Tweet
<span style="font-style: italic">Has The Christian Church Been Bad or Good?
Is Christianity bad or good for the world? Is Christianity dangerous? Is Christianity evil? Is there evil in the Bible? Would the world be better off without Christians?</span>
Some believe Christianity is dangerous. Others say Christianity is not only dangerous, but is thoroughly evil. They point to wars caused by religion, alleged hate crimes caused by the Christian church, efforts by Christians to impose their "morality" on the public, provocative passages in the Bible, and other controversial episodes or characters throughout church history.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Is Christianity Evil?</span>
John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop and a leading critic of orthodox Christianity, says that there is much evil in the Bible and many things for which Christians should be ashamed. In The Sins of Scripture, Spong writes that the Bible has "left a trail of pain, horror, blood, and death" and that the Christian church must "face its own terrifying history."
H.L. Mencken, in his famous Treatise on The Gods, wrote that Christianity has "been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings."
Spong and Mencken are but two voices in a litany of critics over the centuries who have taken Christians to task for a host of alleged sins and shortcomings. Is there any truth to their claims? Has Christianity done more harm than good?
<span style="font-weight: bold">What is Christianity?</span>
Before one can evaluate Christianity, it's helpful to correctly identify what is meant by the term. The quest to understand the Christian faith should begin at the origins of Christianity. The term "Christian" comes from the New Testament book of Acts, where Luke (the likely author) explains that followers (or "disciples"
of Jesus were first called "Christians" in the city of Antioch (Acts 11:26). The term stuck, and quickly came to define all those who believed in and followed Jesus of Nazareth.
The focus on Jesus raises a very pertinent issue in evaluating Christianity. In an interview with author Lee Strobel, John Woodbridge, a church history professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, points out that "just because a person is part of a church doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a follower of Jesus." Woodbridge argues that there's a distinction between "cultural Christians" and "authentic Christians." In other words, Woodbridge argues, it's important to evaluate Christianity itself(especially the founder of Christianity), not so much all those who claim to be a part of Christianity.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Has The Christian Church Been Bad or Good?</span>
Not surprisingly, many atheists, agnostics, and other critics of Christianity disparage those who would make distinctions between "authentic" and merely "cultural" Christians. They see such hair-splitting as convenient and retroactively self-serving.
Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza serves up three responses. First, he says that it's a matter of historical fact that much of the hatred, wars, and violence often attributed to religion is, in fact, due to other causes. In his bestselling What's So Great About Christianity?, D'Souza points to ethnic rivalries, land disputes, political power struggles, and other motivations. Using the Catholic vs. Protestant fighting in Ireland as but one of several examples, D'Souza writes that they "aren't fighting about transubstantiation or some point of religious doctrine," but rather "over issues of autonomy and over which group gets to rule the country."
His second response is that when Christians did engage in violence or persecution for specifically religious purposes (D'Souza's examples include the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials), this was a deviation from their own principles, not an extension of them. D'Souza writes: "Christ's teachings are those of a peacemaker. They are the very opposite of the persecutions and violence that have sometimes been perpetuated in the name of Christianity."
Third, says D'Souza, for all its faults, Christianity as a cultural force and belief system still fares better than political regimes or movements based on atheism. He cites the high body count of communist regimes as an example.
When atheists try to distance themselves from regimes led by atheists like Stalin and Mao, D'Souza points to the apparent double standard of atheists saying they shouldn't be held responsible for the tragedies of atheist regimes, while they simultatenously argue that Christianity should be responsible for all the crimes perpetrated by movements or governments that call themselves "Christian."
What's more, D'Souza observes that all the Communist regimes "have been strongly anti-religious, suggesting that their atheism is intrinsic rather than incidental to their ideology."
<span style="font-weight: bold">Is Christianity Dangerous?</span>
Robert Hutchinson answers that question with an emphatic "no." He writes: "The historical evidence clearly shows that the enemy of political liberty is not Christianity or Judaism....but the dangerous idea there is no Higher Authority to which politicians must be accountable."
