InDefenceOfHypocritesBigotsAndUnthinkingPersons

Hypocrites, Bigots and Unthinking Christians

We hear a lot about the above classes of people, and it cast up a few thoughts in my mind.

One thing I've noticed recently is how often people think that some things are self-evidently true, or just assume them implicitly, and when they meet people who don't see things that way, they can't understand them so they put it down to them being unthinking or bigoted or stupid. (I think this is a key way to spot a 'world view' - things that are so self-evident that people just can't understand how anyone could seriously think differently.)

• A blunt Christian friend of mine said he thought you had to commit intellectual suicide to believe in Catholicism, Islam or Hinduism.

• A Muslim scientist once asked a Christian scientist how an intelligent person could believe in something so ridiculous as God becoming a man and dying to rescue us from sin.

• And someone once told me she couldn't see how an intelligent person could possibly believe in God (but she can now! :-)

• And in some circles, if you suggest an opinion that doesn't fit a 'liberal' atheistic humanism - e.g.* that some races are superior to others, or that God designed the universe, that people have souls, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that evolution isn't true - often you'll be just ostracised or thought bigoted or primitive. People won't even bother trying to argue with you, as you're self-evidently wrong. 'Reason' itself shows you're wrong, so there's no point trying to reason with you. They put it down to irrational things like your upbringing, bad experiences in your past, 'blind faith', needing a father figure, having the real world and religion in two separate compartments in your brain, having a cushy life which allows you to hold onto a childlike simple faith without being disillusioned or having to think about hard questions, or on the other hand needing some crutch or comforting blanket in life because you're not enlightened enough to realise how great and satisfying a purely scientific and humanist approach to life is.

*NB I'm not implying that any of these are Christian views - just ones that this kind of 'political correctness' won't tolerate.

And Christians even do it to each other:

• If you reckon some of what the Bible says is due to human prejudices and errors, then it's because you're proud, worldly and putting yourself, your intellect and your opinions above trust in God and His opinions.

• If you reckon the Bible is perfect and has no errors in it, then it's because you're unintelligent, you like simple answers, you just go along with what you're told, you ignore the bits that contradict your point of view etc.

• If you think that women can be church leaders, it's because your beliefs are infected with worldly feminist attitudes, and you're twisting the Bible as a convenient tool to justify your ungodly left-wing agenda.

• If you think that women can't be church leaders, it's because your beliefs are infected with worldly bigotry and chauvinism, and you're twisting the Bible as a convenient tool to justify your ungodly right-wing agenda.

• If you think that God's plan for sex is within heterosexual marriage, it's because your beliefs are infected with ungodly homophobia from the world, and you're using the Bible to justify your prejudices, ignoring the bits that contradict your opinion.

• If you think that God's plan for sex includes loving homosexual partnerships, it's because your beliefs are infected with ungodly ideas about freedom and equality, and you're using the Bible to justify your rebellion against God's values, ignoring the bits that contradict your opinion.

When I meet Christians who censor novels with black pen, or who think it's wrong to wear ear-rings and nail-varnish (even for women), or to dance (except if it's 'Jewish dancing'), I'm tempted to look down on them as uptight and legalistic. On the other hand, there are other people who I'm tempted to look down on as lax and treating God's commands and His grace too lightly. Of course I'm in the middle of the road, with just the right balance between the two! I need to realise that many people in the first group do what they do out of a deep respect and love for God and a serious commitment to honouring and obeying Him - not just a legalistic fear. They're prepared to go against our culture and be looked down on for the sake of their love for God - which puts mine in the shade. And many people in the second group aren't putting their sinfulness above God's word - they think they're expressing the grace and freedom we have in Christ and honouring Him with it. In reality I should belong to both groups.

What I realised is that most people sincerely think they have good reasons for what they believe - no matter how beyond the pale we think they are - but we often put it down to bigotry or stupidity. And often they've spent a long time thinking about those reasons and problems - a lot more than we have. It's true that we often find ourselves believing something because it seems right or because we inherited it, but then we usually find reasons to back it up.

