The Christian Paradox

July 27, 2005 1:01 AM

The Christian Paradox Bill McKibben in Harper's examines why America is "simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior."
posted by robliberal (84 comments total)

Almost no one behaves like I think I would behave if I thought some guy was watching me, reading my mind, and deciding by my smallest actions whether I deserved the eternal fiery pit or the eternal cloud.

If you aren't living a lot like one of the apostles, I don't think you actually believe what you claim to believe.
posted by pracowity at 1:20 AM on July 27, 2005

Socrates (not an apostle) said that the "unexamined life is not worth living". Perhaps the wider question is why so few Americans give any wider thought to any of the things they do. As for religion, it's just a band aid on cancer.
posted by rhymer at 1:45 AM on July 27, 2005

Perhaps the wider question is why so few Americans give any wider thought to any of the things they do.

Because that might lead to seeing the other side, a. k. a. moral relativism. And we don't want that, do we?
posted by uncle harold at 1:48 AM on July 27, 2005

This looks like the beginning of a great essay...

any chance we could get the rest of it so we could, you know, discuss it?
posted by deafmute at 3:03 AM on July 27, 2005

I just finished reading it (thanks for the free subscription sis). The author's take was quite refreshing and did a good job at putting a finger on where a lot of the hypocrisy in the USA is coming from. It wasn't afraid to point out that more secular countries are doing a much better job at helping out the poor (love thy neighbour), eliminating capital punishment (turn the other cheek) compared to the USA, which has become focused on more divisive issues (abortion, gay marriage).

I did find it lacking in suggestions of how the USA could turn things around besides waking up. In fact he pretty much says that unless everyone gets Amish it's not going to change (yeah, maybe I read a bit too much into that last part). The last sentence did a nice job of summing it up though:

When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same.

I think this article should be read from the pulpit of each and every church, even if it means only 33% of the population will hear it.
posted by furtive at 3:48 AM on July 27, 2005

It's a lot easier to talk the talk, than it is to walk the walk.
posted by caddis at 4:21 AM on July 27, 2005

I'm with deafmute. This article is tiny and nothing and old news. Folks in the media and politics treat Republican Bran Christianity (TM) like real Christianity because there are too many of them to piss of. (That and, admittedly, there IS a strong heritage of Christians behaving like marauding assholes) The right clings to Christianity cheifly because there's no other way it could look down on other people.

This article is trying to poke holes in the emperors clothes.

Say, did anyone catch Rick Sanatorum on the Daily show a few nights ago?
posted by es_de_bah at 4:46 AM on July 27, 2005

"nothing 'but' old news"

sorry.
posted by es_de_bah at 4:47 AM on July 27, 2005

All continuing issues (terrorism, abortion, religious hypocrisy etc.) are old news and should receive no further coverage. Not.
posted by caddis at 4:52 AM on July 27, 2005

Hi read the article in the print (OMG!) version and I think it has a lot more depth than the barrage of statistics at the beginning would suggest. I'm not sure it's clear from the preview, but the author describes himself as a christian.

Definitely worth getting the free preview (or picking up a print version).

The problem is, there is no way to give this criticism to the people who need it without seeming like a godless asshole. Everyone has his head in the sand. It goes the other way too--if you use the name 'Jesus' in a conversation, you're quite likely to be written off as a religious nut. Anyone got any ideas on how we can start a civil discourse between the red and blue people?
posted by thejimp at 4:55 AM on July 27, 2005

This is a magazine well worth the subscription price. Do it.

Once again, here's the difference between religiosity and Christianity.
Ain't nothing Christ-like about these false prophets of power in the leadership and their demagoguery.
Let's have another "prosperity theology" sermon about how Jesus loves us best 'cause we own more stuff and have more money and hates anyone who is different.
posted by nofundy at 5:05 AM on July 27, 2005

If only God were alive to see this
-best Simpsons quote ever
posted by furtive at 5:10 AM on July 27, 2005

Say, did anyone catch Rick Sanatorum on the Daily show a few nights ago?

I did, and wondered why Stewart didn't call Santorum on his premise that if we allow gay marriage, children will somehow be "in danger." His whole attempt to ground the anti-gay argument in secular terms is based on this idea of "danger," but there's no evidence that kids raised by gay people will be in "danger." Meanwhile, kids living on the brink of poverty are in danger; kids sent to Iraq are in danger.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:26 AM on July 27, 2005

robliberal please don't post 1/2-links.

"Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture."

When I read the quoted text in the front page post the thing that immediately came to mind was the 'cultural capitalist imperative', in which the overarching necessity for striving, competing and winning lays down an attractive confabulation framework.

More simply, it seems to me that the tenets of capitalism have seeped into the way people relate to religion. As such, it would explain why so many people want to be seen as religious so that it reflects well upon them (or so they think) but it's just another token gesture on a bedrock of ignorance. Many who claim to be religious are in fact, not.

See, I don't think religious hypocrisy is realistically any different in America or elsewhere, it's just that IMignorantO, there's more pressure for people to declare themselves as such, particularly with the present administration. So I wonder if many of the statistics gathered start from a false premise --- too many of the responders are small 'r' religious, as compared say to other industrialized nations. It's just a thought.
posted by peacay at 5:35 AM on July 27, 2005

I, too, love my Harper's subscription. This article reminds me

a) that the US is founded on a perversion of Christianity (Ben Franklin, the Protestant work ethic, Salem, etc.),

b) how it's not that hard to engage today's neochristians in debate on their own terms because, strictly speaking, they do so many unchristian things, and

c) of Muslims trying to tell the world that terrorists and fanatical Islamic fundamentalists are not "the real Islam."
posted by swift at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2005

Note that "God helps those who help themselves" is a proverb that can be traced back to Aesop, so that it predates Christianity, Joan of Arc (who used it during her trial), La Fontaine (who got it from Aesop) and Benjamin Franklin.
posted by elgilito at 5:57 AM on July 27, 2005

Metafilter - Nothing But Old News
posted by nofundy at 6:06 AM on July 27, 2005

What do you know? Count me (formerly) among the 75% of Americans who thought "God helps those who help themselves" was biblical. I suppose my ignorance is a bit more forgiveable, though, since I don't profess to belong to any Abrahamic religion. But regardless, I've always thought the principle applied less to wealth-grabbing ubercapitalists than to people like the woman overheard at the supermarket saying, "I walked over to the door, but it didn't open, so I prayed to God to open it for me, and it still didn't open."
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:16 AM on July 27, 2005

any institutionalized religion is a chain of command, there's nothing spiritual about it.
posted by Substrata at 6:22 AM on July 27, 2005

Say, did anyone catch Rick Sanatorum on the Daily show a few nights ago?

indeed! I was expecting a bloodbath, but I guess that's what shitty pundit shows have done to me. I just wish jon had chimed in with, "except gay people!" when slick rick was talking about segregation and how we need to treat everyone equally.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:27 AM on July 27, 2005

Funny, I just read a different article on the same topic yesterday. Not fit for posting (nor do I have the link handy) as it got a little heavy-handed, but it did tackle the religious right's support of war and intolerance, which I thought were deserving points.
posted by dreamsign at 6:31 AM on July 27, 2005

Because that might lead to seeing the other side, a. k. a. moral relativism. And we don't want that, do we?

No, we don't.
posted by Necker at 6:32 AM on July 27, 2005

Christianity and Islam both emphasize how foolish arrogance is. Devout Christians and devout Muslims virtually glow with dignified humility. And it seems that the Christians and the Muslims who are stirring up chaos in the world are the ones who are so arrogant that they think their goals are important enough that they supersede the necessity to follow what God taught them. "God said not to do this, but I have a really important goal so I can do it anyway." or "God said to be charitable, but those are just filthy, lazy/decadent, evil ________s, so I don't have to be charitable to them.

Then there are the people who have never studied their own religion, or have studied it shallowly, gaining a long list of memorized facts, but without deep understanding and appreciation. For these people, religion affects what holidays they celebrate but has little or no effect on how they live their lives, how they see the world, how they treat others. It is no more than a tribal affiliation. If these people are well-adjusted, they don't particularly cause problems for anyone. But there are small minded people who will grasp at any straw in order to feel superior to others. Some use race, some use nationality, and some "tribally religious" people use religious affiliation. They can despise the other, thereby feeling superior. Maybe some even feel that the other is disposable, so they can feel justified in blowing up a subway car or a holy city.

