Mike's Heresy of the Month, or...

... Stop The Spread!

Every so often something catches my eye and reminds me just how much my thinking has changed. While scanning an article a few days ago I came across this line which stopped me in my tracks.

"The spread of Christianity is changing lives..."

Some seemingly random thoughts came to mind, the only connection being that none of them made me feel very good about the statement in question. This is certainly not a criticism of the article, which I can't find online anyway. What it is, at a rudimentary level, is a reaction to the language embedded in the statement, and perhaps some of the thinking behind it that the language reveals.

First, there is the historical context of the statement. The reference to the spread of Christianity may evoke very different responses from the aboriginal peoples of North and South America than from those of European descent. The terms "small pox" and "residential schools" spring to mind. For example, it would be informative to get the perspective of an Incan native of Peru, were there any left to speak with.

And then there are the crusades to consider, which I won't do here.

Look, I don't think for one second that the writer had this historical context in mind when he penned the words. Never the less, this context is a reality, and it came to the surface when I read it.

Second, there is the Gospel context to consider. I've certainly made my views known on the ambiguous-at-best nature of the label "Christian". Well, it should be no surprise to you that the same applies to "Christianity" - and then some. The bottom line for me is this; in the grand script of God's story, Jesus came to put an end to religion - that is, any system of rules, rituals and regulations that we use to get right with God. So, in the best tradition of our religionist forefathers, we made a religion out of him. That religion was, is, and continues to evolve as "Christianity".

This brings us to the final piece of the puzzle, which is the action of "spreading". Trends are spread. Belief systems are spread. Ideologies are spread. Philosophies are spread. The great gift of Jesus Christ is none of these things; it is a relationship. We don't spread a relationship. We live it, and try our best to replicate it.

And so, I'm calling for a moratorium on the spread of Christianity.

Instead, let's go and meet our neighbours - the ones down the street and on the other side of the planet. Let's love them the way Jesus loved others, and see what happens.

Comments

[Rick]

If someone like myself were to call for a halt to the spreading of Islam, how many here would denounce that call, label it bigotry, consider it to be a vewy bad thing?

Hmmm?

[Wes Roberts]

...butter is also spread. Provocative. Important words to ponder. Thank you for reminding us of and calling us back to the Gospel. You are one of my top three favorite heretics in the universe!

[robert]

Hey Wes,
I want in! Can an atheist be a heretic?

[Mike]

You just were!

OK, so back to my post...

[David]

Your so evil ; )

[Rick]

Mike wrote me (and didn't post here, not sure why) to say that only if I were Muslim would my initial point be valid.

I'm not sure that his point stands.

Mike, do you represent the type of Christianity you'd like to not see spread? I'd think not. Would you like to see your type of Christianity spread? I'd think so.

I think your post qualifies for the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water award.

To focus on the Crusades (or the Incas) and then attempt to smear all of Christiandom seems to me to be analogous to those who smear all of Islam because of Islamofascism.

I can understand reform from within (and it's something many are asking for within Islam), but to attempt to smear an entire population of Christians seems to me to smack of... elitism...

In fact, I equate it with a form of fundamentalism... the notion that there's only one way, you know that way, and unless everyone else thinks like you do, they must be... less than Christ-like, wrong, flawed, and dismiss-able.

I think there are many Christians who are welcomed in other parts of the world and who, if they were to stop spreading, would be missed dearly by those being helped. I think initially of Linwood House but in fact there are many other ministries doing yeoman's work. And aren't these organizations motivated by the desire for relationships with God's people?

Bottom line? Could your post be besmirching Christian organizations that are making a difference and are doing so by "spreading"?

Yes.

[Rick]

One more thing if I might...

For a different perspective...

The Real History of the Crusades - Christianity Today Magazine.

[Heather Field]

I think if we spent less time trying to convert people and more time just loving them that would be time well spent!!

[david]

Rick. I think you may have missed the point Mike was making which was one of language. When we talk about "spreading Christianity" we enter into a cultural discussion with so much a priori baggage that the words "spreading Christianity" become either meaningless or too full of divergent meanings (and therefore, again, meaningless). I do not thing you would find Mike against the idea of sharing faith, hope and love with a basis in Chhrist. I think you would find Mike very much in favour of giving the world a little more Jesus and a little less "Christianity". Your use of the word "elitism" is interesting as it implies a desire to belong to a group that sits above the hoi polloi - again you've missed what Mike is saying. Mike's language suggests he wants to stop defining the group, wants to stop using the words that set "us" against "them" Mike's initial plea seemed to be "can we all just stop using language - this specific language - and engage in more meaningful speech.

[Steve]

If we understand the term "Christian" to truly mean "little Christ" and/or "Christ follower" then I think it's not an abolishment of the term that we need, rather it's redemption. Same goes for the terms "church", "evangelism", "mission", etc. I don't think it is the terminology that has put a bad taste in the mouths of others, instead, I see it as those associating with the term that has done it an injustice. I do however hear where you're coming from Mike & understandably so. If we were to see non-believers through the lens of love rather than the lens of the law, we would more readily embrace people than coming across as judgemental when we (believers) too live in glass houses.

[~m]

digression: david, you can't say "the hoi polloi" . . . "hoi" is the greek plural masculine article in the indicative. it's like saying "the al queda." who said bible college doesn't come in handy?

more to the point, there is a sense of "you will be assimilated" involved in evangelism. instead of pointing people toward God and encouraging them to be more like Jesus, we're teaching them be more like us. there is some part of us (me) that finds it unsatisfying if the friend i've been praying for makes a commitment to God, but chooses a different denomination. like, that's not the kind of salvation i was hoping for. i want her to have MY kind, my culture of faith. there definitely is something wrong with that.

[~m]

misspelling "al qaeda", however, is perfectly acceptable.