This is the last in our series of doctrine slots on common objections. I’ve tried to answer some of the accusations made against Christianity. In the time available to us I’ll not be able to extinguish all the objectors’ flaming darts. Nevertheless I’m hoping at least to put out some of the more substantial bush fires! You might want to fan them into flame once again in the question time but we’ll see how we go.

The accusation that we’re considering in this slot is that Christianity is intolerant. According to the dictionary I consulted, to be tolerant is to ‘broad minded, open minded, unbiased and generous’. On the other hand to be intolerant is to be ’blind, opinionated, narrow minded, bigoted, sexist and chauvinistic’. Who wants to be intolerant! It’s the one thing we’re not prepared to tolerate!

The definition of tolerance has shifted in recent years. Tolerance used to mean something like the respectful forbearance of someone with a differing viewpoint. It was a definition that assumed the existence of truth and it was the requisite behaviour required by disputants as they argued over what truth is. It was a definition that permitted there to be real differences of opinion and therefore the possibility of meaningful debate. Therefore to be intolerant was to be socially unacceptable. But tolerance means something different these days. It means we’re to leave one another alone and let other people get on with their own lives. In other words tolerance has gone from being ‘putting up with error’ to ‘accepting all views’. So to be intolerant these days is to suggest that someone may have got it wrong and want to pursue a debate.

At first glance it seems an attractive idea. Gandhi’s quote about the violence caused by religious fanaticism suggests that all religious controversies are on an inevitable trajectory towards violence. They’re not but we can see how tolerance might dampen potential flash points. EM Forster’s reluctant admission that tolerance is a makeshift solution for the cultural diversity in an overcrowded planet reinforces that view. We live in a wonderfully diverse and multicultural city and similarly tolerance appears to hold the answer for how to peacefully coexist in close proximity with those with whom we differ. But if we’re not permitted to raise our differences and critique them what this tends to do is not prosper understanding but stifle debate.

The origin of the accusation of intolerance is best illustrated by some of the responses given to the Christian viewpoint. 

1. ‘you can’t tell me how to live’

We live in a liberal permissive society that espouses personal freedom as a non-negotiable. We’re stridently individualistic in our outlook and we resent the efforts of others to influence the way in which we choose to live. We regard it as an infringement of our human rights to have someone else foist their beliefs upon us and try and impose their way of doing things. And so we say in response ‘you can’t tell me how to live’. In one sense that’s true. We’re grown ups and one of the things about independence is that we need to take responsibility for the decisions we make. But the nature of the complaint is really that the teaching of Jesus Christ has an ‘ought’ about it rather than a ‘perhaps’. Christians appear intolerant because what Jesus taught about how we ought to live is often completely at odds with mainstream opinion. Christians are not prepared to be silent about that. Christians are therefore often at the forefront of campaigns to highlight the damage that can be done to individuals or to communities when society drifts away from the Bible’s teaching. Historically there was great Christian momentum behind the abolition of slavery in our own age there’s great support for the protection for the weak and vulnerable frequently at either end of life. Most people don’t enjoy being on the receiving end of that sort of critique of their decisions and so Christianity is rubbished.

2. ‘you’re against everything’

Christianity has had rather more success in recent years at communicating what we’re against rather than what we’re for. Partly that’s a feature of being in the media age and we’re vulnerable to the whims of the decision-makers in that industry. Most of what we do is not newsworthy. I can’t imagine the headlines in the local newspaper, ‘Christ Church Balham Vicar preaches forgiveness of sins’. However, I suspect it’d be different if I were to say something derogatory about Islam or homosexual practice or fall into gross immorality. The result is that if we were to ask the man on the street he’d probably say that Christians are anti-sex, anti-women, anti-gay and anti-other religions. And so we say in response ‘you’re against everything’. It’s inevitable in a culture where we’re supposed only to learn from and not critique the practice of others we’ll appear intolerant. But we all operate with a system of thought that renders some things out of order. Christians generally operate with a rational system of thought derived from their convictions about Jesus Christ and the Bible. As unusual as it sounds, the evidence has forced them to come to the conclusion that Jesus is God in a human body and so when he speaks about something we ought to not only pay attention but change our thinking where that’s demanded. We’re used to having our thinking and behaviour corrected as we understand what the Bible teaches. What we can’t understand is why there’s wholesale rejection in our society of something so persuasively coherent and logical.