The problem on both sides is arrogance, either a kind of arrogance about the "superiority" of one's tribe-religion, or the arrogance of believing that one's own goals are superior to God's teachings.
posted by leapingsheep at 6:36 AM on July 27, 2005

I'm sorry that the whole article isn't online. The print edition is quite good. I completely agree with the premise: "Asking Christians what Christ taught is not a trick...This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers."
posted by OmieWise at 6:41 AM on July 27, 2005

not that hard to engage today's neochristians in debate on their own terms

disagree, all they got to do is pull some hermeneutic crap out of some random whack book/chapter of the bible and their argument is backed to their satisfaction.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:42 AM on July 27, 2005

Uncle Harold, there is a difference between toleration and moral relativism. The former is admirable, the latter is an inconsistent philosophical position developed by well-meaning but ill-equipped anthropologists.
posted by Tullius at 6:42 AM on July 27, 2005

Bah! Toleration is not in my vocabulary.
posted by dreamsign at 6:56 AM on July 27, 2005

I can't read the whole article, but I thought it was somewhat interesting.

My main problem is that it is based on tangible success, such as the percentage of people living in poverty, and not on the actions of individual Christians, which is what the message of Jesus is about. A better way of looking at the extent to which American Christians are living out the teachings of Christ would be to look at charitable giving by Christians. I don't have any specific numbers on that, but I know that religious Americans outgive non-religious Americans.

When he does focus on personal behavior, it's in ways that are mostly removed from the actual teachings of Christ. Christ never said anything about watching your weight and his figures about divorce do not show much difference between the United States and Europe(5/10 vs 4/10?)

If the point of the article is to point out that American largely identify as Christians, despite the fact that they aren't really, than I guess I can see the point. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the behavior of those people we can be fairly sure are actual Christians, the 33% who attend church regularly.

Also, the fundamental teaching of Christianity is not "give to the poor" or "visit the prisoner." It is "Christ is God", the rest is basically just details.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:03 AM on July 27, 2005

es_de_bah: Republican Bran Christianity (TM)

High in fiber, low in nutrients. Makes for great bowel movements. Leaves you feeling clean inside while you dump shit on everyone around you.
posted by ToasT at 7:03 AM on July 27, 2005

Uncle Harold: Because that might lead to seeing the other side, a. k. a. moral relativism. And we don't want that, do we?

Since when is "moral relativism" the "other side"? You've been reading too much anti-leftist propaganda. The popular culture's conception of "moral relativism" is a boogey man used to scare people away from complex ethical analysis. No respectable ethicist has ever advocated anything known as "moral relativism"--although I'd say suspending the legal rights of American citizens like Jose Padilla, and ignoring the Geneva Conventions because you've decided they don't count anymore is just about the most ringing endorsement of "moral relativism" I've ever seen.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 7:08 AM on July 27, 2005

Also, the fundamental teaching of Christianity is not "give to the poor" or "visit the prisoner." It is "Christ is God", the rest is basically just details.

So Christ's actual teachings count for nothing then? You just like the fact that he let himself get beaten up and murdered by a bunch of thugs so you wouldn't have to feel guilty about anything else ever again? Christ threw the money changers out of the temple. Christ taught that we should love our enemies as we love ourselves, and he showed it by his life's example--allowing himself to be tormented and killed rather than fighting back against the Romans. How does that even begin to approach the bastardized Judaism-lite that modern American Christian's believe?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 7:17 AM on July 27, 2005

thankyou, ToasT, for making the best of my slip. I think we might be onto something, too. This guy helped invent corn flakes with his brother. ANd I wonder if they have any relationship to this guy, who shares the family middle and last name.

Only sugar cereals are free from the vast right wing breakfast cereal conspiracy.
posted by es_de_bah at 7:21 AM on July 27, 2005

Amen leapingsheep! If we all practiced a little more humility the world would be a far, far better place.
posted by caddis at 7:22 AM on July 27, 2005

Also, the fundamental teaching of Christianity is not "give to the poor" or "visit the prisoner." It is "Christ is God", the rest is basically just details.

Really? I was always taught as a child that the overwhelming message is, "Love thy neighbor." The author's not even close to wrong.
posted by raysmj at 7:24 AM on July 27, 2005

I just wish jon had chimed in with, "except gay people!" when slick rick was talking about segregation and how we need to treat everyone equally.

