What have you got against Christianity?

I’m friends on Facebook with a gentleman who was one of the assistant ministers at a Protestant parish I used to attend. He has since become the vicar of a different parish in another part of the country. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to call him Father Tow.

A few weeks ago, I had a rather strange conversation with Father Tow. It was prompted by his posting the following image on Facebook:

Being a huge C.S. Lewis fan, I immediately recognized that this was a common misquotation. What Lewis actually wrote was:

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it, I see everything else.”

C.S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?”, The Weight of Glory

I therefore commented on the picture, saying that it’s a great quotation, but that it’s not quite what Lewis wrote.

Don’t like “Christianity”?!

I was therefore rather puzzled by Father Tow’s strange reply:

I know. I changed it! I’ve seen it changed elsewhere. I don’t like the term ‘Christianity’. I don’t believe in ‘Christianity’.

Father Tow

I replied that that it doesn’t seem right to me to share a quotation which one has changed to suit one’s own sensibilities and then to attach an author’s name to it and share it, even though that’s not actually what they wrote. If one insists on doing this sort of thing, I think it’s better to at least give the reader an indication that it has been altered by putting the changed word in square brackets: “I believe in [Christ] as I believe…”.

As an aside, the Grammar Nazi in me also didn’t like the fact that changing the noun in the quotation means the pronouns no longer agree. Christianity is an “it”, but Christ is a “He”. So, while I still don’t like it, it would have been better to render the quotation as follows:

“I believe in [Christ] as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see [Him], but because by [Him] I see everything else”

C.S. Lewis*

I ended by saying that I found the objection to “Christianity” rather curious. I said that it reminded me of those folks who say things like “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship”, a claim which I’ve found to be pretty untenable.

Christianity isn’t a religion?!

The second reply I received was equally strange:

It’s not a religion either. Its[sic] beyond religion. It’s the Way of Yeshua. He didn’t come to start a religion called Christianity. He came to announce the coming of the Kingdom. It is naughty of me to mess with Lewis’s words though! […]

Father Tow

I appreciated that Father Tow recognized that he probably shouldn’t be editing Lewis’ quotations. While I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind the rest of his reply, it did strike me as needlessly fussy. It just seemed that he was replacing perfectly serviceable, historical and venerable labels such as “Christianity” with ones of his own making like“The Way of Yeshua”, even if it has some Scriptural basis (Acts 19:23).

As for objecting to the term “religion”, if Sacred Scripture regards Christian belief and practice as a religion, surely that should be good enough for us? Why quibble over words which have been God-breathed?

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world

James 1:27

For 2,000 years, Christians have historically referred to their belief system as “Christianity” without this kind of fuss. This included great mystics such as St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila who undoubtably had the most intimate relationships with Jesus.

What about “Christian”?

I was sensing a theme at this point, so I wondered out loud what he thought of the term “Christian”. My suspicion was that he wasn’t a fan, probably preferring another of his own formulations, such as “Follower of the Way of Yeshua”.

Aside from the fact that the Early Church quickly embraced the name of “Christian”, we seen the early martyrs expressed no consternation over the name. For example, on his way to be thrown to wild beasts, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Romans:

“I only ask that you beg for me inward and outward strength, that I may not only be called a Christian, but truly found to be one”

St. Ignatius to the Romans (AD ~107)

I also pointed out that we also see the greatest theological minds of the Church regard “Christian” as the greatest of names. In Sermon 43, St. Gregory of Nazianzen (~AD 381) spoke about his youthful friendship with St. Basil and their shared goal:

“…our great pursuit, the great name we wanted, was to be Christians, to be called Christians”

St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Sermon 43 (AD ~381)

Unfortunately, I never received any confirmation from Father Tow on this point because he offered no further replies.

Changed Meaning?

However, one of Father Tow’s friends offered this comment about the word “religion”:

I feel that “religion” as used these days has changed meaning somewhat tending towards a boxed-in, rule following (or you’re damned) way of life.

Friend of Father Tow

I responded by saying that “religion” is a fine word, both etymologically and Scripturally, and I don’t see why it should be abandoned just because secularists use it as a pejorative. I reminded him that the name “Christian” most likely began life as a term of derision used by Pagans.

Rules rule!

In some forms of Protestantism there is a trendy Christian subculture which likes to speak against “rules”. This was behind his comment about being “boxed-in, rule following (or you’re damned) way of life“. Once again, I appreciate the sentiment behind the whole anti-rule-following outlook, but I really don’t think it makes much sense to speak like this. At its very worst, it’s Antinomian.

I asked him what Jesus said would happen if I didn’t forgive your neighbour? Would he regard this as a “rule”?

if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:15

Likewise, I asked him what Jesus said would happen if I ignored the poor? Would he regard this as a “rule”?

Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’  And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 25:44-46

I tried to explain that there are “rules” in even the most intimate of relationships. For example, consider the covenant of marriage. Here there are many “rules”. For example, one rule is that you will be intimate with your spouse and no other. However, far from being a negative, this “rule” protects the relationship and gives it life!

While I’m sure that the aversion to “Christianity”, “rules” and “religion” comes from a place of wanting to seek authenticity and to cast off cultural connotations and make Christianity more palatable and relatable to non-Christians, it just seems like pandering and I think it’s not a very defensible position intellectually.

Unfortunately, like Father Tow, I received no response to my reply.

Ooops…

I had written the article you are reading about a week and a half before it was due to be published. In the intervening time, Father Tow posted another quotation on Facebook:

Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage

Augustine of Hippo

I commented saying that it’s a beautiful quotation, often rendered: “Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are”. However, I also pointed out that I’ve read some of St. Augustine’s works and this doesn’t really sound like him. Not only that, I’ve never seen this quotation with a citation attached pointing to the work from which the quotation is supposedly drawn. So, while it’s a beautiful quotation, it’s very likely not St. Augustine.

Within an hour, Father Tow had unfriended me on Facebook. I’m sure it’s annoying to have someone point out your alleged mistakes, but shouldn’t that just motivate you to take greater care about checking your sources?