Roman Church decreed that worshiping in the vernacular is okay, more people left the Roman Church than ever before.

Click to expand...

Is that because they finaly understood?

Rick Otto said:

Is that because they finaly understood?

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that. Especially when considering other effects of Vatican II that did to the Roman Church what Versailles did to Europe's stability.

People are attracted to love/hate relationships.
Maybe Vatican II remoced too much of the hate.
Isn't that about the same time a flock of nuns & priests left, often enough to marry one another?

No idea. But, if you'd like we could discuss this via pm. I'm not sure if Vatican II bears any relevance to bad examples of Christianity.

quote=E.C.; No idea. But, if you'd like we could discuss this via pm.

Click to expand...

Thanks but no thanks. Not enough opportunity to show off in public, and I already have you completely snowed.

I'm not sure if Vatican II bears any relevance to bad examples of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Well then you're just not trying.
Here's a pithy article:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10743
At various junctures in history the Christian consensus and the unity of the church have been disrupted by schism and heresy. Since the 16th cen­tury, however, Roman Catholicism has exhibited a remarkable cohesive­ness in all parts of the world. This inner unity was achieved by means of a high­ly centralized system of government, with the Roman See exercising strict vigilance over the canonical Scriptures, the formulas of faith, the norms of worship and ecclesiastical discipline. This system of controls successfully staved off major schisms and produced a sincere and vital consensus within the framework of officially approved norms. The achievements of the Coun­ter Reformation Church are undeni­ably impressive.
Vatican Council II, however, reversed this trend. It muted the tradi­tional Catholic emphasis on external unity and on subjection to legitimate authority. In many significant texts the Council invited Catholics to think for themselves and even, within limits, to depart from traditionally accepted views. The Council Fathers themselves, by their boldness in rejecting the Ro­man schemas initially presented to them, set a stirring example of Chris­tian independence. Their dissent, per­suasively argued, led to a new con­sensus, evidenced by the practical unanimity with which most of the con­ciliar documents were approved in the final voting.