What Christianity Is Not

Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins posted (August 1, 2018) on Townhall.com an interesting article, “5 Things They Get Wrong About Christianity.” The first one listed is: “Christianity Requires Us To Hate People We Disagree With.” While acknowledging that this might be the case for some who call themselves Christians, it is not true of the vast majority, and the Bible certainly does not teach people to behave in such a way.

We do not hate anyone—even our fiercest opponents. Atheist Wallace I. Matson, who debated Brother Thomas B. Warren in Tampa in 1978, complimented the brethren present for their excellent conduct toward him during the debate. No one present hated him. He had the courage of his convictions (unlike Carl Sagan who would not debate, despite having issued challenges to Creationists).

It is true that we oppose sin and challenge those who promote it. Paul was not shy about proclaiming the truth in public at the Areopagus, and Christians should likewise not back away from such opportunities. However, honestly arguing for the principles God has revealed in His Holy Word does not spring from hatred—but rather from love. People need to know the facts of the matter so they can make intelligent decisions.

How many women, for example, have been talked into an abortion because they did not know what the Bible teaches on the subject? Then they had to live with the guilt. How many have become alcoholics because they were not taught abstinence? How many have become ill or even died because they were not taught God’s laws concerning fornication? Even when people have been taught the truth, they often still rebel and mess up their lives, but many would behave better if they had been taught better.

Christians should never be guilty of hate speech; however, those on the left (those who actually are guilty of hate speech) are ironically the ones falsely accusing Christians. Although the editorial cartoon described below was actually more of a political nature, many of the same people listed in it are quite outspoken against Christianity, also. The Dana Summers who drew it is not related to this writer. It appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on August 12, 2018.

In the left panel a never-Trumper is shouting: “We won’t stand for disgusting derogatory language, insults or HATE!” In the right-hand panel, he continues: “Unless it’s from Samantha Bee, Rosie O’Donnell, Chelsea Handler, Jimmy Kimmell, Sally Field, Jimmy Fallon, Robert DeNiro, Madonna, Maxine Waters, Ashley Judd…” and about that time he runs out of fingers that he has been counting on. These examples are of people not just arguing a point but spewing forth vitriol.

Personal attacks against someone because of a difference of views only promotes hatred. Someone might argue that Jesus called some names, such as “hypocrites” and “brood of vipers.” The words He chose were, first of all, not filthy. Second, they were accurate. Jesus did not just engage in name calling; He explained why the scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites (see Matthew 23). Third, He only chose to use these terms after they repeatedly showed hardness of heart in refusing to listen to the teaching God had given Him, which was both logical and correct, conforming to the Divine standard. Many of those overflowing with hatred on television today are neither logical nor kind, and they conform to their own humanistic standards rather than the will of God.

Anti-Science

Of course, Christians are not anti-science, which would be silly. If something is scientifically established, how could anyone reject it? The only way to do so would involve being irrational. They call us anti-science because we oppose evolution, which, after almost 160 years has still not been proven to be factual. Furthermore, the ideology has had a bad effect on society rather than contributing anything helpful. If human beings descended from apes, then we are just more highly educated animals without a soul, without any purpose for living, and without any hope for anything better than this world. Is it any wonder why so many people commit suicide? Is it any wonder why there is no respect for human life? We are living in a random universe which just happened by accident.

We have no motive to be kind or caring. What possible reason could there be for being sentimental over human beings composed of various basic elements? If evolution were true, human beings would not be created in the image of God. By the way, how do we explain logic, which does not inhere in matter? Love, reasoning, and all the best things about human beings owe their origin to God—not nature. It does not take long to figure out that, if heaven does not exist, everything I will ever have I must obtain now. If others have more than I do, why should I not take what they have by force or by stealth? Why should I respect the property rights of others? “But it’s not right to think that way,” someone may protest. Hah! Apparently they have forgotten that, without God, there are no standards of morality. Nature and randomness do not have those. Has anyone ever seen the chickens put on trial a fox for killing and eating them?

We might just mention that a class of people is rising that is challenging actual science. Believe it or not, some are questioning whether water is wet, the idea of gravity, and that the earth is round. Seriously? Yes, they have produced videos. Some people, apparently, cannot accept actual demonstrable evidence.