Absofuckinglutely. I almost did a spit take when Santorum said that. No doubt Stewart was about to point out the obvious, but it would have been too easy.
posted by docpops at 7:33 AM on July 27, 2005

From es_de_bah's link to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg:

"Is God a man with two arms and legs like me?" he demanded. "Does He have eyes, a head? Does He have bowels?"

"No," the Adventist answered, deeply offended.

"Well I do," cried Kellogg," and that makes me more wonderful than He is!"

I think we've hit the breakfast-cereal / twisted-religious-fundamentalist-mindset connection jackpot.
posted by ToasT at 7:39 AM on July 27, 2005

I agree with the arrogance vs humility bit.
Humility is exactly what's missing. The arrogance doesn't come directly from pride of power, tho. In Christ, Christians have an everlasting-martyr persona. No matter how powerful they become, they are ALWAYS the oppressed. The same goes for Judaism and Islam (I suspect Christianity and Islam inhereted the idea from the often set-upon Jews).

So while the high-level neocons may operate on hubris, they get the larger Christian community to go along with them by tapping this deep-seeded feeling of oppression. To the oppressed, any action is justifiable, because the opressed are desperate. This is how suicide bombers convince themselves to blow themselves up. This is how Christians convince themselves to bomb the shit out of cities full of civilians and (hopefull) a few terrorists.
posted by es_de_bah at 7:40 AM on July 27, 2005

Bulgaroktonos, I'd love to see any proof you have for that giving statistic. I'd be even more interested to see the giving statistics broken out with gifts-to-ones-own-church removed. My gut feeling is that if you take out church support donations, Christian giving is actually smaller than that non-Christians.
posted by Invoke at 7:40 AM on July 27, 2005

all-seeing eye dog, Christ's teachings matter, but they matter because he is considered to be God. It is the acceptance of this fact that is acceptance of Christianity. At least according to most Protestant teaching, which the central issue in looking at American Christianity.

Under this general understanding, if a person genuinely believes in Christ's divinity, it should follow that one will attempt to live out his teachings, but that act is secondary to the initial acceptance.

As for raysmj, that is Christ's overwhelming message for dealing with the world, but Christ's most important message is the one of salvation for his followers.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:40 AM on July 27, 2005

The problem on both sides is arrogance, either a kind of arrogance about the "superiority" of one's tribe-religion, or the arrogance of believing that one's own goals are superior to God's teachings.

What about the arrogance involved in claiming to know God's will (or teachings, if you prefer) in the first place? I take genuine humility to involve admitting when we lack good reasons for belief, and I've yet to discover good reasons for accepting the "revealed" truths of any one holy text over any other.

I read the print edition of the Harper's article, and I think it raises several valid points. While I may disagree with the notion that Christianity represents a novel approach to ethics, much less an approximation of metaphysical truth(s), I would hope that some good could come from pointing out blatant hypocrisy, whatever its guise.

Short version: walk the walk, folks. If I see a fish sticker on your bumper, you better be able to tell me your carpenter's stance on, say, divorce if you're going to lecture me about "the Judeo-Christian bedrock of Anglo-American jurisprudence."
posted by joe lisboa at 7:44 AM on July 27, 2005

Actually, Jesus said that both those commandments were important. Love thy neighbor was the second of his "most important commandments," but not in a "coming in second place" manner.
posted by raysmj at 7:49 AM on July 27, 2005

Invoke, the figure I'm remembering comes for the Independent Sector organization, from 2001 I think, that found that Americans who give to religious organizations also give more to secular organizations than those who just give to secular organizations at these households account for around 80% of all charitable giving.

Given the difficulty of determining, who "is religious" for statistical purposes, looking at people who gave money to religious organizations seems like a reasonable way of comparison.

Also, why do you want to remove gifts to your own church? I feel like giving money to a community of which you are a part, so that it can be used to do good in that community is a great idea.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:50 AM on July 27, 2005

Since when is "moral relativism" the "other side"? You've been reading too much anti-leftist propaganda. The popular culture's conception of "moral relativism" is a boogey man used to scare people away from complex ethical analysis. No respectable ethicist has ever advocated anything known as "moral relativism"--although I'd say suspending the legal rights of American citizens like Jose Padilla, and ignoring the Geneva Conventions because you've decided they don't count anymore is just about the most ringing endorsement of "moral relativism" I've ever seen.

