4S: Counterfeit

Shorts…

Real Christianity

4S is all about telling human stories about faith expressed and faith lost. It is the true story told from the voice of those who live it. I play their videos so that you can hear from them in their own words and in context. I can be easily caught if I try to change the stories or characterize them in a way they were never intended. I present to you various snapshots of real Christianity - boots on the ground, butts in the pews, Christianity.

On the daily, I do a short cast that focuses on articles presenting how Christians think about and act out their faith. Sometimes, the stories are from the atheist's perspective and sometimes from the Christian's. Either way, they are true stories about what is really happening in the name of faith in America and throughout the world. Taken as a whole, they paint an unmistakeable picture of real Christianity - boots on the ground, butts in the pews, Christianity.

When Dale was my cohost, we often had guests from the academic community. They tended to have terminal degrees in something related to theology. They were the experts on all things god. Their views often collided with mainstream views about many things. And in some cases, they collided with each other. Even now, I get to interact with some of these luminaries in the name of getting the real story about real Christianity - boots on the ground, butts in the pews, Christianity.

I get the occasional Christian in the comments who either engages in a conversation about a topic or just does some drive-by theologizing. I also see them in the comments under my YouTube videos. They are there to correct the record and point out where I have gotten everything wrong. They are there to represent, say it with me, real Christianity - boots on the ground, butts in the pews, Christianity.

Despite, and perhaps because of all these representations of real Christianity, I become more confused by the day with regard to what constitutes an accurate representation of the religion. Let's talk:

Counterfeit Christianity

A counterfeit can only be deemed so if there is a genuine article. To identify a fake, you have to know the characteristics of the real thing. That is a difficult task with regard to Christianity specifically and religion in general. There are as many interpretations of real Christianity as there are denominations, and perhaps, as there are people.

I identify three aspects of Christian doctrine that have to be sorted before we can arrive at a conclusion:

1. The essentials of the Christian faith: those doctrine without which, there is no Christianity regardless of the deep sincerity of the practitioner.
2. The necessary parts that lead to the essentials: the building blocks without which, one can never drive at the essentials.
3. The unessentials: that which might be doctrinally true or false but have no bearing on whether a person is a real Christian.

True Christianity is one that contains the essentials of the historic, Christian faith. I throw in the concept of "historic" because some believe that history matters with regard to orthodoxy. I'm not so convinced that we can put much weight on the historic because it assumes that we actually know the earliest conception of Christianity.

There were those in the early church discussed in the New Testament who didn't believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. That is about as early as you get. There were also very early writings that are not a part of the New Testament that very well could have been. They paint a very different view of Jesus and what he taught.

I have neither the patience nor the expertise to get into battles about what doctrines were earliest. The earliest recorded might not be the earliest there was. We can talk about which views won at the end of the day. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those views represent the genuine article.

The real challenge is determining which doctrines are essential and which aren't. As near as I can tell, there is no measuring tool for precise calibration. It is not helpful to insist that one simply needs to read the special book. We've read it. Further, you've read it and still disagree with others who have read it with regard to essentials. Here are a few questions that demonstrate the point:

• How much do you have to know about the nature of god before you can be a real Christian?
• Can you believe that god is basically a deified human?
• Can you believe that god has severe limitations with regard to the omnis?
• Can you believe that god is a singular person or must you believe in the trinity?

These are just a handful of questions about god. Christians do not enjoy universal agreement on these matters. Some people believe that Catholicism is counterfeit Christianity and believe that Catholics are outside of the kingdom of god. Others embrace Catholics, protestants, and orthodox.

Unessential essentials

Many Christian doctrines live in this middle category that I believe requires more explanation. I can do this best by providing examples:

Some would say it is essential to believe that the Old Testament and New Testament are the word of god. That seems reasonable since one cannot know god's specific will without it. However, it could be argued that others can come to know god through a combination of desire and nature and spiritual insight. But near as I can tell, those things do not lead one to Christianity, just a general faith in a nonspecific god. But I digress.

What if you only believe that the bible is made by humans and how they thought about and interacted with god from their perspective. The truth claims are not representative of the literal truth. As a product of humans only generically inspired by their idea of god, it contains errors, allegories, and other imprecise forms of communication that should be understood more as literature than doctrine. Does that approach to the Bible disqualify a person?