A Theocracy

Hawkins’ third subject involves the erroneous notion that Christians want to establish a theocracy. He writes:

In my 47 years on this earth, I have yet to ever actually meet a Christian who wants a theocracy although I have met quite a few who’ve correctly complained that the 1st Amendment is being incorrectly interpreted to be much more hostile to religion than the Founders ever intended.

Hawkins states the case accurately. No movement is afoot to establish a one-religion monarchy to rule this country. Has anyone been invited to a rally toward that end? If Muslims gain control of a nation, they will establish sharia law, but even that is not in the wind here—yet. No one religion is powerful enough to establish itself to rule over this nation. The only thing that could be argued is that Christians want to be governed by Christian principles (which is the way this nation started out). That practice obviously did not run counter to the first amendment.

The purpose of the First Amendment was to avoid a state religion—such as existed in England and many other countries. The King of England proclaimed himself head of the Church of England, and he proved to be rather intolerant of other religions. Those living in Catholic-dominated nations faced the same problems. The First Amendment was placed into the constitution to maintain freedom of religion and to avoid the tyranny that other nations experienced. Many fled countries that, if not technically theocracies, had one religious sect heavily dominating the country. Neither the founding fathers nor anyone today desires to see such a system in place in America.

For that reason the First Amendment exists. It is not there to prohibit God’s name from being uttered in public or to quash God’s moral principles. The First Amendment was not invented to keep prayers and the Scriptures out of schools or the public forum. Its design was not to give Christianity a swift kick to the curb. It is not part of the constitution to provide a living for ACLU lawyers. One cannot detect any hint of a theocracy promoted by Christians in the offing.

Intolerance

While an example or two can probably be found of intolerance on the part of “Christians” (Westboro Baptist), the biggest problems lie with leftists. Many college campuses have canceled conservative speakers coming to address students because of violent protests. Antifa may be the most Fascist group around. According to Wikipedia, they “engage in violent protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence.” They are largely anti-capitalists, anarchists, communists, and socialists. They are dangerous, and as long as they violate existing laws, they should be arrested and prosecuted.

It seems that some people are being denied access to social media because of their views. Recently, Alex Jones was removed (either temporarily or permanently). This writer has never heard his show and is not a conspiracy theorist. (So far as he is concerned, Oswald acted alone.) None of the theories attributed to Jones make sense. But should guys like this not have the same freedom of speech that others do? Is anyone compelled to believe him? Don’t people ask for proof these days? If someone is not calling for violence, shouldn’t he be allowed to rave on?

Then there is Sarah Jeong, who not only makes racist statements; they are crude and vulgar, also. Oh, but she has been hired by The New York Times. We are informed that she can’t be a racist because she is a minority. Well, she’s not a minority in the country she’s from, which is South Korea. She can be and is a racist, whether living there in the majority or here in the minority. One or two people have been kicked off social media for saying the same things she said—only of a different race. Truly, the legs of the lame are not equal. The left is heavily weighted with intolerance, and they defend it.

Hypocrites

Okay, they finally got us. Of all the charges, this one actually contains some merit. Many claiming to be Christians are, in fact, hypocrites. By way of defense, however, please consider three points. First, not all who claim to be Christians are. They have never made a commitment in the first place. Many have grown up in a Christian home and lived primarily in a Christian environment, but they have only submitted to cultural influences; they have not committed to transforming themselves into the image of Jesus Christ. Thus, they behave as others do; they curse less, but they may commit adultery or steal from the company for which they work, or drink a little too much (how much is that?). Undoubtedly, they would identify themselves as Christians, but they probably only attend worship once or twice a month and are not really involved in the church.

Second, the devil tries his hardest to ensnare Christians because everyone else already belongs to him. Sometimes otherwise godly people give in. If they do, they have few options. They may repent, which removes them from the hypocrite category. Or they can hide it, hoping they won’t get caught, or, if caught, tell everyone they quit the practice. At any given time, a number of hypocrites are on the verge of discovery.

But, third, what is the ratio of those who live faithfully to those who are hypocrites? Because of the inconsistency, the hypocrite makes the newspaper. How many articles are published celebrating the virtues of individuals or couples that have served God for decades without even a small blot against their record? Occasionally, one finds such an encouraging story but not often. No one should, however, let a person who is a hypocrite keep him out of heaven. Jesus knew who all of them were, but He lived and died faithfully anyway. Whatever anyone else thinks, let Christians get it right.