That was my point - forgot a sarcasm tag :)
posted by uncle harold at 7:50 AM on July 27, 2005

Well, it all began with the fact that Christianity was hijacked by Christendom some 18 or 19 centuries ago.
posted by spock at 7:51 AM on July 27, 2005

I think there are a few factors.

First, peacay mentions "cultural capitalist imperative" as a source of the current brand of Christianity in America. Frankly, I think it's the other way around. If you look even superficially at the ideology of the Puritans and other Puritanesque religious groups that fled (key term there -- fled. Which implies that many of the people of other religious groups who remained in Europe had opposing views) to America, you'll see that it's the yeast, so to speak, that rose the Capitalism bread. Self-sacrifice, work as the point of living, and individual salvation all lead easily towards the individualistic capitalist society that we live in today. The only change is that consumerism has somehow been nailed on as an attachment.

Bulgaroktonos
show much difference between the United States and Europe(5/10 vs 4/10?)

This is where math is helpful here. If there were only 10 marriages per year, then the difference would be minimal. But these are ratios, so that 1/10 represents a lot of people. It means that the divorce rate is 25% higher in the US than in Europe. That doesn't seem insignificant to me. If you knew that people who drove in car model X were 25% more likely to die in a car crash, would you drive one?

Also, the fundamental teaching of Christianity is not "give to the poor" or "visit the prisoner." It is "Christ is God", the rest is basically just details.

This is a teaching of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity, not of all people who follow the Christian faith. I think it is this theology that leads to behavior that some term as "not Christian". And if you believe that Christ is God, wouldn't you want to show some respect to his teachings?

I think the real and harsh truth of the matter is that most people just do not have the spiritual juice to engage themselves personally and wholly into a connection with God. Jesus's teachings are all well and good, but people want big, strong gods that either punish you or reward you, and demand sacrifice and belief. For Christians, the sacrifice is symbolic -- Jesus's blood and body serves as the sacrificial lamb. This isn't just my whacked out theory; I'm pretty sure most theologians would agree and in any case Jesus symbolism is pretty much identical to the symbols of sacrifice.

For most people (myself included, I must admit) and the way they involve themselves spiritually, it doesn't matter what religion they are actually affiliated with. From the standpoint of behavior and belief, almost any religion would do. Most people like the idea of worshipping some kind of God and following rules s/he has set down -- even if, in the case of Jesus, he didn't actually set them (As far as I know, Jesus said nothing about homosexual behavior and definitely nothing about marriage).

It really wasn't until I visited China that I started to realize this. When there, I visited both Taoist and Buddhist temples and was very interested in what I saw. To begin with, the similarities between the two were more striking than their differences. These two religions, which are in ways very different in ideology, had virtually identical looking statues (idols), and identical looking altars where incense was burning. An expert in Asian religions would certainly notice the differences, but in essence behavior was the same: devout Chinese would bow or kneel before a given statue a fixed number of times (often instructed in what to do by a priest). They would purchase incense and burn it on the altar. So, the religions were shaped by culture rather than the other way around.

The reason that this was particularly interesting was that, if you think about it, neither Buddhism or Taoism seems all that god-centered. Both are more philosophies than behaviors, and their leaders' teachings centered on meditation and inward focus. And yet, there the temples were, filled with gods that people bent down an worshipped as such.

So I think there's an instinct to worship in this way. Even religions which seem explicitly not god-centered will acquire gods and people will focus their time and energy on worshipping them rather than on the teachings of the religion.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:57 AM on July 27, 2005

Bulgaroktonos: why do you want to remove gifts to your own church?

Other than for legal purposes why should giving money to enlarge your clubhouse, pay its leaders and workers salaries, or pay missionaries to harass people be considered charity?

There are no needy recipeints of this charity.

To outsiders this "charity" is as bout as helpful as diners who leave prayer cards instead of money as tips at restaurants.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:05 AM on July 27, 2005

Death, first of all, my point on the marriage numbers was that the fact that 10% of marriages end in divorce in the United States that statistically speaking would not have in Europe(assuming his numbers are right, which is very a tricky subject because of second marriages, which kind of throw things off). This is statistically significant, in a literal way, but just barely. It can easily be chalked up to the very fact he mentions(fewer marriages in Europe) and really illuminates his main point very little.