What I have encountered are those who say that while wrong, that view of the bible is not essential. That said, they would also warn that with that view, you are likely to run afoul of essential doctrines because you are approaching the text incorrectly. It is a garbage in, garbage out situation. Approaching the text in the right way might not be technically essential. But it is essential if you are going to ascertain other essentials.

Another de facto essential is the doctrine of hell. R. C. Sproul said that one can still be a Christian if they do not believe the right things about hell. In the next breath, he said that it is such an important doctrine that he can hardly imagine how one so weak in the faith could be considered a Christian. For Sproul, the doctrine was not technically essential, but was de facto essential.

How about the lord's supper? Is it essential that a person partake of it? If so, do they have to know the right things about it or is just engaging in the rote ritual sufficient? Paul suggests that you can die if you don't take it with the right mindset. That sounds serious. I suspect what many Christians would say is that knowing all the right things about the practice is not essential. But you have an essential encounter with Jesus when you do partake of it correctly. De facto essential.

What about church attendance? I don't know many people who would say that it is an essential, salvific thing. But that you cannot properly grow as a Christian and remain close to god without it. De facto essential.

Must one believe in the devil? As with hell, many Christians don't believe in the devil. He is more of a metaphor than a real being. Essential? Probably not. But not believing in the devil makes you more of a target. You will almost certainly end up serving him if you don't believe in him. De facto essential.

Miracles? There are many Christians who do not believe in certain kinds of miracles. Some even deny all miracles. Essential? Maybe not. But by denying the miracle work of god in the world, you are denying the power and presence of god in the world. De facto essential.

I can go on in this way for a long time. But I think you get the point. What if a person is devoid of any three de facto essentials? How about all of them? Are they still a Christian? Is theirs the genuine article or counterfeit Christianity? I would be surprised if we could find three Christians who agree on the answer.

Real Christianity has to encompass some correct doctrines, practices, and beliefs. Otherwise, anyone can claim to be a Christian and no one could label them counterfeit. I understand why many would like to narrow it down to a handful of absolute essentials. But in reality, it is never quite that easy.

The wrecking ball of LGBTQ

Of all the issues that have affected the church in recent years, none has been so monumental as those related to the disposition of LGBTQ people. Can they even be Christian and practicing LGBTQ? Most Christians I know would acknowledge that the orientation itself is not really the problem. It is acting on that orientation in the form of non-heterosexual engagement.

In these same recent years, polling has suggested that US Christians and other people of faith are okay with homosexuality as a practice. That opinion is held by a small majority. 54% of Christians say homosexuality should be accepted rather than discouraged. And the numbers seem to be on the rise. Well-established denominations are splintering over this issue and that trend seems to be escalating. But why?

When I was growing up, homosexuality was obviously a sin. the Bible said so in lots of places. At one point, god thought it grounds for the death penalty. As time when on, I discovered that the idea of what we think of as homosexuality was not what biblical writers had in view. We had misinterpreted what the Bible had to say and everything we thought we knew about the subject was wrong.

Careful, lest you suffer from the same epistemic whiplash as I have. On the one hand, I am told that I was right about homosexuality when I was a fundamentalist who read those texts in a straight-ahead fashion. On the other hand, I am dead wrong about the teachings of Jesus on other matters when I read them in a straight-ahead fashion. In the same conversation, I am told that I understand perfectly what the Bible is obviously teaching and also that I read the Bible too simplistically and don't understand the real nuance of what is being taught. I can't keep up. And neither can you. Just try some of these conversational gymnastics for yourself. Good luck with that.

If you want to know just how challenging this issue is, just look at the major denominations that are splitting over the issue. The questions range from, can a practicing gay person be a Christian, can they be married to a same-sex partner, to can they be ordained as church leaders. Well-established denominations don't agree on any of this.

I suspect there are churches splitting over this issue that don't have any known queer members at all. It is the principle of the matter. It is about standing on the promises and the premises of god. It is about teaching the truth with a clear voice and not giving in to cultural pressure from a secular world. For some, it is a rallying cry that gives them an excuse to pull out that dusty spiritual armor from the junk drawer of forgotten passions and prance around cosplaying as a soldier of Christ.

These people would rather burn down their longstanding ties to their denominational roots than to welcome a single gay couple into their midst as a full citizen of the kingdom of god. These gatekeeper Christians have no interest in compromise or negotiation. Such a hardline stance is a part of their brand. And I frankly see their point. If god has made it clear that one can have no spiritual fellowship with queer folk who refuse to change, then they are on the right side of the issue.