On the other hand, people do often give 'unthinking' answers that follow the standard Christian (or other) line that they're 'supposed' to believe - I know I have. Sometimes that's because they still need to accept it on trust - we can't be expected to become expert theologians all at once. But beyond that it can be motivated by fear - if you're unconfident about the basis of your faith, then anything that questions it makes you feel insecure and you get edgy and defensive to fend it off with simple answers. That works for non-Christians too. In these circumstances, it's tempting to make this person feel like an unthinking hypocrite who can't stand up to your arguments, but it'd be much better to help them to think more about what they believe and why.

The same with Christians who seem to have false happiness and smiles who aren't sincere about their problems. If they're surrounded by people who tell them you should rejoice in the Lord always and be content in all circumstances, and then take it further and imply you're sinning or inadequate if your life isn't like that, then it's not surprising they're trying to put on a happy face. We shouldn't resent people like that and say 'Thank God I'm not like that hypocritical person' (Luke 18:11) - we should encourage them that God accepts them as they are.

And sometimes people come across as intolerant bigots because they just haven't realised the effect of what they're saying. Someone may have good reasons for believing certain actions are sinful, and they may have a passion for the truth, but not realise how much what they say about these actions in the abstract hurts the people who actually do these things, till someone points it out to them (in a sensitive way!)

So it's always good to try to understand things from the other person's point of view, to realise they may be just as unmalicious as you, and sincerely trying to discover and defend the truth. People who believe women should / should not be church leaders may both be motivated by a desire to be true and faithful to the Bible and God's will. The same with evolution or sexuality. Even people who believe that the Bible justifies racism need to be respected and understood. Only then can we ask to be respected by them, and go on to present our reasons for what we believe and weigh up the reasons, arguments and evidence we and they are using as a basis of our beliefs. I'm sure this is what Jesus did - earning people's respect as well as telling them about the truth (tho He did go on to condemn as hypocrites the Pharisees who refused to respect Him.)

(NB Some people conclude that if sincere seekers after the truth come to such a variety of opinions, then there's no way we can say one view is more true than another, so we're all equally right and the truth is whatever is meaningful and helpful to you. But this goes against our nature - we're always looking for the truth, we're always trying to discuss which opinions are right and wrong, we feel that some people's views, however sincere, are very wrong. The idea that 'all views are true' makes all this impossible. Thankfully as Christians we know there is Somebody greater than human opinion whose views and opinions we can look for and who gives us help in doing that. Respect and acceptance of other people is not the same as accepting that what they believe is equally true - though many people are under the impression that it is.)

There's a particularly powerful story in 'What's So Amazing About Grace' (Yancey) about how a white supremacist was turned from his evil ways and was saved, because one of his victims loved him and helped him. I think also of the film, 'Dead Man Walking'. And I think this is one way that Christians really can make a difference as salt and light in the world - showing grace and love even to people who the world thinks don't deserve it.

A Different Point of View

I (Alice) disagree to a certain extent with what has been written here. What I am about to write may seem simplistic, but it is what I believe. My basic disagreement is with the assertion that as Christians it is our duty to respect all other viewpoints - viewpoints that people have supposedly gleaned from the Bible. I think that we should always try to respect OTHER PEOPLE (i.e. treat other people properly, as we would like to be treated etc.) but I do not think that we should always show 'respect' to other peoples' beliefs or views. Now, in matters of everyday life, of course one inevitably come across many people whose beliefs differ from one's own. And, in the main, one is able to respect the other person's different way of thinking - why, it is these differences of opinion that make the world an interesting place. However, what I do not respect are views or beliefs that lead to other people getting hurt (whether that is physically or emotionally hurt it doesn't matter). In particular, I am referring to beliefs that hurt a particular group of society (for example, black people, women, homeless people etc.). You may contend that in that case the belief 'All humans are sinners' is going to hurt some people, but again, I will repeat, I am referring to beliefs that hurt a particular group of society. Why? Because such beliefs are likely to be wrought from prejudice. Why do I believe that hurting people is wrong? Well, you might say that it is a 'self-evident' thing I have learnt that may not be true, but I disagree. I believe that God hates it when people are hurt, and we, as humans generally hate to be hurt and don't like hurting others. When I see or hear someone propounding beliefs that they claim are divinely inspired, beliefs that will lead to black people (for example) being forced to occupy a lower station in society, I cannot respect such beliefs. Moreover, I do not believe that it is required of Christians to respect such beliefs. Yes, we can listen to them, we can try and point the misguided person in the right direction, but as for respect - I think not. We can help THE PERSON, we can treat THE PERSON justly, we can try to respect THE PERSON but not their beliefs. You may say now, 'Well, someone can just as easily refuse to respect your beliefs.' Yes, they might. But, the difference is, is that none of my beliefs involve anyone getting hurt. I believe everyone should love each other and treat each other with respect and equality. I, personally, hurt people a lot, but that is because I am a sinful person - not because I believe that hurting people is something that is divinely inspired. I do try to do my best.

