In His Name

In His Name

When people talk about Christianity they often criticise (if not overtly then implicitly) the Christian religion for actions that range from overtly evil to highly questionable. The common examples are bombings of abortion clinics and the crusades. In the case of the crusades they often ask how a religion can call itself just if they slaughter people merely because they adhere to a different religion. How the “church” could sanction, even encourage such behaviour. I recently saw a TV program presented by a person who was otherwise intelligent and astute repeating these ideas. I found this a little surprising because this is based on bad logic and a careful analysis of the arguments clearly displays the fallacy.

To put it into context we need to examine the meaning of the word Christian. This was actually a derogatory term coined during the first century to describe the followers of Christ’s teachings. Literally it means “Christ’s little ones”. What he taught was love for all, even our enemies, tolerance of those who are different, grace for those in difficult moral positions, forgiveness, patience, the freedom to allow people to make their own decision, respect for authority, intolerance of abusive power and personal holiness. In fact Jesus himself said they will know you by your love for one another. So in effect a Christian is one who adheres to these principles, not perfect since we all fail in the perfect stakes, but full of grace and forgiveness. So if this defines a Christian then for someone to be a follower of Christ they must necessarily adhere to these principles. As for the “Church” it is an organic group of people who have joined together to mutually encourage one another to follow these principles. Note that a Church is not an institution or an organisation or a man made structure with an organisational structure. These things may co-exist with the organic community but they do not define it or supplant it.

Now let me illustrate the problem. Let us say for example I claim to be a follower of the Liberal party (the right wing political party in Australia). I then proceed to criticise their immigration policy, then criticise their industrial relations policy, criticise their policy in Iraq, oppose their monetarist  policy, I become an active member of the union movement, in fact I oppose every policy the Liberal party has ever proposed and to openly support the opposite party – the Labour party. I make contributions to the Labour party but not to the Liberal party, I hand out how to vote cards for the Labour candidate, and I encourage people to vote for Labour. Am I a liberal, I have done all of this in the name of the Liberal party. Of course not – an absurd notion, no one would for a minute seriously consider me to be a Liberal. Why then do people assume then that people are Christians merely because they claim to be? Someone who slaughters men women and children, or terrorises abortion clinics can in no way of fashion be called a follower of Christ – however much they claim to be. People are not known by their labels but by their actions and as Jesus said to the people of his time who claimed to be doing God’s will – they are known by their father who is not God but Satan. Jesus himself saw through the labels and claims into their hearts, why do we then fall into the trap of accepting the label and fail to see the truth. Doing something in the name of Christ does not make Christ responsible. Does the fact that I hand out how to vote papers for the Labour candidate in the name of the Liberal party Now let me illustrate the problem.  To call an organisation a Christian Church does not make it one any more than calling my house a Mosque make it one.

I think it was Shakespeare who said that “A Rose by any other name still smells the same”. Most of us would recognise a Rose if we saw it and would not call a Lilly a Rose, so why do we call terrorists, rapists, murders, and such like Christians when their actions are totally opposed to anything Christ taught?