The Hypocrisy of Christian Exclusiveness
I grew up a few hundred yards from St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in the tiny village of Bath, New Brunswick, Canada (population 600). My house was on “Church Street,” reflecting the dominant position of the church in the village. My boyhood friend Michael from next door attended that church with his family, as did many of my other friends. We played sandlot baseball on the huge lawn beside St. Joseph’s and once labored heroically for several days to dig out an unused flagpole that stood inconveniently behind second base. The pole came down during Saturday afternoon mass. Michael heard the cheering from inside the church and knew that we had been successful. Father LeBlanc, who endorsed our baseball initiatives and had given us permission to remove the pole, later told us he didn’t think we would have the tenacity to dig the huge hole that would be required.
I lived in the shadow of St. Joseph’s for 18 years but was never once inside.
Catholics, with rare exceptions, were not Christians, you see. They did not have Jesus as their personal savior and their beliefs were not biblical—they prayed to Mary, for goodness sake! Their highly liturgical services were structured in such a way that the Holy Spirit had no space to move; their sanctuaries were filled with images and symbols imported from pagan religions and possibly even inspired by Satan. And they presumed to earn their way to heaven with good works. Catholic perdition was everywhere on display: they drank alcohol—even in their communion!— sponsored Bingo gambling on Friday nights, and sometimes even held dances in the basements of their churches.
The small town of Bath also had many protestant churches: there were two flavors of Baptist—Calvinist and Arminian. I was Arminian and knew that many of the Calvinists had lost their salvation even though their theology said they couldn’t. There were liberal Anglicans who didn’t believe in Jesus’s imminent return, and lived accordingly. And there were several Pentecostal groups, one of which believed that you were not a Christian if you had not spoken in tongues. My supervisor at the grocery store where I worked was a “Jesus only” Pentecostal who told me I was not a Christian because I had been baptized with the wrong Trinitarian formula (“in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”) Genuine Christians were baptized–as adults, of course— “in the name of Jesus.”
I attended Eastern Nazarene College and then taught there for over 25 years. I grew weary of the endless talk of “holiness” and how the Nazarenes had it and the rest of Christendom did not. Many in that tradition claimed to have had a sanctifying “second work of grace” that eradicated their sinful nature and let them live lives of sinless perfection—claims that seemed contradicted by their actual lives. One chapel speaker lamented the dearth of Nazarene Churches in eastern Canada and spoke of that area as a “mission field,” seemingly unaware that the region was Canada’s Bible Belt, albeit one without enough holiness churches apparently.
Somewhere along the way this theological hairsplitting became incredibly offensive to me. I no longer have any interest whatsoever in conversations about who has the right theology. It seems to me that these conversations are driven by some sort of jingoistic pathology—a defensive need to be a member of the one true tribe that holds “absolute truth,” and maintains its hold on that truth by excluding others.
I also think that this sectarian flag-planting has become a form of “easy Christianity,” where the simple but significant challenges of Jesus to love our neighbors have been replaced with complicated but largely irrelevant discussions of who has the best handle on the “truth.” This easy Christianity provides the consistent spectacle of fabulously wealthy white male religious leaders leading divisive and fractious movements on everything from gay marriage and contraception to the age of the earth and global warming while remaining absolutely silent on the plight of the world’s poor. These are movements I am confident Jesus could not join, and leaders he could not follow.
I can’t put all this in any grand theological system and I don’t even want to try. My hope would be that the fractured and warring tribes within Christianity would get their own house(s) in order before we start pronouncing on those outside. But this does not seem to be the direction things are heading.
Karl,
Thanks so much for your honesty in expressing these frustrations. Like you, I've encountered far too much division in my own journey. However, while I recognize that far too many evangelicals display an acrimonious spirit in their efforts to contend for what they believe to be true, isn't it possible that at least some of those concerned with "right theology" are motivated by love for Christ (even if slightly misguided) rather than by a "jingoistic pathology" that seeks to exclude others? If so, wouldn't patient engagement with such evangelicals (affirming what's good about their motivation) be a better way of loving these neighbors than dismissing them in stereotypical terms?
Just some thoughts . . .