On another note, I know that the person who wrote the above was Midge, and I know he is male and I am presuming he is Caucasian. I would just like to say this: Perhaps you have never experienced prejudice first-hand. Perhaps you have never had people disregarding not only your viewpoints but YOU, yourself (in the name of God, of course), because of what you are. Perhaps, if you met a man who said he beat his wife regularly because he believed that the Bible told him he could do that when she didn't do exactly what he told her to do, you would have no problem respecting his viewpoint (because he believed he was doing the right thing). Well, not only would I have a problem respecting his viewpoint, but I believe it would be wrong to respect his viewpoint. In addition to what I already said, I am just trying to make the point that it is perhaps easier to 'respect' other peoples viewpoints when you know that they will never hurt you personally. But my main point is that it is wrong anyway to respect such viewpoints. I think it is just easier to discern true prejudice when you have experieced it.

Yes, we can listen, and try to help and respect the PERSON, but as for their beliefs - no.

I'm a bit confused by all this. You start by saying "My basic disagreement is with the assertion that as Christians it is our duty to respect all other viewpoints". But I never said that, only that we should respect other people and not just write them off as stupid even if we think their views are evil and offensive. I thought I made that clear in the article, but I'm sorry if not. I certainly don't think we should respect all other views, especially if we think they're sinful and offensive to God. So I think we basically agree on that after all. I'm sure the victim of the white supremacist didn't respect his views, but that didn't stop him reaching out to help him.

Did I really sound like I was saying I'd respect the views of racists and wife-beaters??? (As it happens, I spent some time in a country where wife-beating was part of the local culture. As a Christian, I can say it's wrong and offensive to God, whereas cultural relativists can only say 'We can't criticise other cultures and impose Western values on them.' In that situation, Christianity has brought respect and self-respect to women.)

• Alice: Some Christians do believe that beating ones wife is morally all right. Anyway, it did sound a bit as though you would respect such views. Sorry if you think I was insulting.

Incidentally, yes, I am Caucasian, and I haven't experienced any significant prejudice against me from Christians at least. But I'm not unaware of the hurt that people I know have suffered as a result of prejudice either from Christians or from non-Christians. It's right to be angry about prejudice, but my point in the article was that it's not usually very productive to just get angry at individual racists etc. rather than trying to communicate with and understand one another. (I certainly don't find it constructive when people shout at me, e.g. "How can you presume to know what God thinks, just cos you believe in some old book?!" when all I've been trying to do is answer their question about why I believe what I do, and show that I have a consistent argument for it. Tho I can understand their frustration, and try to be patient!) Midge

Argh treating this like a message board again...sorry... No, that's fine! It's more flexible than a message board anyway.

Anyway, Alice, I totally agree with the spirit of what you're saying but I think the overall point of this page is that it is naive to think that your own beliefs are beyond reproach. We all think some very stupid things.

Andy

• Alice: I just want to say, Andy, that I don't think any beliefs are beyond reproach in the sense that, in my opinion, we can never be 100% sure of anything, not God's existence or even that of other people. But we have to make sense of the world somehow. And I make sense of it by believing in God, and believing that goodness is better than evil and, as such, should be sought after. And I don't respect certain beliefs because they are rooted in evil, or will lead to evil. Hurting people is a kind of evil. What I've just said might sound stupid, but I don't want you to think that I think all my beliefs are beyond reproach. I just want more goodness to come about in the world.