3. ‘you don’t monopolise truth’

The prevailing ideology in our culture is post-modernism. Many people won’t self-consciously articulate that worldview but it’s the name given to the idea that there’s no such thing as ‘big T truth’ there’s only ‘little t truth’. In other words, there’s no such thing as universal truth there’s only personal truth. Most of us would be cautious about applying that principle across the board. So I assume that we’re not about to suggest that gravity is only true for you but not for me. However, many of us might assume that it’s the case in the religious realm. The reason we’re happy to do that is because we think that religion has nothing to do with fact and everything to do with opinion and speculation. And so we say to the Christian ‘you don’t have a monopoly on what’s true’. In other words, all forms of religious expression and thought are equally valid. But that can’t be the case for two reasons.

a. different religions don’t believe the same things

Others may try and iron out the differences but no devotee of one of these faiths would agree that they’re the same. The local Imam would not let you say Christianity is the same as Islam. Neither would the Rabbis let you suggest that Judaism’s view of Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity’s are identical. They’re not being intolerant they’re just pointing out the obvious. The different religions of the world are not the same. At a superficial level they share some things in common. They all try and interpret the world around us, they all give some degree of moral guidance to individuals and try to influence government and they all lift our eyes from the material things of this world to the spiritual things of the next. But that’s not as helpful as it sounds because we could argue that George Bush and Osama Bin Laden share things in common but to do so without mentioning their differences is utterly misleading. At a more fundamental level they contradict one another and we cannot simply pretend these differences do not exist. It’s plain from even a quick look at other religions that they believe very different things about who God is, how he reveals himself [if at all], how we’re saved and so on. The different religions and beliefs are mutually exclusive because they contradict each other. They can’t all be right. It is this that has led Dr Michael Green, senior research fellow at Oxford University to write, ‘Christianity may be wrong but nobody with their head screwed on can claim that it’s just the same as other religions!’

b. different religions are not different ways to God

People sometimes try and explain the enterprise of the world’s religions by comparing them to different paths up the same mountain. God is at the top and eventually when we get there we’ll discover that we’re all the same really. What we need to do now is appreciate that and let everyone take their own path. But God sees it another way. Rather than the world’s religions being different ways of describing the same reality they’re different ways away from the one true God. They are not equally valid ways to approach God. The Bible explains that we all suppress the truth about God, which is evident in creation and in our consciences. Instead we create more compliant deities that are figments of our imaginations. These grow in popularity as others then choose to worship them. Therefore the religions of the world may be impressive in their devotion and indeed in human compassion but they do not bring us closer to God for they express our rebellion against him. They are really roads leading away from God. You see all paths do not lead up the mountain to God they also lead away.

Conclusion

Christianity is distinct there’s no getting away from it. But that doesn’t make it intolerant. Jesus Christ came into a world where there’s a diversity of opinion and he said this, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life no one comes to God except through me’.

• He alone is the way to God
• He alone teaches the truth about God
• He alone provides the life from God

He regarded himself as exclusively unique – if that’s not tautologous.  

This is the first in a series of doctrine slots in which we’re hoping to answer some of the accusations made against Christianity. We can’t hope to deal exhaustively with the issue in the time available to us but I’m hoping that I’ll be able to scratch the surface and show that the objection is not as strong as we might first have thought.

The accusation that we’re going to think about this evening is that ‘Christianity is Irrelevant’.

I looked up a definition of irrelevant in the Oxford English Dictionary and it told me that it’s an adjective meaning ‘not relevant’. I’ll be honest, I was hoping for something more! The synonyms for irrelevant are perhaps more helpful. If something is irrelevant ‘it’s immaterial, it’s neither here nor there and beside the point’ whereas, if something is relevant it’s ‘pertinent, germane [that’s a word I need to use more often] and significant’.

To feel the force of this accusation imagine it was applied to us. Imagine that someone described you as irrelevant. In the other doctrine slots we’ll deal with the objection that as a system of thought Christianity is intolerant and arrogant. Intolerance and arrogance are profoundly unattractive character traits. But at least they’re something. To be considered irrelevant is not to matter, it’s to be ‘by the by’. And it’s true isn’t it that for many people Christianity simply isn’t on their radar. It’s not that they’ve investigated Christianity and found it wanting. It’s just that being into Jesus Christ is a little bit like having an unusual hobby like knitting or restoring steam trains. And so in conversation it’s often the case that people struggle to say very much about Christianity. It’s not because they’re not intelligent it’s just that they’ve never really thought about it. Why would you? It’d be strange to have an opinion about something that’s neither here nor there.

Where does the accusation originate? What is it that lies behind the thinking that reaches the conclusion that Christianity is irrelevant?

Let me suggest that there are four contributory factors.

1. it’s historically remote

By which I mean that because the most recent events recorded in the Bible took place almost 2000 years ago it’s unimaginable that they could have much impact on a 21st century life. Things have changed so much in that time. Jesus never had an e-mail address or listened to music on an i-pod. And so it’s inconceivable that the ancient events recorded in the Bible could possibly have any relevance for us today. Christianity is irrelevant because ‘that was then this is now’.