Peace,
Justin
Karl,
Thanks so much for your honesty in expressing these frustrations. Like you, I've encountered far too much division in my own journey. However, while I recognize that far too many evangelicals display an acrimonious spirit in their efforts to contend for what they believe to be true, isn't it possible that at least some of those concerned with "right theology" are motivated by love for Christ (even if slightly misguided) rather than by a "jingoistic pathology" that seeks to exclude others? If so, wouldn't patient engagement with such evangelicals (affirming what's good about their motivation) be a better way of loving these neighbors than dismissing them in stereotypical terms?
Just some thoughts . . .
Peace,
Justin
Karl,
Thanks so much for your honesty in expressing these frustrations. Like you, I've encountered far too much division in my own journey. However, while I recognize that far too many evangelicals display an acrimonious spirit in their efforts to contend for what they believe to be true, isn't it possible that at least some of those concerned with "right theology" are motivated by love for Christ (even if slightly misguided) rather than by a "jingoistic pathology" that seeks to exclude others? If so, wouldn't patient engagement with such evangelicals (affirming what's good about their motivation) be a better way of loving these neighbors than dismissing them in stereotypical terms?
Just some thoughts . . .
Peace,
Justin
Karl,
What a small world. Sounds like you might have been Reformed Baptist, like me (BTW everyone, that name has nothing to do with "Reformed" or the current version in the southland – just Wesleyan as in 'more with it than those United Baptists who couldn't decide if they were Calvinist or Arminian'). Then again, maybe you are too young since they merged with the Wesleyan Methodists in'66. Did you go to Beulah camp in Brown's Flats too? Or perhaps Riverside in Blaine ME – "A little taste of heaven says their website." I'm originally from the middle Miramichi (as distinct from the Irish/French coastland 75 km. away – too many Catholics) so we speak a little more slowly than you fancy upper St John river folk.
Your's is a great essay, and it must summarize things for many of us 'holiness people' who went into the sciences. It seems that I've ended up an open bapticostal, and only officially belong to a specific denomination when it causes too much consternation among the brothers and sisters to not sign up.
Thanks so much for all your good work in the faith/science area. Though we have a ways to go, things have taken a real good turn in recent years. (NB speak folks).
Blessings,
Bev
Karl,
What a small world. Sounds like you might have been Reformed Baptist, like me (BTW everyone, that name has nothing to do with "Reformed" or the current version in the southland – just Wesleyan as in 'more with it than those United Baptists who couldn't decide if they were Calvinist or Arminian'). Then again, maybe you are too young since they merged with the Wesleyan Methodists in'66. Did you go to Beulah camp in Brown's Flats too? Or perhaps Riverside in Blaine ME – "A little taste of heaven says their website." I'm originally from the middle Miramichi (as distinct from the Irish/French coastland 75 km. away – too many Catholics) so we speak a little more slowly than you fancy upper St John river folk.
Your's is a great essay, and it must summarize things for many of us 'holiness people' who went into the sciences. It seems that I've ended up an open bapticostal, and only officially belong to a specific denomination when it causes too much consternation among the brothers and sisters to not sign up.
Thanks so much for all your good work in the faith/science area. Though we have a ways to go, things have taken a real good turn in recent years. (NB speak folks).
Blessings,
Bev
Karl,
What a small world. Sounds like you might have been Reformed Baptist, like me (BTW everyone, that name has nothing to do with "Reformed" or the current version in the southland – just Wesleyan as in 'more with it than those United Baptists who couldn't decide if they were Calvinist or Arminian'). Then again, maybe you are too young since they merged with the Wesleyan Methodists in'66. Did you go to Beulah camp in Brown's Flats too? Or perhaps Riverside in Blaine ME – "A little taste of heaven says their website." I'm originally from the middle Miramichi (as distinct from the Irish/French coastland 75 km. away – too many Catholics) so we speak a little more slowly than you fancy upper St John river folk.
Your's is a great essay, and it must summarize things for many of us 'holiness people' who went into the sciences. It seems that I've ended up an open bapticostal, and only officially belong to a specific denomination when it causes too much consternation among the brothers and sisters to not sign up.
Thanks so much for all your good work in the faith/science area. Though we have a ways to go, things have taken a real good turn in recent years. (NB speak folks).