-I think my main point is that you shouldn't just write off people you disagree with as stupid or evil. One of my arguments is that then you cut off the bridge between you and them, and lose all hope of meaningful communication. But yes, my other main argument is that we shouldn't think we're in a privileged position of being obviously more right than the other person, just because our view makes more sense to us - they could say the same. Instead we need to be humble and open-minded about our own beliefs, and prepared to examine and defend them. But being humble needn't mean being doubtful, silent and inactive!

I agree with Alice. One conclusion that comes out of what I wrote is that no-one can be 100% certain that what they believe is true (rather than what others believe), because we're all fallible and don't know everything. So we have to believe and act with faith and trust in God. Though some humanists are convinced that we can know the truth by pure reason... Midge

Thanks very much for this article - it's a really important set of things you're saying. Thanks very much for your contribution too, Alice.

I think Alice's point about the distinction between respecting views and respecting people is very important, and could usefully be added to the article:

• On the one hand, I believe that respecting people is entirely non-negotiable; we should always treat them with love and mercy, and express ourselves towards them in a way that is loving - it's so easy to become aggressive and dismissive of people we disagree with.

• On the other hand, respect of people's views should, I believe, be somewhat more nuanced.

• We should always respect people's views in the sense that we spend time trying to understand them. We should also be careful not to condemn people's views out of hand. And we should respect them in the sense of always defending people's right to hold their beliefs. We should look at whether our opposing views are as justified as we thought, and whether both sides need to learn something.

• But after seriously exploring someone's views, it's possible that we will still find them to be terrible views. At this level, we don't respect these views in terms of thinking of them as right or good.

Do both Alice and Midge agree with this way of putting it?

I think I do. Thanks for clarifying the different senses of what it means to respect someone's views. If Alice and everyone else is happy with it I can stick it on the end of the article. Midge

• Alice says - I agree with it too, methinks, although...this might sound horrible, but maybe I don't exactly agree with 'we should respect them (peoples' views) in the sense of always defending people's right to hold their beliefs'. I think that people only have a 'right' to believe in something if I agree with it. No, only joking! Okay, really, I think that people only have a 'right' to a belief if they can argue for it. I think it is possible to argue for terrible views (the arguments might be bad, but they'll still be reasons), so if someone has terrible views but they put forward an argument, then fine, I suppose they have a 'right' to the belief, but I am still certainly not going to respect the belief. But then, of course, you have the problem of 'how well does someone have to argue for a belief in order for them to have the right to hold it?', and, 'what kind of argument counts as valid', etc. But yes, basically I do agree with you, DavidB. I don't always agree with you about everything, but I think that everything you say is very well-reasoned and I generally like what you say.

• Midge says - I suppose it depends what you mean by 'a right'. I doubt that you'd want to torture or kill people who can't argue for their beliefs. I expect you mean that they don't deserve to be listened to very much if they can't justify their beliefs. I expect DavidB was thinking more about freedom of conscience.

Interesting point made by Alice re respecting views that don't lead people to get hurt. The problem as I see it is, most people will believe that their opponents' beliefs will lead to more harm than theirs - for particular parts of society. e.g. I believe in hell, but others will say that this causes extraordinary psychological harm. On the other hand, I believe their denial of this truth will lead to much actual pain - for particular parts of society. So, although some beliefs that cause harm for particular groups will lead me to reject them, there may be two sides to the argument.

Keep this up - really interesting contributions!

DavidB :)

Interesting point. As Alice says, we should be more suspicious of beliefs that hurt a particular social group than the belief that "all humans are sinners" for example, as they're more likely to be "wrought by prejudice". But on the other hand, the idea of that only some sinners will go to hell does hurt and offend people!

• Alice says - Only some sinners will go to hell, but everybody can choose to go to heaven if they so wish. If some people started saying, 'All right, you have repented of your sins and accepted Jesus as your saviour, but you will not get into heaven because you have blonde hair,' then this would not only be an offensive belief, but wrong, and unworthy of respect. Do you see what I mean? My point is that heaven is open to everybody, regardless of who they are -everyone is able to choose whether or not to repent of their sins and accept Jesus. However, if people started saying, as in my example, that only certain people are able to reach heaven purely by virtue of what they are or what they have (e.g. dark hair), then that would be hurtful, offensive and wrong - unworthy of respect. It would be like saying, 'All right, you have the gifts of leadership and preaching, and are a godly person, but you cannot become a pastor because you are female.' These are beliefs that lead to hurting people - a particular group of people, and are unworthy of respect.

