When Christians Criticize

by Check_Your_Premises 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Please offer any comments, critiques, insults, or suggestions

  First off, let me specify what I mean by a Christian or group of Christians. "Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God" (1 John 5:1). I am sure Christians will disagree about a great many other things, but all Christians believe this.

  But what should a Christian do when someone else professing to be a Christian is teaching things we disagree with outside the above criteria?

  Before I try to figure that out, let me say first that any conclusions are my own. If someone does not agree with them, I only say that "I disagree". It is my opinion that ideally, the strongest a person should say against another's opinion is "I think you are wrong" instead of "you are wrong". For the former carefully designates the matter as of opinion, whereas the latter implies a final judgement and authority that neither of the two folks posses before God. Again, what I describe is the ideal. There are cases in the real world where the truth of the matter is so obvious, or one person is in clear and necessary authority over the other. I am not speaking of those cases but rather I am speaking of the differences that so many who profess belief in the above assertion of Christianity find to divide themselves from other fellow believers. (need verse on not causing divisions)

  Back to the subject of criticizing fellow believers of the first assertion. I, personally, see no need to spend alot of time pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong. I don't think any aspect of Christianity requires it. In fact, I think we are all supposed to keep working on that beam in our own eye before we go looking for specks in other's. (Matthew 7:1-5)

  But what of the Christian who is professing teachings that we beleive are genuinely false?

  Naturally we have an obligation to uphold what we beleive to be the truth. So what is the best way to go about doing that? The simplest way to do that would be to explain your position. Assuming everyone involved only seeks truth, this should be a beneficial experience for everyone. If the person you disagree with is right, you will learn something. If you are right, you can take comfort that your beliefs have withstood scrutiny and are therefore that much more worth putting your faith in.

  But what if the exchange results in a continued disagreeement.

  Whenever we have someone disagree with us it is always a little uncomfortable because it is evidence that we might be wrong! Now if we put that possibility out of our minds, the next conclusion we can draw is that either the other person is ignorant/illogical or they don't want to know the truth. Now I believe that we are to do unto others as we would have done to us. (need golden rule verse) I would prefer that given the choice, a person would presume that I was ignorant rather then hiding from God's truth. I therefore choose to presume the same of others.

  And even if in a moment of weakness, I choose to beleive that they are hiding from God's truth, it is another thing altogether to level it as a charge

  . What purpose could it possibly serve to do so. It will not likely change the person's position. It may discredit the person's position in the eyes of some, but it ultimately has no bearing on who actually is or isn't right. I, personally, have found that when a person feels they have to speak of someone as somehow less, that is because they feel that is the only way they can make themselves seem greater. To do so seems unnecessary if one is confident in their position or their argument's validity.

  I think it is enough to simply state your case. If for some reason you feel that is not enough, I suppose it might be worthwhile to point out what is wrong about the other person's case. I never see any legitimate reason for speaking against the person.

  The most extreme position one Christian can take against another is to say they are not of God, but of Satan because they disagree in matters besides their shared belief in Christ.

  The first thing I would notice is that such a statement would lack humility. I also would ask what purpose is served by saying such a thing. Will saying such a thing make it more or less likely to change their mind? I don't think so. Since our ultimate goal should be to change their mind, isn't such a thing counterproductive? What will it do in the minds of those who agree with us or those who aren't sure? For many it will cause them to discount the other out of hand, without considering the accused's position at all? If we feel the need to level such a charge, does it show confidence in the strength of our own ideas? Do we not think our ideas can stand on their own? Are we afraid people might believe the other guy unless we label them as despicable?

  Of course, I would not want someone else saying such things about me, so as a Christian I choose not to say such things about them.

  One could even look at it as particularly dangerous to level such charges. We know that the Bible says that when three or more are gathered in Christ's name, the holy spirit is with them. In another account, in Mark 3:20-30 the pharisees were attributing Jesus' miracles to Satan. Jesus goes on to say that those blaspheming against him will be forgiven. Those blaspheming against the holy spirit will not. One could take this to mean that attributing the acts of the holy spirit to Satan is an unforgivable sin. Is it possible, that by labeling people who are gathered in Christ's name where we know the holy spirit is present, we might be committing an unforgivable sin?

  Food for thought.
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  This is an expansion on this thread

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/99243/1.ashx

  It is actually the short version! Maybe I was channeling the beloved, thorough, comprehensive, yet long winded Ray Franz.

  Let me know what you think!
• 

  Narkissos

  Too bad the NT writers were not that politically correct...
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Ah. So my assertions are not entirely scriptural you say. A likely dub response as well.

  Thanks Nark! Good point.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hey CYP,

  So my assertions are not entirely scriptural you say. A likely dub response as well.

  Scriptural they are. The problem is that other scriptures attest that early christian groups did revile one another in the worst possible terms. To some "Jewish Christians," the Pauline missionaries were "workers of lawlessness" with their Law-free Gospel (cf. Matthew 5:17ff; 7:21-23); and symmetrically Paul applies to his Christian opponents the exact rhetoric you warn against, e.g. 2 Corinthians 11:13ff:

  For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.