<span style="font-style: italic">Christians and critics alike agree that religious beliefs can lead to intense controversy, conflict, and sometimes dangerous confusion. But, say Christians, their faith (when properly carried out in accordance with their founder's teachings) provides a needed check on human passions and offers hope to the human race.</span>
From Here
Is Christianity bad or good for the world? Is Christianity dangerous? Is Christianity evil? Is there evil in the Bible? Would the world be better off without Christians?</span>
Some believe Christianity is dangerous. Others say Christianity is not only dangerous, but is thoroughly evil. They point to wars caused by religion, alleged hate crimes caused by the Christian church, efforts by Christians to impose their "morality" on the public, provocative passages in the Bible, and other controversial episodes or characters throughout church history.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Is Christianity Evil?</span>
John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop and a leading critic of orthodox Christianity, says that there is much evil in the Bible and many things for which Christians should be ashamed. In The Sins of Scripture, Spong writes that the Bible has "left a trail of pain, horror, blood, and death" and that the Christian church must "face its own terrifying history."
H.L. Mencken, in his famous Treatise on The Gods, wrote that Christianity has "been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings."
Spong and Mencken are but two voices in a litany of critics over the centuries who have taken Christians to task for a host of alleged sins and shortcomings. Is there any truth to their claims? Has Christianity done more harm than good?
<span style="font-weight: bold">What is Christianity?</span>
Before one can evaluate Christianity, it's helpful to correctly identify what is meant by the term. The quest to understand the Christian faith should begin at the origins of Christianity. The term "Christian" comes from the New Testament book of Acts, where Luke (the likely author) explains that followers (or "disciples"
of Jesus were first called "Christians" in the city of Antioch (Acts 11:26). The term stuck, and quickly came to define all those who believed in and followed Jesus of Nazareth.The focus on Jesus raises a very pertinent issue in evaluating Christianity. In an interview with author Lee Strobel, John Woodbridge, a church history professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, points out that "just because a person is part of a church doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a follower of Jesus." Woodbridge argues that there's a distinction between "cultural Christians" and "authentic Christians." In other words, Woodbridge argues, it's important to evaluate Christianity itself(especially the founder of Christianity), not so much all those who claim to be a part of Christianity.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Has The Christian Church Been Bad or Good?</span>
Not surprisingly, many atheists, agnostics, and other critics of Christianity disparage those who would make distinctions between "authentic" and merely "cultural" Christians. They see such hair-splitting as convenient and retroactively self-serving.
Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza serves up three responses. First, he says that it's a matter of historical fact that much of the hatred, wars, and violence often attributed to religion is, in fact, due to other causes. In his bestselling What's So Great About Christianity?, D'Souza points to ethnic rivalries, land disputes, political power struggles, and other motivations. Using the Catholic vs. Protestant fighting in Ireland as but one of several examples, D'Souza writes that they "aren't fighting about transubstantiation or some point of religious doctrine," but rather "over issues of autonomy and over which group gets to rule the country."
His second response is that when Christians did engage in violence or persecution for specifically religious purposes (D'Souza's examples include the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials), this was a deviation from their own principles, not an extension of them. D'Souza writes: "Christ's teachings are those of a peacemaker. They are the very opposite of the persecutions and violence that have sometimes been perpetuated in the name of Christianity."
Third, says D'Souza, for all its faults, Christianity as a cultural force and belief system still fares better than political regimes or movements based on atheism. He cites the high body count of communist regimes as an example.
When atheists try to distance themselves from regimes led by atheists like Stalin and Mao, D'Souza points to the apparent double standard of atheists saying they shouldn't be held responsible for the tragedies of atheist regimes, while they simultatenously argue that Christianity should be responsible for all the crimes perpetrated by movements or governments that call themselves "Christian."
What's more, D'Souza observes that all the Communist regimes "have been strongly anti-religious, suggesting that their atheism is intrinsic rather than incidental to their ideology."
<span style="font-weight: bold">Is Christianity Dangerous?</span>
Robert Hutchinson answers that question with an emphatic "no." He writes: "The historical evidence clearly shows that the enemy of political liberty is not Christianity or Judaism....but the dangerous idea there is no Higher Authority to which politicians must be accountable."
<span style="font-style: italic">Christians and critics alike agree that religious beliefs can lead to intense controversy, conflict, and sometimes dangerous confusion. But, say Christians, their faith (when properly carried out in accordance with their founder's teachings) provides a needed check on human passions and offers hope to the human race.</span>
From Here
Comment