The problem is that no one on either side seems to agree with the other about anything with regard to god's word. Is it an essential issue or not? If it isn't, then what justifies splitting churches over it? If it is an essential issue, why call anyone your brother or sister in Christ if they refuse to accept it and persist in false teaching? This seems to be an intractable problem with no hint of a resolution in sight.

The LGBTQ wrecking ball has served to at least get some to consider the question of what constitutes real Christianity. It also diminishes the argument that one can determine it by studying the Bible. Scholars abound on both sides. Sincere study doesn't help. We are faced with the question of who we should heed. Is it the preacher in that church on the right side of the road, or the one on the left? If Christians can't even answer these questions for themselves, how are nonbelievers supposed to answer them?

How can we tell the difference?

We finally get to the heart of why this subject is important, even to nonbelievers who are regularly in conversation with believers. As an outsider, how can I tell the difference between real Christianity and counterfeit Christianity?

I have been criticized for my stance that I have no right to say who is and who isn't a Christian. The only thing I can really do is accept their self report. If they say they are a Christian, then that has to be good enough for me. That said, I have my opinions about where a person is a Christian as understood by the early church. If a person says they're a Christian but does not accept any biblical truth claims, I hardly see how their profession of Christianity is meaningful. Even so, I have no say in what another person says about their status with god. I will accept their claim to Christianity even if it doesn't match my understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

Believers who choose to engage with nonbelievers need to realize we are not the ones with the burden of deciding what real Christianity is. And the definition changes based on who we are talking to at the time. They also need to understand that our confusion is quite justified. Here are a couple of examples:

We say that we want nothing to do with a god who does the kind of evil things that are described in the Bible and that are amplified by the person with whom we are interacting. We say that if that is the real god, then we're out. So they interpret that to mean we want nothing to do with god.

But that is not exactly what we are saying. We want nothing to do with THAT god. Another Christian comes along and describes god in a completely different way. Further, they tell us that our previous understanding of god was dead wrong because we were in some kind of cult that completely got it wrong. Okay. But why should I believe you? Why should I believe either representative? I have been given very different gods from which to choose. All I can say is, Will the real god please stand up?

The same thing happens when it comes to churches. We are practically blamed for growing up in the wrong church tradition. We experience various abuses and false teachings about Christianity. So it leaves a bitter taste. We are berated by Christians for our misfortunes and informed that our experience didn't represent real Christianity. It was a counterfeit. Real Christianity is not that way at all.

Now we are left to decide between two unclear paths: Do we toss out everything we have ever known about Christianity at the word of this new representative? Or do we stand by what we spent our lives learning about the faith? There is another course we could chart. Do we start fresh and take a few years to formulate yet another ideation of the truth of Christianity? I believe that what is being asked of us is unreasonable.

You see, we already did all that. We already spent a lifetime studying, praying, and seeking. Presumably, the real god saw our efforts and had the power to nudge us in the right direction like he did with the Ethiopian eunuch. If he only communicates through messengers, it is on him to show us clearly which messengers are legit and which are fraudulent. He didn't do any of that. So I have no reason to believe that I would find real Christianity this time around anymore than I did the last time. I would be doing the same thing and expecting a different result. That sounds like the definition of insanity to me.

Handwriting on the wall and talking donkeys

One thing that stands out about the god of the Bible is that he really knows how to make himself known when he wants to be known. He also knows how to make it clear who is and is not his spokesman. If necessary, he will write his message on a wall or have a donkey say it with words. He is simply not limited to mundane avenues of communication.

So it is rather perplexing when we nonbelievers survey the present landscape of Christian ideation and see no sign of talking donkeys or messages that write themselves on walls. As for prophets, where are the signs and wonders that differentiated true prophets from false ones? Why are we forced to choose between one ordinary person and another ordinary person who both claim to be presenting real Christianity? The god of the Bible can do much better than that. So why doesn't he?

Even anti-theists like me don't want to be guilty of despising a god who was misrepresented. Maybe god didn't support slavery or war-prize wives who were too young to have had sex, or who ordered pregnant women to be ripped open, or who mass-murdered 70,000 of David's subjects for no good reason, or who ordered the 10th plague, or who thought generational curses were a good idea, or who routed salvation through a human sacrifice. Maybe he isn't that guy after all.