Blessings,
Bev
Justin: All generalizations have exceptions to be sure and I am happy to recognize that there are indeed counterexamples. But I have been around the evangelical block a lot of times and don't really think my position is extreme. I am not sure how a "love for Christ" is even compatible with exclusivism but, assuming it could be, I would describe it as "profoundly" rather than "slightly" misguided.
Bev: My youth was spent in the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, which has since developed a connection to the "Free Will Baptists" down south. My wife however, grew up in a Wesleyan church in Easton, Maine, and is very familiar with those places you mention. Where exactly are you from?
Justin: All generalizations have exceptions to be sure and I am happy to recognize that there are indeed counterexamples. But I have been around the evangelical block a lot of times and don't really think my position is extreme. I am not sure how a "love for Christ" is even compatible with exclusivism but, assuming it could be, I would describe it as "profoundly" rather than "slightly" misguided.
Bev: My youth was spent in the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, which has since developed a connection to the "Free Will Baptists" down south. My wife however, grew up in a Wesleyan church in Easton, Maine, and is very familiar with those places you mention. Where exactly are you from?
Justin: All generalizations have exceptions to be sure and I am happy to recognize that there are indeed counterexamples. But I have been around the evangelical block a lot of times and don't really think my position is extreme. I am not sure how a "love for Christ" is even compatible with exclusivism but, assuming it could be, I would describe it as "profoundly" rather than "slightly" misguided.
Bev: My youth was spent in the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, which has since developed a connection to the "Free Will Baptists" down south. My wife however, grew up in a Wesleyan church in Easton, Maine, and is very familiar with those places you mention. Where exactly are you from?
Karl,
From the village of Doaktown near the centre of the province – 900 souls and still eight churches (including two Baptist and two Pentecostal). There is only one town in the world with this name, according to Google. Then U of Alberta for thirty years and now, believe it or not, back in Doaktown, and for the winter, Oaxaca, Mexico. Looks like I'm about ten years older than you, so our paths may not have crossed. The moderator may feel free to pass on my e-mail, if you wish.
Other readers – please excuse the personal chit chat. Hopefully it had something of interest, or you were able to skip over it with no problem. 🙂
Karl,
From the village of Doaktown near the centre of the province – 900 souls and still eight churches (including two Baptist and two Pentecostal). There is only one town in the world with this name, according to Google. Then U of Alberta for thirty years and now, believe it or not, back in Doaktown, and for the winter, Oaxaca, Mexico. Looks like I'm about ten years older than you, so our paths may not have crossed. The moderator may feel free to pass on my e-mail, if you wish.
Other readers – please excuse the personal chit chat. Hopefully it had something of interest, or you were able to skip over it with no problem. 🙂
Karl,
From the village of Doaktown near the centre of the province – 900 souls and still eight churches (including two Baptist and two Pentecostal). There is only one town in the world with this name, according to Google. Then U of Alberta for thirty years and now, believe it or not, back in Doaktown, and for the winter, Oaxaca, Mexico. Looks like I'm about ten years older than you, so our paths may not have crossed. The moderator may feel free to pass on my e-mail, if you wish.
Other readers – please excuse the personal chit chat. Hopefully it had something of interest, or you were able to skip over it with no problem. 🙂
The two main ideas here seem to be that sectarianism is bad, and the prevailing politics of the Evangelical right (the vast majority of Protestant Evangelicals) is bad too. It's suggested they are both bad positions for being closed, hostile, and uncharitable toward others in ways that do not square with the gospel.
Yet isn't it really more accurate to observe that Protestant, even "low church" sectarianism among "Evangelicals" (in the broadest definition) is at a historic all time low within a long term trend of decline at the same time that reactionary political and social conservative impulses provide a form of pragmatic ecumenism among religious conservatives, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and even Muslims?
What percentage of conservative Protestants born after 1970 hold a strong confessional/sectarian identity, even if they nominally belong to a confessional tradition? I think it is a very small number. Rather than being the result of the historic ecumenism that has more or less "ended" the Reformation as a theological dispute for Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans the ecumenism of Popular Protestant Evangelicalism comes from its post 1950s ethos as a portable, anti-sectarian and consumer-choice driven Christian lifestyle.
This too is but one layer of the religious landscape. Conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc. work together in a common theo-political domain, while predominantly more liberal and mainline Protestants collaborate a wide variety of Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish believers on political issues and historic theological conflicts.