I agree that if I accept Christ I should want to follow his teachings, but my point was that looking at how well someone follows Christ's teachings is not a good judge of how Christian they are, unless one give predominance to the primary teaching, which is that Christ is God.

As for that being the doctrine of a "fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity" the doctrine I've outlined is basically Sola Fida and it's the basis for (as I said) all Protestant Christianity, maybe you don't like it, but it's a far more mainstream than the "fundamentalists and evangelicals" you want to single out.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:10 AM on July 27, 2005

Monkey, do you know that money given to churches only helps the members of the church? Every church I've ever been to have also run charities that helped the poor. When I put money in the collection plate on Sunday mornings I was giving a lot of it to the Church sure, but I was also funding those charities.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:12 AM on July 27, 2005

Does anyone have any more links dealing with this topic? I'm kind of fascinated by the whole discussion.
posted by jefeweiss at 8:12 AM on July 27, 2005

Deathalicious: Yep. It's a variation on the "cargo cult" phenomenon.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:17 AM on July 27, 2005

how well someone follows Christ's teachings is not a good judge of how Christian they are, unless one give predominance to the primary teaching, which is that Christ is God.

So if I strain really hard to make myself believe Christ was God more than you do, does that make me a better Christian? How the hell do you propose to judge "how Christian" I am w/out reading my mind then?
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:25 AM on July 27, 2005

Bulgaroktonos: I didn't say tithes are kept entirely within a church, I just mentioned those aspects that are hard to regard as charity.

If you have any figures on percentages I would love to hear it. In particular what part of total income finds its way directly to the needy (in terms of buying food, etc).

My guess would be it is way less than the 10% tithe that some groups are are expected to contribute to their churches.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:29 AM on July 27, 2005

Monkey, note that you said "There are no needy recipeints of this charity", this implies that the tithe people give in church is not being used to any charitable end, when in many cases it is.

Since you admit that this statement is wrong and some amount of money goes to the needy, how is this that much different than the United Way paying for infrastructure needed for it's activities? Giving to a church might be a more inefficient way of getting money to the poor, since the church has other goals, but it is a similar issue.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:36 AM on July 27, 2005

It doesn't actually tell us anything about the behavior of those people we can be fairly sure are actual Christians, the 33% who attend church regularly. Bulgaroktonos

If, by "Christian," you mean people who follow the teachings of Christ, I don't necessarily think that people who attend church regularly can be counted in this group. Think: The Aryan Church of Jesus Christ. And that's just one of the more extreme examples.

The print version of this article is much, much more than the teaser in the link. I would highly recommend picking up this edition of Harper's not only for this article, but for the article, "None Dare Call It Stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press" by Mark Crispin Miller.

Boy, talk about starting a flaming shit war! That article would get some of us ballistic.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:39 AM on July 27, 2005

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged - God

If everyone could just follow that one...
posted by AspectRatio at 8:42 AM on July 27, 2005

Deathalicious: ... "cultural capitalist imperative" as a source of the current brand of Christianity in America. Frankly, I think it's the other way around.

I agree historically. But I was musing (?rambling) about what feeds this phenomenon whereby a large number of people claim to belong to a religion so they project a veneer of wellroundedness. To me, the cloying desperate hands of capitalism outstripped religion as the prime motivating factor a long time ago. People assume a religious cloak because displaying themselves as better than the sum of their parts say, is what their competitoconsumeristic upbringings has instilled as a way ahead.

It's a slight derail I know, but if it's true (that a lot of people lie because they think they should or that they will appear better etc) then all these studies portraying USA as religiously hypocritical compared to everyone else, fall flat.
posted by peacay at 8:45 AM on July 27, 2005

While I may disagree with the notion that Christianity represents a novel approach to ethics

Have to disagree. The Christian ethical formulation popularly known as "The Golden Rule" (often translated as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") was an extremely sophisticated ethical model that pre-saged Kant's Categorical Imperative. I think it's funny how often modern American Christians overlook Christ's own teachings on moral conduct and focus instead on the Ten Commandments (which aren't uniquely Christian teachings at all, but originated in Judaism and are now common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Not that your average "Devout Christian" knows this or even cares.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:52 AM on July 27, 2005