The problem is that we have no way of knowing what to believe about this god and his religion and that is on him because he could clear it up immediately and decisively. I have two dogs. If either of them were to give me a clear message from god, I would believe it. I would also get a brain scan. But I would give that evidence extra weight. My dogs could tell me to call a certain preacher and then give me the phone number. I would call before they were done speaking. That's my dude. This is trivial for god and if the Bible is true, he has already shown the willingness to do that sort of thing. So on what basis is my request unreasonable?

Punished for confusion

If there is a god and my fate is eternal punishment, I would cry foul. Christians are fond of saying that no one will be able to say their punishment was unjust. But if I only know that when it is too late, then it is unjust. Analogy time:

Imagine the government had a publicly available constitution, but offered it amid a thousand fakes. You will be rewarded for obeying the law and punished for your disobedience. The problem is you have no way of knowing which constitution represents the true law. At judgement time, the true constitution and proper understanding of it is revealed. At that time, you will perfectly understand the many ways you broke the law. You will not be able to deny your guilt. But any ruling of guilt under those circumstances would be entirely unjust. We would be punished for confusion.

In that analogy, a person would also be justified for believing that none of the constitutions were right and that maybe there wasn't even a real government. After all, the world in this analogy is ordered by anarchical rule. Everyone claims to be representing the real government while accusing everyone else of being fraudulent. No one has any power to enforce their claims. And you are just supposed to figure it out.

This is my position with god. First, he is described as a monster by those who claim to be his representatives. They refer me to his handbook which seems to confirm my impression of him. But lots of people claim to be representatives of god and have their own interpretations of the handbook. Different translations of it paint different pictures.

I say to heck with it all after doing my best to figure it out. None of the representatives seem to have anything that distinguishes them from any other. When this god turns out to be real and reveals all my crimes which I could not know were crimes, I will of course admit guilt. But I had no chance to deal with my many crimes because I didn't even know he or his religion and law was real. I asked for clarification. It was all presented in a way that made it all seem fake. Now, I am being judged? I cry foul!

You could only prosecute me for confusion if my confusion was my own fault. You can't do it because I have an alibi. I can show the receipts for confusing, mixed messages, unanswered prayers for clarity, and a demonstration of having conducted my best efforts to understand. The only thing a Christian can say to that is that I am lying. They lose. I will not be punished without a fight on the basis of my having justifiable confusion about the real god of real Christianity.

Plagued with anxiety

Believers don't get a much better deal. Many are plagued with anxiety, fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I suspect these emotional elements are intensified for those who are most conservative. Their god is an angry god who has many nasty surprises for unbelievers and those who fall short. Unfortunately for them, we all fall short. More unfortunately for them is the fact that we don't always know when we get it wrong. One can go for a lifetime misrepresenting god without being aware of it.

Almost every issue is a life and death decision because they are so afraid of getting it wrong and living in sin. Their religion tends to be more restrictive than liberating because it is safer to avoid sin by restricting behaviors than by permitting everything. They believe that permissive religions permit too much. While that sin they permit might not be a mortal sin in and of itself, it represents an unwillingness to obey god. That unwillingness is a mortal sin. By that logic, no sin is safe. All sin could be willful sin if someone tells you it is wrong but you keep doing it anyway because you didn't believe them.

They also believe that god will punish them by proxy for the sins of others. This is based on stories from the texts. The kingdom of David was brutalized by god because of something David did. He sins; they get punished. Were the Egyptians evil? Pharaoh displeases god and all of Egypt pays the price. One people group builds a tower and the whole world has to speak different languages.

Conservative Christians tend to view god through a nationalist lens. God blesses America because it is a god-honoring country. What happens to them if the nation stops being a god-honoring country? It won't just be the evil lefties who pay the price. It will be everyone including the faithful. They fear this very much. That is why much of their focus is on making sure everyone else is as restricted as they are.

They pretend to know what god hates. So they want to legally restrict those behaviors. Real Christianity for them is to keep the nation a real Christian nation. If it is restricted to them, it should be restricted for all. Banning abortion is less about saving lives and more about not doing what god hates and might be the grounds of god punishing the nation. They believe that if they restrict it for all, they please god and then he will bless the nation.

They believe in their hearts that marriage is the domain of god and that the state has nothing to do with it. Their objection to gay marriage is about protecting the status of marriage as something belonging to god. They require everyone to conform to god's laws about marriage because that is a way of putting god above the secular state. This will pleas god and he will bless the nation. They fear the consequences if he were to stop blessing the nation.

