On the meanings of the word "Christian"

I was raised Roman Catholic, which as much as any religious system can claim to be Christian. But ever since I was in high school, I disagreed with the RC teaching on abortion. To be Christian, it seems to me, is to claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus was silent on the topic of abortion. Accordingly, I felt the RCC teachings against abortion were outside the remit of the Church and felt free to dissent. While I understand why a Christian might oppose abortion, it is not a Christian belief, it is simply a personal belief. Same with homosexuality and gay marriage. Jesus was silent on those topics as well. To follow Jesus' example would mean being silent on the topics of abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage.

I'm ruminating on this topic in the wake of the Christianity Today brouhaha, in which the outgoing editor called for Trump to be removed from office. While I agree with this editorial, my agreement isn't moored in evangelical Christianity, or Christianity of any flavor. Other so-called Christians have attacked the CT editorial.

Let's just admit that the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" have become marketing terms, branding. These words have been hijacked and weaponized by folks who want to cloak their personal opinions in ecclesiastical costume.

I carry no water for Christianity, nor for Trump and the modern GOP. But any true conservative would object both to Trump and to the commercialization of Christianity. A conservative supports the separation of church and state, both for the sake of church and of state. A conservative supports the separation of church and science as separate magisteria. I'm not a conservative,  but I can respect honest conservatism as a different worldview that is capable of reconciliation and redemption. I have only contempt for right-wing extremist bullying masquerading as Christianity.

Comments

  1. UnknownDecember 27, 2019 at 7:55 AM

    Noam Chomsky says the Republican Party is the most dangerous group since the beginning of humankind. I fully agree.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownDecember 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM

    Unknown above is me Charles Haller.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joel EissenbergDecember 27, 2019 at 8:09 AM

      I figured. I'm not so sure about the claim for "most dangerous." The tens of millions who died under the boots of Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany and antebellum America would disagree.

      Delete
    2. UnknownDecember 27, 2019 at 8:17 AM

      The H bomb.

      Delete
    3. Joel EissenbergDecember 27, 2019 at 8:22 AM

      Well, I guess there have been tens of thousands who died in the US and USSR in the process of thermonuclear weapons development and testing. So far, none have been detonated in wartime, so those numbers are dwarfed by the lives lost to more conventional means.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Two sides

Image
  Yes, there are two sides to every question. In most cases, there is a correct side and a wrong side. In the case of Kamala Harris, the correct side is that she was born a US citizen. The wrong side is that her parents had to be citizens or permanent residents for her to be a citizen. President Trump pretended to be unsure about this, just as he pretended for five years that Barack Obama is not a citizen. In the case of the Harris noncitizen claim, it is backed by the racist C laremont Institute: "The Claremont Institute masquerades as an intellectual salon of the right, but it is really just a racist fever swamp with deep connections to the conspiratorial alt-right. It even granted a fellowship to Jack Posobiec, who helped promote the notorious Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Claremont’s resident bigots offer deranged fantasies of violently expelling Americans from their home country because of their ethnic backgrounds. Their work deserves the intellectual weight given to that of D...
Read more

Who chooses?

Over at jabberwocking.com , Kevin Drum blames pro-choice writers for failing to make the case for reproductive choice. Well, from everything I've read, a clear majority of Americans believe that Roe should still stand. Seems like the case has been made, and if we lived in a truly representative democracy, a limited national right to abortion would be preserved. But beyond that reality, I think Drum has it exactly backwards. Why does the burden of proof fall on those advocating for personal autonomy? Seems to me the null hypothesis is that women should be allowed to make decisions about their own health, and that the justification for nanny state intrusion into such decisions rests with the minority who assert state coercion. Democrats need to hammer on the right-wing GOP to explain why the government takes temporary custody of pregnant Americans. https://jabberwocking.com/liberals-really-suck-at-defending-abortion/
Read more

Black Earth

 Just finished reading “Black Earth: The Holocaust as history and warning” by Timothy Snyder. It is a detailed account of the Holocaust, as well as an effort to abstract lessons from this history for our time. Like his book “Bloodlands,” Snyder’s “Black Earth” makes for painful reading. As the grandson of a Ukrainian Jew and the son of a Jew, I would have been targeted in the Holocaust had I been in the wrong place. I had read several histories of Europe in World War II that included the Holocaust. I knew the basic story of the Holocaust and Hitler’s anti-Semitic vision. I learned a great deal by reading this book. I won’t belabor the ghoulish atrocities committed by the Nazis and their collaborators. To summarize them here would be to trivialize the enormity of the crimes and invite pointless debate about who did what and who suffered more. You’ll have to read the book to understand Snyder’s historical insights. However, I learned many things that I did not know by reading thi...
Read more