Is Christianity Prejudiced?

Being a part of a mostly liberal denomination--The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, I get exposed to quite a few interesting thoughts and ideas.

Recently, I was asked to edit a comment I made on Facebook because it came across as "mansplaining."  My first thought was, "What the hell is that?"  Turns out, it is a made up word by those who are combating the "patriarchy" who see certain comments as patronizing--especially if they are coming from a male.  Behind such wordplay is the assumption that we indeed live in a patriarchy where men dominate women; men are the oppressors of women; and where men have engineered a system to keep women oppressed even in their use of language. 

Such thinking is not unique to the third-wave feminist movement.  There are also such undertones in the sphere of race and identity in our culture.  The term "white-privilege" is bantered about quite a bit these days assuming that society is geared to privilege people with less melanin in their skin.  The very fabric of our society: how it is constructed; how it functions; its very foundational thoughts--are imbued to favor whites.  Therefore, as some have concluded, all white people are racist.

I firmly believe that if you think that all people of a certain gender, skin color, or sexuality are racist, sexist or what have you, then you are actually guilty of major prejudice.  Not bothering to get to know people on an individual basis, you have categorically made a "preconceived judgement or opinion."  You have not judged a person by the content of his or her character; rather, you have made your claim based upon that person's gender or skin color.  Such behavior is misguided at the least.  Evil at its worst. 

Such thoughts got me to thinking about the assumptions that govern Christianity.  Does Christianity make prejudicial statements about people?  Does Christianity assume things about others before getting to know those others?

Without a doubt.

Christianity claims "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  All are infected with the disease of original sin.  (Original sin being an inherent selfishness and desire to be our own god of the universe into which all are born; all struggle with; and all have difficulty overcoming.) 

If I adhere to the historical understanding of the Christian faith, then I definitely pre-judge people in this manner.  Am I misguided at the least?  Evil at worst?

I might be, if I looked at the world through the lens of dichotomy: us/them; oppressor/oppressed; right/wrong.  For if I am a follower of Jesus who is "washed in the blood of the Lamb" and you are not, then I am better off than you are.  I know that I am saved.  I know that I am righteous unlike those who are still wallowing in their sins and condemned to everlasting punishment.

But historical Christianity does not allow me to look at the world this way.  Historical Christianity does not allow me to think of myself as better off than anyone.  For I too am guilty of original sin.  I too am guilty of an inherent selfishness.  I too am guilty of wishing to be god of my own universe.  I cannot set myself against anyone because I am just like the other.

Much of the rhetoric in liberal churches who buy into the oppressor/oppressed lens--translated into male/female; white/black; white/brown; white/insert whatever color you choose; straight/GLBTQ; ad infinatum--draw sharp distinctions between genders, races, and those with differing sexual orientation.  There is a definite dividing line for those who look at the world in this fashion.  One could literally accuse these folks of black/white thinking and be absolutely correct--even though most on this side of the fence claim to see the world in shades of gray.  Actually, they only see shades of gray when it is to their benefit--as do most people, including myself.

Historical Christianity has removed the dividing line.  All have sinned.  All are saved only and solely by grace.  That's the other part generally missing from the rhetoric these days.

Left up to human devices, there is never a leveling of the playing field.  There can only be societal upheaval which seeks to deconstruct systems and institutions and reconstruct them in a more equitable fashion.  Historically speaking, this is never going to happen.  Every single governmental and institutional structure has been shown to be wanting.  Every single governmental and institutional structure has shown to have major flaws.  None have been up to the task of creating a world of equality and egalitarianism.  None.  This is simply a historical fact whether you like it or not.  And all the legal wrangling we try will never get us there.  You cannot legislate a perfect society.  Even God tried that--at least if you take Scripture seriously.  It didn't work because we humans always find the loop holes.  We humans always interpret the law to our advantage.  What is needed is not more law, but complete changes of heart.

That is not accomplished by ourselves--or else we could claim to have an advantage over others.  "I changed myself.  You can too.  You must too.  You'd better too."  Historical Christianity claims that such change comes from God and His action through the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I cannot claim any sort of superiority.  Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I cannot claim to have an advantage over anyone else.  Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I am incapable of demonizing another; seeing the other as less than human; or condemning the other based upon their actions or physical traits.  Jesus died for the other and saved the other just as He died for and saved me.

In much of liberal Christian thought "salvation" comes by recognizing my privilege and seeking to be in solidarity with those who are oppressed by such privilege.  "Salvation" comes by seeking to become like the other or in solidarity with the other.  In historical Christian thought, salvation comes through Jesus and then seeking to be like Him--dying to myself, my wants, and  my desires and living to the glory of God.  This means loving others including those who treat me wrongly.