The great problem I see in this scene is the eclipse of the historic, institutional and doctrinal by political and economic ideologies, whether of the left or the right. I am not sure how one can expect to recognize and address this root problem — the triumph of the political and economic — from a Christian standpoint by abandoning the historic centrality of history, doctrine, and ecclesiological matters since Christ expressed his desire of his followers "that they all be one." This would seem to entail making a commitment to some beliefs and not others, one institution and not others, and of recognizing that bad teachings express and enable bad beliefs and bad acting.
The two main ideas here seem to be that sectarianism is bad, and the prevailing politics of the Evangelical right (the vast majority of Protestant Evangelicals) is bad too. It's suggested they are both bad positions for being closed, hostile, and uncharitable toward others in ways that do not square with the gospel.
Yet isn't it really more accurate to observe that Protestant, even "low church" sectarianism among "Evangelicals" (in the broadest definition) is at a historic all time low within a long term trend of decline at the same time that reactionary political and social conservative impulses provide a form of pragmatic ecumenism among religious conservatives, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and even Muslims?
What percentage of conservative Protestants born after 1970 hold a strong confessional/sectarian identity, even if they nominally belong to a confessional tradition? I think it is a very small number. Rather than being the result of the historic ecumenism that has more or less "ended" the Reformation as a theological dispute for Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans the ecumenism of Popular Protestant Evangelicalism comes from its post 1950s ethos as a portable, anti-sectarian and consumer-choice driven Christian lifestyle.
This too is but one layer of the religious landscape. Conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc. work together in a common theo-political domain, while predominantly more liberal and mainline Protestants collaborate a wide variety of Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish believers on political issues and historic theological conflicts.
The great problem I see in this scene is the eclipse of the historic, institutional and doctrinal by political and economic ideologies, whether of the left or the right. I am not sure how one can expect to recognize and address this root problem — the triumph of the political and economic — from a Christian standpoint by abandoning the historic centrality of history, doctrine, and ecclesiological matters since Christ expressed his desire of his followers "that they all be one." This would seem to entail making a commitment to some beliefs and not others, one institution and not others, and of recognizing that bad teachings express and enable bad beliefs and bad acting.
The two main ideas here seem to be that sectarianism is bad, and the prevailing politics of the Evangelical right (the vast majority of Protestant Evangelicals) is bad too. It's suggested they are both bad positions for being closed, hostile, and uncharitable toward others in ways that do not square with the gospel.
Yet isn't it really more accurate to observe that Protestant, even "low church" sectarianism among "Evangelicals" (in the broadest definition) is at a historic all time low within a long term trend of decline at the same time that reactionary political and social conservative impulses provide a form of pragmatic ecumenism among religious conservatives, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and even Muslims?
What percentage of conservative Protestants born after 1970 hold a strong confessional/sectarian identity, even if they nominally belong to a confessional tradition? I think it is a very small number. Rather than being the result of the historic ecumenism that has more or less "ended" the Reformation as a theological dispute for Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans the ecumenism of Popular Protestant Evangelicalism comes from its post 1950s ethos as a portable, anti-sectarian and consumer-choice driven Christian lifestyle.
This too is but one layer of the religious landscape. Conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc. work together in a common theo-political domain, while predominantly more liberal and mainline Protestants collaborate a wide variety of Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish believers on political issues and historic theological conflicts.
The great problem I see in this scene is the eclipse of the historic, institutional and doctrinal by political and economic ideologies, whether of the left or the right. I am not sure how one can expect to recognize and address this root problem — the triumph of the political and economic — from a Christian standpoint by abandoning the historic centrality of history, doctrine, and ecclesiological matters since Christ expressed his desire of his followers "that they all be one." This would seem to entail making a commitment to some beliefs and not others, one institution and not others, and of recognizing that bad teachings express and enable bad beliefs and bad acting.
Excuse the chit chat, but I am talking to Bev. You are welcome to eavesdrop, unless you work for the NSA.
Bev: I was in Stanley a couple weeks ago for a family wedding. My father and my sister's family live in Stanley and I have a lot of family in NB. My nephew works for Irving out of the Doaktown office. Small world….