While the public is subjected to counterfactual statements like the recent letters about needing to “Put Christ back in….” our schools etc throughout the year – it is at this time of year, the Christmas season, that delusive statements about the need to “Put Christ back in…….” abound.

The cry “Put Christ back in Christmas” seems to have an alliterative lure that those who believe that words are what manifest Christ in the world find irresistible.

You can strive to keep the words out, but you cannot keep Christ out of anywhere that a practicing Christian is because they act as a conduit for Christ’s love.

What this prattling on about “putting Christ back…….” clearly demarks is the distinctness between Christians who self label as Christians by virtue of membership in a Christian religion or church or as is often the case membership in both a religion and a church, and practicing Christians who often don’t call themselves Christians, holding that to be a judgment that only Christ can, or has the right to, make.

A demarcation rooted in the difference between words as the central tenant of being Christian versus your actions and behaviours as the central tenant of being Christian.

The fallacy of using words as the central tenet, is the fact that words encompass a degree of variation in meaning that denies any certainty in conveying exactitude in any message the words may have been meant to convey.

Consider the ubiquitous Thesaurus, a reference work whose sole purpose is to provide alternate choices for a word. For some words there maybe only 5 – 6 words as alternatives; while for other words there are 100+ alternatives.

In these days of rising illiteracy, functional illiteracy, cant, jargon, vulgarism, acronyms etc we are losing, may have lost, an appreciation for and the ability to use the subtle nuances and shadings in meanings among the words we choose to use to convey more accurately and with more certainty the ideas and meanings we seek to express.

Consider even the ‘simple’ Dictionary:

A book, optical disc, mobile device or online lexical resource (eg dictionary.com) containing a selection of the words of a language* giving information about their meanings, pronunciation, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc, expressed in either the same or another language, lexicon, glossary. Print dictionaries of of varying sizes, ranging from small pocket dictionaries to multi volume books, usually sort entries alphabetically, as do typical CD or DVD dictionary applications, allowing one to browse through the terms in sequence. All electronic dictionaries, whether online or installed on a device, can provide immediate, direct access to a search term, its meanings, and ancillary information: a Japanese – English dictionary.

*Language: 1) a body of words and the system for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area or the same cultural tradition i.e. the two languages of Belgium, the French language; the Yiddish language. 2) communication by voice in the distinctively human manner using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conversational meanings. 3) the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech). 4) any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another. 5) any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion etc. i.e. the language of mathematics, sign language.

Thus attempts to use the bible as a cookbook (take Sunday mass, add tithing, judgment and condemnation of fellow human beings because of your moral superiority, support for inquisitions, crusades, witch/heretic burnings, etc etc etc…..) to arrive at the ‘formula’ or ‘ingredients’ that mixed together make a Christian are doomed to fail.

This fallacy of words making the bible a ‘cookbook’ is compounded by the nature of languages and translation between languages.

The meanings of words in one language have subtle (or glaring) different nuances than do the corresponding (or what are considered corresponding) words in another language. The English word love does not carry the exact meaning of the French amour (noun) or aimer (verb). Indeed as you can see in going from the English love to the French language you use different words depending on whether you are referring to the noun or the verb.

A translation from one language to another should not give rise to a single word but a word plus the necessary qualifiers to convey the nuanced meaning of the word in its original language.

Compounding the difficulty of attempting to convey the meaning of a word in one language through translation into another language is the impact the biases of the translator have and the effect the knowledge and skill of the translator has.

The biases, knowledge and understanding of the reader of the reader of the translation also have an impact, a significant impact, on the interpretation of the meaning or message of words.

“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

 Traveling Mercies by Anne Lamott [attribution: “my priest friend Tom”]

One must also recognize the effect that a lack of concepts can have not just on translation but on the form of the expression of the idea takes in the original language.

Take the Christian creation myth of the Universe being created in six days. The ideology of Creationism is based upon the words the Christian creation myth as set out in the bible being meant literally.

Yet, call to mind how little was known about our world and what was not known or understood about our planet, other planets, solar systems, galaxies, the Universe, physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc at that point in time that the Christian creation myth came into existence.

How would you explain the big bang to someone who had no concept of nothing?

In the beginning less than nothing existed, then a tiny spark appeared, causing an immense explosion, as the energy of the explosion cooled it gave birth to the elements the first generation of stars were formed from, the death of this first generation in novas and supernovas gave birth to the heavier elements contained in our generation of stars, planets……and by the way the elements human beings are made of – humans are made of star stuff. And the Universe is still expanding outwards from the initial explosion that was 15 billion years ago; and using a telescope you can look out into space and look back into that distant past.

How would you explain the big bang to someone who did not know the world rotates around the sun, some of the lights in the night skies are other planets in our solar system (what a solar system was), that the majority of lights in the night skies were stars whose light takes tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years to get to earth (by the way what is hundred, thousand, million, billion?)…….