Jim Wallis on the Daily Show awhile ago discussing the same topic (can't link directly - go to Jim Wallis interview). There's one inexplicable mention of the possibility that Jon may be a prophet because he's a funny Jew, but other than that it's quite enjoyaresting.
posted by leapingsheep at 8:52 AM on July 27, 2005

Bulgaroktonos: Since you admit that this statement is wrong

I don't. Learn to read. Go back and figure out what the antecedent to "this charity" is.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:53 AM on July 27, 2005

OK, I looked up the study Bugaroktonos mentioned. It does support what he (?) says, which is that religious people give more, however, it does not adequately answer the question about whether their money is going to help people or to "enlarge their clubhouse". When reading these stats, it helps to know that the average family donation is approx. $1,620.

Quoting the study referenced above:

"Faith and Philanthropy reveals:

* Over 85 percent of religious-giving households support secular organizations;
* Fifty-two percent (52%) of all households give to both religious congregations and secular organizations, but those households account for 81 percent of all donations;
* Households that give to both types of institutions give more to religion ($1,391) compared to households that only give to religion ($1,154); and
* Fifty-five percent (55%) of dual-giving households give to at least two other kinds of organizations."
posted by Invoke at 9:02 AM on July 27, 2005

I don't really want to get into an argument about how unclear your statement was, but for future reference you might want to consider a structure like "these are not needy recipients of this charity" and avoid the blanket "there are no" statements that tend to make your statements automatically false.

The point is, you have not provided a single argument in favor of the idea that giving to one's own church is not charity except that it is inefficient, which is true of pretty much every charity. You've also tastefully ignored the fact that givers to religious charities are more generous, even to secular charities, than those who give only to secular groups. At this point I'm not sure what you're even talking about, except perhaps working through some bitterness about organized religion.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:08 AM on July 27, 2005

I guess it depends on how you look at the concept of "charity." Is giving money to your alma mater to enlarge the football program the same as giving to a soup kitchen? They might both be donations, but are they both equal donations in the Christian sense?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:19 AM on July 27, 2005

Except that many soup kitchens are run by religious organizations.
posted by occhiblu at 9:21 AM on July 27, 2005

Great post which makes me sorry I let my Harpers subscription lapse. I think part of the problem is that American Christians are exposed to too few voices. It is a matter of marketing 101. Coke strives to dominate the soft drink category by increasing shelf space, i.e. Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, Coke Zero are added to the shelf at the supermarket to force off the selections of competitors. Take a trip to a Christian bookstore and you will see shelves filled by very few "brands" -- Dobson, LaHaye, Warren. These dominant brands define the category, reflecting at times narrow perspectives, i.e. apocalyptic and political. If you want St. Augustine, you'll probably have to special order. American Christians are getting only cola flavored drinks to choose from if I can continue to pound the analogy.

Discussion items regarding humilty, self-examination and tribalism are insightful, thank you. Thank goodness, no knee-jerk tribalism, lack of reasoned examination, and self-righteous close-mindedness exists on this site. Christians have apparently cornered the market on that.
posted by offmylawn at 9:22 AM on July 27, 2005

What's your point? Is giving to a soup kitchen run by a religious organization better than giving to a secular one?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:22 AM on July 27, 2005

Except that many soup kitchens are run by religious organizations.

And most religious organizations use their charitable programs to do aggressive marketing for their particular brand of Christianity. To the modern church, charitable efforts are typically part of "outreach programs" intended to provide good PR and draw new members into the Church, thus fattening the Church's personal coffers, and giving church leaders the extra spending money to spring for new Moen faucets in the restrooms.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:27 AM on July 27, 2005

My point was just that your analogy isn't quite right -- giving to a church doesn't simply support its members (its "alumni") but does go to things like soup kitchens, which you seem to be claiming is the model of a deserving charity (as opposed to club houses or football programs).

I think this argument's a bit of a red herring, however. The article's discussing national policy, and, as national policy goes, the US sucks at doing anything productive to alleviate suffering and poverty.
posted by occhiblu at 9:29 AM on July 27, 2005

All-seeing eye dog, I'm fairly anti-organized religion, so I'm not just trying to sit here and defend my congregation or whatever, but *how* does what you're saying *not* apply to other big charities as well? I give money to the HRC; they use part of it to fight homophobia and part of it to stage big galas. I give money to Move On, and part of it goes to "branding" in the form of supporting email lists and TV commercials.