Hence, I become prejudiced.  I see people as sinners.  I see them in need of the love of God through Jesus Christ.  But I do not condemn them or hate them because I am also prejudiced in seeing them as children of God and beloved by God. 

This is the prejudice of Christianity, and perhaps it is the prejudice we need more than ever in our society.

Deep Hypocrisy

I am a huge hypocrite.  I will freely admit it because I have come to see that hypocrisy is a plague that hits just about everyone, and I mean everyone.

I have become consciously aware of this as discussion about the care of Syrian refugees has become a hot topic after the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, France.

In much of the media, those who lean left are chiding many conservative Christians who are adamant about not taking in any Syrian refugees.  There are many left-leaning clergy who are decrying those in government who are saying, "We will not take any Syrian refugees because of threats to safety." Those in the media and those left-leaning clergy are making their appeals based on references to Scripture.

Matthew 25 is referenced.
Exodus 22 and 23 are referenced
Leviticus 19 is referenced
Luke 10 is referenced

Now, I have no issue with citing such verses.  There is clear command in scripture to care for the alien and those in need.  Those who point to Christians' lack of adherence to these verse rightly point out our hypocrisy.

But, some folks miss their own, and many who are chiding Christians for failing to follow scripture are those who have minimized the authority of scripture in the past.

For instance, more than a few of those who are speaking loudly about helping the immigrant and chiding Christians for failing to follow scripture have used the following arguments regarding gay marriage:

The Bible is an antiquated book that is not relevant when it comes to this issue.

Or:

The Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality, and you can read those verses in such and such a manner.  (The exegetical gymnastics done here truly are a work of art.)

So, what prevents some of those "conservative" Christians from using the exact same arguments regarding the reception of Syrian immigrants?  What prevents "conservative" Christians from saying:

The Bible is an antiquated book, and those Old Testament passages were written for a nation that had the Jewish God as its ultimate authority.  The U.S. has the Constitution and is not a theocracy, so Biblical injunctions for a nation to welcome the alien no longer apply.

And Jesus never specifically referenced Syrian aliens.  There is a lot of talk about Edomites and Moabites and Canaanites and Samaritains, but nothing about Syrians.

And Matthew 25 (exegetically speaking) is more about those who are not Christian and how they treat Christians.

And Luke 10 is more about my immediate neighbor in need, not someone who is trying to get into my nation.

What is typically done in many instances is using the Bible to justify one's own particular position instead of allowing the Bible to mold one's own position.  If the Bible's injunctions do not fit with my ideology, I can minimize them by the above methods.  However, if the Bible's injunctions mesh with my own, then I can use them as a hammer to blast my opponents--which is what most of this boils down too anyway, isn't it.

I will find something that conforms to my ideology and then use it to bash those who don't agree with me, usually making them feel contempt for me in the process.

Admit it, those of you who are on the left hand side of things, when "conservatives" use scriptural law to tell you how wrong you are for supporting homosexual marriage or relationships, you get angry with them because you think they are holding you in contempt and are acting self-righteously.

Admit it, those of you who are the right hand side of things, when "liberals" use scriptural law to tell you how you are not caring for the poor and your neighbor, you get angry with them because you think they are holding you in contempt and are acting self-righteously.

And admit it, both of you that you do, in a very real way, have contempt for the other "side."  You think "they" are the ones with the problem, and it is "they" who need to change.  If they would only see things in your self-righteous way, then all would be well. 

And let me ask you both, how is this loving your neighbor as you would love yourself?

Hypocrisy runs deep, doesn't it?  (And if you think I am being hypocritical, read sentence #1 again.)

What is your answer to this problem?  Is your answer, "I will work harder to lessen my hypocrisy?"

Good luck.

The more you try, you will either fall into despair because you know you are unable to meet the standard, or you will become self-righteous thinking that you are doing a good job and others should follow suit.  You will either hate yourself or end up right back where you were in the first place.

Trying harder isn't the answer.

Trusting more is.

Trusting more in the action of the one who was had the authority to point out our hypocrisy because He had none.  Trusting in the one who was without sin when we were full of it.  Trusting in the action of One who laid down His life for us when we didn't deserve it.  Trusting in the One who deeply loves us in the midst of our continued failure.

Because if you know you are a failure, you don't become self-righteous.
Because if you know you are deeply loved, you don't despair.

You hold the two in tension and become humble.

You admit your hypocrisy.
You admit you are no better than those on the other "side."
You admit you are swayed by your ideology.
You admit that you need correcting.
You are less likely to judge the other as the one who needs changing and realize you need to change too.
You know the hypocrisy will never be fully erased, and you throw yourself upon the mercy of the one who truly forgives.
And when you know that forgiveness, you forgive others--even when they don't deserve it.
The cycle is broken.

Because of the Gospel.