  When we read those texts (or the internal polemics in the Pastorals, in Jude, 2 Peter, or even 1-3 John) we are caught in the author's rhetoric and assume that the adversaries were "apostates" or "false christians". This is certainly not how those people viewed themselves.
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Scriptural they are. The problem is that other scriptures attest that early christian groups did revile one another in the worst possible terms.

  Yeah, I kind of figured that is where you were getting.

  The apparrant inconsistencies in the scriptures regarding faith in works have stood out to me as well. To me James and Paul are polar opposites. You can explain it away I suppose, but they use very specific language to describe how one is justified, and they are in direct contrast. I have many questions about the validity of the scriptures.

  I have been kind of forced into a strange place spiritually. I decided I believed in God, about the same time my wife decided the jw were sent by God. Obviously, my best position is to play up my own faith, to the extent that I am just as dedicated as a witness. That is just not a place I am always comfortable with, since there is so much about Christianity and the Bible I have not been able to validate. It is not that I want to hide from anything, as a witness would accuse. I just have to prove things out. And I don't know if right now is the best time to be asking those sorts of questions. I got enough on my plate!!!

  So do you have any advice/critiques/criticisms that doesn't require that I renounce my incomplete, yet completely necessary faith?

  Basically this was a spot piece to either present to my wife as an articulation of one of my "concerns" about the wt or maybe just to hash out some ideas. She brought it up yesterday so I wouldn't be off the charts by showing this to her. Plus it might ring a few bells. Ironically she can't stand people who are "stuck up". I figured pointing out that the jw's are pretty stuck up would be a good long term card to play.
• 

  Narkissos

  Just a thought fwiw:

  Your faith is in God (or whatever the word "God" stands for) -- not in a book.

  Nobody can take it from you -- not even a book.

  Your faith inclines you to tolerance. Trust it and live by it. It will speak better than book quotations.

  More can be shown than can be proved.
• 

  jgnat

  "More can be shown than can be proved" Good one Narkissos.

  Here's a few of my thoughts, CYP. I don't know if this is the BEST week to bring this up. This is "all uninformed unbelieving ones are deceived" week.

  First off, let me specify what I mean by a Christian or group of Christians. "Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God" (1 John 5:1). I am sure Christians will disagree about a great many other things, but all Christians believe this.

  But what should a Christian do when someone else professing to be a Christian is teaching things we disagree with outside the above criteria? Early on when I was studying the JW’s I did some research on Orthodox Christianity. JW’s think the Nicene Council got it wrong (lean towards pagan), but the JW’s do not have a similar short-list of necessary doctrines to be considered “Christian”. So you could say the Nicene Creed was an early attempt to define what is “Christian”, and that the JW’s think that they alone are “True Christians”.

  But what of the Christian who is professing teachings that we believe are genuinely false?

  That’s where core doctrines come in handy. We can say, “This is Christian” and “This is not” while managing to accept both the Amish and the Wesleyans in to the brotherhood of “Christianity”. Even though they follow the scriptures differently, putting emphasis on other things, they are essentially “Christian”.

  The JW’s like I say, don’t have a similar list of core doctrines. All they know is that trinity-is-false, hell is fiction, etc. etc. But they don’t have a core list. A JW must follow ALL the current doctrines of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

  But what if the exchange results in a continued disagreement.

  Nail the JW down to their core doctrines. What rule, if it were cut, would mean they are not a JW anymore? If push comes to shove, the core doctrine is, “Obey the Faithful and Discreet Slave”.

  How JW's and other fundamentalists get around this is they try to first get the subject to admit that God is to be obeyed and the bible is God's book. Isn't it then disobedience to disobey the book? There's no talk of interpretation or context or balancing scripture. The scripture is pulled out in black-and-white. The student sits there and goes "Wow. There it is. I guess you are right." At least that's how it's supposed to go.
• 

  jaffacake

  CYP

  A wonderful post, which I will be keeping a copy of. And great discussion with the others.

  I have thought long and hard about the same things.

  Where I am just now: To accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, which I do, how to I reconcile the errors and apparently contradictory teachings? The Bible itself does not teach that it is verbally inerrant nor that the teachings of its author's were infallible. In fact the contradictions, (and for example - why do we need 4 gospels which don't all quite agree) teach us that the Bible is made up of individual perspectives.

  I believe taken as a whole, the Bible teaches many deep spiritual truths, but this does not work if we select individual portions or interpret literally. I believe we also have to work out which perspectives and 'truths'; sublate the others. There are many pointers to this, eg when Christ summarises the purpose of the law & the prophets, or how revelation says all prophecy points to Christ.

  I also believe both James & Paul made mistakes. This suggests the 'church' had to keep evolving and gaining newer understandings. I am convinced Paul altered his position on milenialism from his first to his last letters, yet all his teachings are now part of the Bible. I believe this reaches us to change teachings, eg subjection of women, as we learn how this would go against deeper spiritual teachings. I believe that non-fundamentalist Christianity has a good grasp of the place that scriptures should play in Christian's lives.

  Just my hurried two-penneth.
• 

  OldSoul

  More can be shown than can be proved.

  And more can be seen than can be shown.

  OldSoul