The Church Can't Please Everyone

The Church Can’t Please Everyone

Somehow, this axiom is no longer concerning to me. Mind you, it does bother me that people hate the church, and that many (most) have considerable baggage against it, no matter how ridiculous it is. A week scarcely goes by in which my anger is not incited some new ranting anti-religionist. Reading Al Mohler’s blog (www.albertmohler.com) and numerous other articles and books has made me painfully aware of the fact that people in the west have considerable hostility to church – and particularly the evangelical church. It is difficult to express the way it pains me to see people slandering the church, and denouncing the significance of Christ’s body on earth.

But over the years, I have become suspicious of criticisms from outsiders and marginal insiders. They are plagued by internal inconsistencies and wrong-headedness. Below is a list of reasons for my suspicions:

1. Many outsider criticisms are drawn from a grotesque lack of sound history. Many of you may have heard of a man named Andrew Dickinson White. He wrote a book called, "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science” (1874). This book hailed the era of accusations against the church for its supposed crimes in scientific suppression and unreasonableness. It began myths like the notion which states that Christians believed the earth was flat during the middle ages. Or the one which assumes that Copernicus started a scientific revolution (when in fact, several medieval scholastics had done the contextual work for him, and he actually accomplished very little). The myth that the Church was responsible for the Dark Ages was strongly asserted by this book. That surgeons and physicians were suppressed by the Church because of the Christian theology, and that they needed to escape to the fringes of Christendom to do their work, was another myth he fabricated. Not only are the above myths untrue, the very opposite of them is true. The church can almost overwhelmingly be proud of its academic creations, the university and the scientific method, as well as a consistent commitment to scholarly learning. Furthermore, the amount of widely-held beliefs that have come about since A.D. White are numerous, and are more influential than real history. That people use the crusades and the inquisition as a "catch-all counter-apologetic" for discrediting the moral goodness of religion shows that they know almost nothing about Europe at the time. With Dan Brown's novels and movies, and with celebrities like Richard Dawkins, we needn't wonder much...

2. Moral indictments against the church are consistently inconsistent.

Let me talk about a few:

a) The church should be peaceable... but not that peaceable. Blessed are the peacemakers... most of the time. I have heard numerous atheists lambaste the church for its "atrocities" like the crusades, and its violence against the nearby pagan nations. I have heard the outlandish claim that "Christian nations have exercised just as much violence as the Marxists and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century." Yet why is it that the church has also been accused of causing Rome to fall through its softening and pacifying of Roman legions? Why is it that I constantly hear people scoffing at Anabaptists for giving their lives by their pacifism? Why are they even ridiculed for "not protecting their women children," jeopardizing justice and manhood? And of course, Christians can't appreciate violent films, literature and mythology properly because they are effeminate pansies...right?

b) A related indictment against the church is that it is too patriarchal and anti-feminist...but also unsuitable for men. Which will it be? Whenever a church leader utters the word "submission" or when women are denied certain posts in the church, feminists have a hate-hey-day. "Clearly," they say, "the church is unkind to women, and is a male-dominated institution." The truth is quite the opposite. I would highly recommend the book Why Men Hate Going to Church. It discusses the massive gender gap between men and women in the church today. There is something like a 59-41 ratio of presence in favor of women. The programs, atmosphere and mission of churches today truly reflect a feminine spirit - and it is turning away men. You don't have to go far behind the scenes to find far greater multitudes who criticize the church for its effeminacy.The analogy that the author uses works: vanilla cake with a chocolate coating. But let me ask: when was the last time you heard the second criticism of the two? And yet we all hear the first one repeatedly.

c) People in the church are so stupid...but they need to be simple and express things in accessible terms.

d) The church should be active and present in the world...but only as much as we want. We want Christians to give rice, but not too much rice, and only to which people we think they should when they should, with no proselytizing of course...

e) ...Furthermore, the church should mind its own business. Gosh! Can't they just have it between God and them, without bothering any of us?

f) The church should offer the world a substantive religion that merits all manners of fulfillment, but also cannot make any real demands, and cannot employ revalation, or their own scriptures.

g) We think that church should be a moral force for change and for upholding virtue...but it cannot claim that it uniquely teaches virtue, and it cannot claim that it has superior virtue to teach the world, or that the people inside are better than those outside.

h) The church should allow for plenty of "freedom" in matters of conscience. Bu-ut they must have a unified and strong voice in combating liberality, and must strictly watch the holiness of its own members.

i) There should be separation of church and state...but the church MUST support the government, and the pulpit must be a place where ideas can be critically engaged and where people's opinions are formed.

3. Opinions of what the church should be doing conflict immensely

I'm sure that many of you have heard opinions about the activity and passivity of the church. Let's consider some of them:

Many think that the church should be very active in the mission field. Many are supportive of evangelical mission efforts to Africa insofar as they produce better community ethics, better ombudsmanship, and increase support of the destitute. Many others claim that mission efforts sabotage ancient and fading cultures. It increases religious homogenization, or can create terrible tension in places with two dominant religions (ie. Christianity and Islam in Nigeria or Islam and Animism in Sudan). I think that we can disregard a criticism coming from either side (that the church is not vigorous enough in its efforts, or that it should not make mission efforts). Let's do the great commission on Christ's terms.

Many think that Christians should be foursquare against homosexuality. They say that the ambiguity of the Christian community is disingenuous and not confrontational enough. Of course, in most places in North America, the general consensus in that the church should be opening its bosom for gay people, and should be making it a fact of the church. I personally think that we should do scholarly and Christ-centered exegesis of the scripture and act according to revealed ethical standards. And this applies to issues of bio-ethics, feminism, guns, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

4. The understanding and approval of piety and impiety is awful.

I'm not sure I need to flesh out this thesis much. That's mostly what I said in the previous paragraph. Of course, there is the fact of general revelation, and often human beings have a somewhat accurate moral compass. They can recognize holiness when they see it. That's why we should "make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). But we must not become pre-occupied with issues of being "un-Christian" according to what the world understands. That is because the Holy Spirit enables them to recognize Holiness through His global efforts. Therefore, the same God who through the same Spirit wrote the commands of scripture should be given a hearing. I think that we should play by His rules. Let us do an unmistakable job of learning Christian ethics according to the scriptures. Perhaps people will hate us; we can heed the words of Isaiah: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20). Nonetheless, the surest way to effective Christian living is to follow Christ and to live in the shadow of the cross.

We must grow in grace while we engage God's revelations. It is also of great worth to do a hermeneutic of the culture to find where our faith can converge. That in part, is why I have begun this blog.

Soli Deo Gloria