2. it’s psychologically created

Some significant thinkers have suggested that the Christian idea of relationship with God is just the expression of an infantile human wish for a father figure. Philosopher Karl Marx and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud argued that religious belief in an illusion, it’s just in the head. They argued that it’s a pathetic, weak-minded and irresponsible approach to reality. The contemporary atheistic scientist Richard Dawkins has compared religious belief to a virus of the mind as though it were a kind of defect arising in the evolutionary process. Right thinking mature adults, the argument goes, have no need for religious belief. Christianity is irrelevant because as a society we’ve evolved and we’ve grown up so we don’t need to invent an invisible friend even if he is divine!

3. it’s ethically restrictive

By which I mean that although the ethical teaching of the Bible greatly influenced the morality of former generations it’s not the case now. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that what the Bible says about how we ought to live now meets with widespread rejection. Trying to get society to live by the Bible would be like trying to impose a straitjacket on an unwilling victim. Society has cast off the shackles of a organised system that opposes freedom of personal expression. Christianity is ‘spot it and stop it’. Often the things Christians say strengthen the caricature. If you’ve ever been to a church wedding I’d put money on the Vicar giving an announcement that asks you not to throw confetti and help with the upkeep of the building. I despair every time I hear that because it reinforces the message that the church is after your money and wants to stop you having fun.

4. it’s philosophically obsolete

In other words humanity has progressed and what was once a sufficient explanation for the way the world worked is now considered simplistic and inadequate. Prior to the Enlightenment everyone viewed the world through religious spectacles. Not any more. Something more sophisticated has developed. Science with all its complexity and ingenuity has taken over from Christianity as the place to turn to explain our existence. It’s quaint to see what Jesus taught but it’s ludicrous to consult him on modern living. It’s a bit like listening to your Grandparents talk about the Gramophone when you know full well you’re about to download an album from Napster.

I want to argue that those reasons are unfounded

1. How do we respond to the charge that XNTY is historically remote?

The events of the Bible may be distant but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be significant. It’s true that some historical events have little impact upon us. 29th March 1981 saw the start of the London Marathon. That’s interesting but not that significant. But others are hugely important. For example, take 20th October 1969 it’s a date of massive importance to at least 3 people in my family. It was the day I was born. And if that event had not happened they would not be here. History can be personally significant. As I hope to show the historical events of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can therefore profoundly affect our present.

2. What about the objection that the Christian’s relationship with God is a figment of the imagination borne of a deep psychological weakness?

Objectors are right to notice that at the heart of the Christian faith is the claim that we can know God as Father. It’s one of the supreme privileges of becoming a follower of Jesus Christ. But to assert that this is necessarily an invention is wrong. It fails to distinguish between the psychology of belief and the rationality of belief. The primary question to address is not how do people come to believe in God but what good reason is there to believe in God. That’s why courses like Christianity Explored are so helpful because they give us the opportunity to explore the evidence and rationality of becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.

3. How do we answer the accusation that Christianity is an outdated ethical straitjacket?

There have been times in our country’s history when accepted societal behaviour more closely approximated to the Bible’s teaching. But it’s fair to say that were the Bible’s teaching on medical ethics and sexual ethics [to name two] to be put into practice we’d be committing a societal handbrake turn. But that doesn’t mean that the rejection of the Bible is sensible or even that our motives for rejecting it have been justifiable. Aldous Huxley had the honesty to write this, ‘I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom’. Could it be that our rejection of the Bible’s teaching is motivated by something other than integrity?

4. Have more modern or post-modern systems of thought rendered Christianity irrelevant?

It’s certainly true that scientific discoveries made through human endeavour have helped us better understand our world. It’s also regrettably true that individuals have made assertions in the name of Christianity that were wrong. But when both are rightly understood there’s no necessary conflict between science and Christianity. It’s often assumed that science and Christianity provide us with two competing interpretations of how the world operates. But I’m not convinced that’s the case. When this world is rightly interpreted and understood by scientists there’s no necessary conflict with the Bible’s teaching when it is rightly interpreted and understood. But I’d want to argue that to attempt to explain everything through scientific spectacles is hopelessly reductionistic. Take a kiss for example. Scientifically speaking it can be observed, analysed and described. The Soviet science handbook provides a definition of a kiss as, ‘the mutual exchange of two sets of lips with reciprocal exchange of water vapour, carbon monoxide and microbes’. It’s not wrong but is that all we’d want to say about a kiss? There’s enough to explore in each one of those 4 objections but I’m hoping that I’ve cleared the ground for the acceptance of the idea that Christianity might be relevant to us today.