In the stories I did on the Satanic Temple display in the Iowa state capitol, I quoted Christian lawmakers saying that the state constitution is based on honoring god and that satanic display in the Capitol is an affront to god. If allowed to stand, the blessings and protections of god would be lost. This is really how they think. We know that because this is really what they say out loud. They are even more vociferous about it from the pulpit.

Even conservatives who are uncertain if something like homosexuality is a sin cannot afford to take the risk. If it is not a sin and they restrict it, no harm, no foul. But if it is a sin and they allow it, there is literally hell to pay.

That anxiety is masked by their anger and outrage over secularity. They want to protect themselves and what they believe is god's country. But they also want to use this performative outrage to signal to god and others that they did all they could to defend him and his holy ego. They want to make sure god's indiscriminate death angel passes over them. Their moral outrage is like the blood on the doorposts. They want god to know that they tried to stop all that sinning and was willing to die for it. They can never have a moment of true peace with that kind of anxiety hanging over them all the time. I expect to see more bursts of outrage over my assessment of the situation.

Conclusion: You don't have to choose

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Bible

In this passage, we see a classic false choice scenario. This tactic continues to be deployed by conservative preachers to this day. You have to serve a god. It can be the true god or a false god. But either way, you are serving a god. Therefore, you have to choose the one you will serve and make that choice right now. You have had enough time to figure it out. Now choose!

I say you don't have to choose. You don't have to be pushed into an action because someone says you must. You should also be suspicious when you are presented with only limited choices and the demand to act now with an implied, or else.

In the case of this passage, we can see a number of other choices. They could have chosen some other god than the ones that made the fake ballot. They could have chosen to serve all the gods as is the case in many cultures. Many people believe it an odd fetish to choose only one god. They could have also chosen none of the above. You don't have to choose to serve a god. You can safely write off anyone who says that you are elevating yourself to the position of god by choosing no god. They have to say that because the gig is up for them if there is a legitimate choice to have no gods in your life.

You especially do not have to choose from choices you don't understand. Which theory of physics must I back? Is it string theory or something else. Since I don't adequately understand any of them, I choose not to choose. And I don't believe I have to back any particular theory until I understand the choices well enough.

Choosing Christianity involves a lot of decisions you might not even realize you are making. Which Jesus are you following? Is it the one who was human and wrong about some stuff, or the one who was fully god and perfect in all his understandings? Is it the Jesus who is god, or the Jesus who is divinely inspired by god?

Speaking of, which god do you choose? Is it the god of wrath and jealousy who will mess you up if you dare reach up to steady the Ark to keep it from falling, or the god who views that act with love and appreciation for the thought? Is it the god who allowed his people to own other people as slaves, or the god who never allowed anything so dehumanizing? Is it the god who ordered various genocides or the god who was misunderstood to have commanded such things. These are very different gods.

Which Christianity do you choose? Is it the kind that welcomes all, including homosexuals into the kingdom, or the god who tells such people to depart from him because he never knew them? Is it the Christianity that believes the Bible is the pure, accurate, and perfect word of god, or a collection of words about god by fallible humans who sometimes got it wrong? Is it the god who killed that couple that one time because they lied about the amount of money they gave, or the god who would never do such a thing?Choosing Christianity is not easy. Pick your atonement theory wisely. One of them might land you in hell. Also, which hell are we talking about?

Personally, I believe that there is no real Christianity. If there was such a thing, I would think god would clearly point it out so that all could know it. Then, the only choice would be to accept it or not.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently converted to a Christianity that seems to be devoid of Jesus being lord, her need to have her sins forgiven, or any of a number of things many Christians seem to think are important. Did she choose real Christianity, or a counterfeit? If I declared myself a Christian because I believe that the stories about what Jesus taught are more socially beneficial than, say, communism, would I be a Christian? Would Christian communities embrace me as a Christian? Would you? Would I be safe from the wrath of god? How could I know before it was too late?

Choosing Christianity is like choosing a form of madness. I will live the best life I can by my own lights which, according to some Christians, is how we are supposed to know right from wrong anyway. Our conscience is there to guide us in such matters. Great! I don't need Christianity for that. I don't need it to keep from steeling and killing and coveting my neighbors property. I don't need it to pursue the greatest amount of flourishing for the greatest amount of people. I don't need it to be a good husband, a good worker, or a good steward of my tiny patch of the planet. I have no need to bless any flavor of Christianity as the real one because they are all irrelevant to me.

And with that, I'll see you in the comments...

David Johnson