A Reasonable Objection to the Faith?

Why should anyone give serious consideration to the truth claims of Christianity when so much evil has been done by those who claim to be representatives of the faith or of the institutional church? Are all those who align themselves with the biblical faith rightly charged with being supporters of such wrongdoing? Does Christianity necessarily condone evil behavior in any way? Perhaps if we take a closer look at a number of examples we will be able to discover the answers to these questions.

Before going any further let me say by way of introduction that this particular subject is often difficult for those of us who believe the gospel. Not only are the following specific examples unpleasant to even contemplate, but they are also facts of history which we must be willing to face. Since we emphasize that the faith is based on historical facts, it seems reasonable that we must be willing to take all historical facts into account.

Persecutions of Jews

In its early history the Christian Church suffered persecution at the hands of Jews who had not converted to the fledgling faith. After the legalization of Christianity in the fourth century, the tables turned, and professing adherents of Christianity persecuted Jews in very shameful ways for centuries to come.

Perhaps the most common excuse for this persecution was the charge that all Jews are to share in the blame for the crucifixion of the founder of Christianity. The problem is that, in the accounts given in the New Testament, it was the Romans who actually carried out the act. Probably a majority of Jewish religious leaders supported the plot to arrange for it, but nowhere does it say that simply because a person is Jewish that person is also responsible for the act, and it certainly does not instruct the church to punish Jews.

The Crusades

Anyone who is familiar with the history of Western Civilization knows something about the despicable acts carried out in the name of Christianity during the Crusades in the first part of the second millennium A.D. The Crusades were endorsed by ecclesiastical authorities at the time. Crusaders were promised significant spiritual as well as material benefits for going to the Holy Land and slaughtering the local inhabitants, many of whom themselves were professing Christians. All this senseless violence was encouraged by the institutional church.

On what basis did ecclesiastical authorities encourage this kind of behavior? It was not based on Scripture. In the writings of Moses and Joshua we find instructions to the ancient Israelites to conquer Canaan, but this conquest was well-defined and had clear limitations. It did not set a precedent for future conquests or allow for unlimited violence of any kind.

The Spanish Inquisition

It may be said that those put to death as a result of the Spanish Inquisition were executed not by ecclesiastical authorities, but by civil authorities. This does not change the fact that it was initiated by ecclesiastical authorities, and the executions were no doubt approved by them.

Some theologians of the time had suggested that when heretics were tortured and executed, they were being purified in such a way that they were being better prepared for the afterlife. Sometimes inferences from various words and phrases in the New Testament and apocryphal books were used to support the practice, but the only substantial support was a system of doctrines which were developed from extrabiblical (that is, other than the Bible) traditions.

The Salem Witch Trials

Though the number of witch trials in Puritan Salem was relatively small, the fact that they were held at all is a sad commentary of how things can go wrong when the church becomes the ruling political force. Accusations of witchcraft, however ill-defined, would be made based on everything from behavior that people did not know how to explain to a way of seeking revenge.

It is my understanding that these witch trials were under the control of a minority of professing Puritans who held the reigns of power. Not only did they lack scriptural warrant for their actions, perhaps the most basic blunder is the fact that the New Testament does not commission the church to become a ruling political entity.

Slavery in 19th Century America

Though the Bible contains many references to slavery as it was practiced in ancient times, the institution as it existed then is not to be confused with that which existed in 19th century America. Furthermore, the Scriptures do not even condone some of the practices which occurred in the context of the ancient institution.

In ancient times, slavery was often the result of the conquest of an enemy, not the kidnapping of victims from their homeland by slave traders. In addition, the Scriptures insist that families are to be preserved, not torn apart. They also insist that people are created in the image of God and have certain rights, regardless of their status in society. They also encourage those who are slaves of men to seek their freedom, but not to be concerned if they are powerless to acquire their freedom. Finally, the Scriptures placed limitations on how long a person was required to remain a slave in the ancient nation of Israel.

Northern Ireland

When violence between Catholics and Protestants erupts in Northern Ireland, on what basis is such activity justified? Though the two sides claim to be aligned with two different Christian traditions, does either side have a basis in their tradition to commit such acts? Another thing to consider: is this kind of interaction the rule or the exception?

The source of the conflict can be traced to a prior practice of the British to relocate prisoners to places far removed from English soil. One such place was Northern Ireland, where local Catholics were in effect displaced by Protestants imported from Great Britain. The result was two rival ethnic groups competing for influence, resources, etc. The fact that they are associated with two different traditions does not by itself mean their traditions provide a basis for committing acts of terrorism.

Personal Experiences

All of us who have lived in a country such as the United States, where various expressions of Christianity abound, can probably recall instances where people who have called themselves Christians have either wronged us or someone we know. Maybe such people not only did what was wrong, but perhaps they also showed no regret for having done such things. Perhaps they showed no interest in making amends or correcting the wrongs they had done.

Is it fair to conclude that because we have encountered such people, that all who are professing members of the faith are the same way? Is it fair to conclude that those who act in such a manner will never change? If they act in a way which is inconsistent with their professed standard of conduct, it would certainly be appropriate to ask questions. If a person violates the civil rights of another, the state is of course obligated to punish the perpetrator accordingly. If one wants to pass ultimate (as opposed to temporal) judgment on any member of the faith, however, one would have to know everything about the person, a qualification which none of us have.

What the Problem Really Is

One of the teachings of the 16th century Reformation was that the Scriptures alone are the ultimate standard by which all teachings are to be judged. This standard is known as sola Scriptura. If one adopts this standard, one would have no basis for committing any of the evil acts which have been described above. Unlike, for example, the Qur'an, nowhere do the Scriptures permit unlimited violence (click here to read a related article). Granted, just because someone claims to hold to this standard it is not a guarantee that the person will never commit such evils. When this happens, it is not the fault of the standard. It is the fault of the one who is acting in a manner which is inconsistent with the standard.

Click here to go to my home page.