You could not.

How many truly understand the big bang today? How many are comfortable with the idea of the big bang to have a degree of understanding? How many are overwhelmed with the ideas inherent in the big bang and seek simpler, more human/earth sized in scope explanations to cling to as an explanation of the origin of the Universe. How many find that comfort in the Christian (or another) creation myth?

Finally you have the fact that the Christian gospels were clearly written as theological documents in the context of early Christianity rather than historical chronicles and their authors showed little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life with the secular history of the age.

 

So, if attempting to use the bible as a ‘cookbook’ forces the assumption words can convey an exact meaning mires Christian churches and religions in the fallacy of words, and that the fallacy of words is not hard to see – for those who are not to blind to see – why are churches and religions that mire themselves in this fallacy of words so popular?

Because being a ‘cookbook Christian’ is easy.

Gilbert K. Chesterton was correct in his observation that “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Practicing Christians view the bible as a guide for a spiritual journey; a journey you start on by living your life, of behaving, by striving – through your actions – to become the Christ. And while this view may well be relatively easy to come to, walking the path, striving to become the Christ is a daily struggle requiring a focus on asking oneself how would Christ act in this situation? How do the words and behaviours of Christ tell me to act?

Christ’s words “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” are, for human beings, incredibly hard to take into your heat to live by.

To put living by Christ’s words, commands, behaviours and actions into perspective consider Oren Arnold’s Christmas gift suggestions: “To your enemy, forgiveness. To an opponent, tolerance. To a friend, your heart. To a customer, service. To all, charity. To every child, a good example. To yourself, respect.”

Were you among those who were of the opinion that the police should have captured the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter  so he could have been ‘properly tortured’ for his actions? Can (do) you forgive him? Do you want to bring back the death penalty, even though experience and recent history have clearly shown that doing so would result in the execution of innocent persons? Does “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette” justify taking innocent lives so you can reap vengeance on the guilty (or those you judge to be guilty)?

Practicing Christianity by striving to live your life by acting in accordance to the words, teachings, behaviours of Christ is not only hard it is very uncomfortable, often requiring you to take positions (against the death penalty) that are rather unpopular and that require you to stand against the herd.

The book “Religion for Atheists” suggests that atheists, as part of understanding the overpowering lure and hold churches and religions have for the so many, need to recognize that Christian religions and churches are, or have become, about satisfying human social needs. That churches and religions have become social clubs where you get together with people who share your mindset, pat each other on the back about how wonderful you are, holding forth about being saved by virtue of your membership in a church or religion, confabulation about your morally superior to those who don’t agree with you.

Although ……applied to Christian churches and religions, the psychiatric meaning of confabulation [“the replacement of a gap in a person’s memory by a falsification that he or she believes to be true”] contains a full measure of truth.

Being a member of a Christian church and/or religion holds several advantages over being a member of a Service Organizations [Kiwanis, etc]. Membership in a service organization is not limited to only those who agree with you and as a result what you choose to believe can face challenge. Service organizations work to improve the community, without making judgments as to worthiness. While service organizations serve to fill human social needs the are about service to the community and in serving the community these organizations perform a great deal of hard work.

Christianity is not about popularity, it is not about getting together with people of the same mindset and who agree with your thinking.

If we are all in agreement on the decision – then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.
Alfred P. Sloan

More than anything Christianity is not about being easy.

One of the ironies of the past year was the WWCD pencil invasion. For several weeks many of those belonging to our local Christian churches and religions were running around with pencils marked WWJD, treating them more in keeping with a shared in joke or handing them out to persons they judged in need of saving.

These individuals, churches, religions were focused on the words, not the actions and decision making process living your life within the bounds of what Christ would do demand.

Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often. Mark Twain

In the North of Abbotsford has arisen a fancy new Tower of Babel, the occupiers of which have cut their support to the food bank. My understanding of the reason they turned their back on the growing number of hungry in Abbotsford is that the hungry in Abbotsford are not Christian enough or the Food Bank is not Christian enough or some combination thereof.

What does the Christianity of either the Food Bank or those in need of food from the Food Bank have to do with anything?

Given the growing tide of hunger in our community is not the question that should be asked whether there is hunger?

Turning away from the hungry because they (or the Food Bank) are not Christian ‘enough’ screams “We are not Christians – no matter what we label ourselves.”

No person or group of persons who live the teachings, behaviours and actions of Christ could, much less would, chose to turn their backs on, deny love and help to, the growing numbers who suffer hunger in Abbotsford. Anyone who would, or does, turn their back on the hungry  makes a clear statement that whatever they may claim to the contrary, they are not Christian.

“However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?”  Buddha

Before the Christian churches and religions in Abbotsford, the province of BC and Canada waste time worrying about “putting Christ back” in Christmas or schools etc, they need to focus on” putting Christ back” in their churches, religions and themselves.