• Midge says - but what about Muslims? They want to go to heaven, so I'm sure they could be offended!

• Alice says: I still think my point stands - that everyone can go to heaven if they choose to. Anyway, personally I believe that everyone who truly wants to, gets to heaven. I'm sure you don't agree with that Midge - but it's difficult to explain about it, anyway.

• OK, I suppose I was just following on from what DavidB said, by saying that one example of the trickiness of the concept of causing hurt is the way some people say I don't have the right to believe that only Christians or only Muslims will go to heaven (whatever I actually believe, which is a bit more complex), because it's discriminatory and liable to cause hatred against other groups (as in my paragraph below). (Besides the argument that I don't have the right to believe in hell at all because of the trauma the concept of hell causes people.) But I agree that distinguishing by gender or race is quite different. Tho it needs to be argued independently whether or not God makes any distinctions on the basis of these categories. Midge

• 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' - my God doesn't make any distinctions on the basis of these catergories, for he loves everyone. Humans created prejudice and discrimination, not God. But perhaps your god thinks differently...Anyway, these people you mentioned needn't have a trauma about believing in hell, because they'd all be welcomed into heaven. Also, I don't really believe that the belief in hell fits in with what I've been talking about - I was referring to things that can actually be put into practice to cause people harm, e.g. the belief that Jews are an inferior race. Do you see what I mean? Unless you treat people who don't believe in hell in a nasty manner, then your belief will not necessarily affect them, if you see what I mean. Alice

• Andy says: Alice I think you're missing the motivation behind this article. It's not trying to say we should act as if wrong people are right - it's just saying that a) wrong people are normally wrong for a reason and b) the best way to help them be not-wrong is by treating them with respect and trying to understand why they think what they think. As a side point, along the way we might find out that we are wrong about a few things too.

• Just to say that the objection some people make about the trauma of hell is that people who believe in hell shouldn't tell others that they think it exists, in case they are traumatised by it. A Christian friend of mine spent a long time traumatised by the idea that he was too sinful and was going to hell, and of course I couldn't just say 'Oh that's alright - you'll be welcomed into heaven.' Midge

• Look, all I have been trying to say is this: I don't think that this article is trying to say that we should act as if wrong people are right. However, I did get the impression that it was saying we should respect wrong views. My other point was that in general, the views I, personally tend not to respect are beliefs which, when carried out, lead to people getting hurt. And I still don't think that this 'hell' example fits in, because that belief is one that the person imposes upon themselves. Alice

• Just to sum up what I was saying above: I agree that we shouldn't 'respect' views we believe to be wrong in the sense of encouraging them or agreeing with them; however, I believe we should 'respect' these beliefs in the sense of working to understand the reasons behind the point of view, occasionally asking ourselves 'Should I change my mind on this? Why/why not?', and welcoming (while debating with) those who hold them. Does this make sense? Good discussion, everybody! DavidB

• Good - I think we basically all seem to agree on all this in practice - we're just arguing about what we mean when we talk about respecting people, respecting people's views, people having a right to believe something, and acting as if people are right or wrong. For example, I think we all agree that people have a 'right' to believe anything in the sense that society shouldn't punish them for holding a belief, but they don't have the 'right' to do whatever they like as a consequence of their beliefs - we have the 'right' to condemn racist or sexist acts and society is right to punish them. (Why do we have that right? Practically speaking, because the majority of society says so, but more deeply, because God condemns these acts.) And we probably agree that we should try to talk to people who we believe are wrong, to try and persuade them to change their minds, or we can refuse to talk to them if we think they don't deserve it (pearls before swine etc.) but we don't have the right to force them to talk to us or to persecute them. Is that a fair summary?

This also makes me think of the usual argument given by e.g. my mum (and John Lennon) - that religion is the cause of wars and hatred, and therefore religion is bad. Or even among Christians there are those who say 'We can't say (e.g.) Jesus is the only way because of the problems / offence / excuses for racism it'll cause.' But the answer is not to remove anything from our beliefs that might be unsafe, but to express our beliefs responsibly, carefully and sensitively. Unfortunately my mum has good reason to complain about how religious people have treated her. Midge