I hardly think "branding" and "outreach" is unique to American christianity.
posted by occhiblu at 9:32 AM on July 27, 2005

All-seeing: Have to disagree with your disagreement. The "Golden Rule" is pre-Christian, as it features into Aesop and Platonic thought. (Hence the Noble Heathens of the Inferno.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:43 AM on July 27, 2005

I think we've hit the breakfast-cereal / twisted- religious- fundamentalist- mindset connection jackpot.

Amen, Brother ToasT. You know, of course, that graham crackers were invented by a guy hoping to keep people from thinking about lust.

See also Porn Flakes.
posted by lelilo at 9:48 AM on July 27, 2005

occhiblu: Good point. But to me the difference is one of emphasis: Do churches engage in charitable works primarily with the intent of promoting their take on Christianity, or do they do it solely in the interest of performing charitable works? It's probably hair-splitting, but to me, it's analogous to Wal-Mart donating some fraction of their profits to "community programs." If the intent is good PR and increased profile for the Church, then to me, that's a slightly less noble aim. Although, you're right; in practice, it doesn't make much difference.

klangklangston: Also a good point. I suppose the only counterpoint I might offer is that the Christian formulation was at least unique in its cultural context (that is, it represented a significant departure from the prevailing ethical formulations of its specific place and time).
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:13 AM on July 27, 2005

Occhiblu, not to speak for All-seeing eye dog, but my personal issue with "branding" and "marketing" in regards to charitable assistance is the conditions that come with the charity.

The Red Cross gives you blood. They don't require you to give blood. They'd like you to, and they have some weird little agendas of their own, but all you need to do to get blood is to need it.

Many Christian-run soup kitchens and shelters required attendees to listen to a sermon before or after they receive assistance.

I my mind, the teachings of Christ indicate that you help people regardless of what they believe or worship. That you do not tell them that their godless life has led to hunger, that you do not emphasize that they are going to hell in addition to being poor.

Too many Christians are what my former pastor used to call Cafeteria Christians. They want to pick and choose the bits of the church they like. They want to be able have the security of eternal life and Christ's love, but they don't want to put in the work. They want to die as a Christian but not live like one.

Of course, that's why I left the church. I realized that I couldn't accept all the tenets and therefore I could accept none of them.
posted by teleri025 at 10:25 AM on July 27, 2005

My understanding is that Quakers are particularly known for giving assistance without preaching along with it.

I remember reading something along these lines in reference to the Irish potato famine.... essentially some organizations required the hungry to renounce their flavor of Christianity in favor of that of the soup-providers in order to receive soup. People who went along in order to eat were derided as "Soupers" or some such.

The Quakers were known not to require such ridiculousness and merely got about the business of feeding people.
posted by beth at 10:52 AM on July 27, 2005

Death, first of all, my point on the marriage numbers was that the fact that 10% of marriages end in divorce in the United States that statistically speaking would not have in Europe(assuming his numbers are right, which is very a tricky subject because of second marriages, which kind of throw things off). This is statistically significant, in a literal way, but just barely.

I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken about what "statistical significance" means. A 10% difference would be "just barely" significant if we were only talking about a few hundred marriages. When there's a 10% difference in comparing populations of millions of marriages, that's a very, very, very statistically significant difference.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:53 AM on July 27, 2005

I realize I'm coming into this late, but here are two reasons why the "better givers" argument falls a little flat:

1. Of course those who give to religious and secular groups give more to the secular groups than secular-only givers -- it follows from their pattern of giving that they have more money to give. The study would be more revealing, IMO, if it reported percentages of income or net worth.

2. Donations in the form of tithing may be seen as compulsory, which hardly means the criteria of a charitable donation, much the way my income taxes are not a donation to the US Treasury.
posted by aaronetc at 11:33 AM on July 27, 2005

Thank you for clearing that up DevilsAdvocate -- and also, as my advisor likes to point when I choose my words poorly, there is no such thing as "barely" significant. Something either is statistically significant or it isn't.
posted by aaronetc at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2005

This article immediately reminded me of Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society. Niebuhr is probably best known as the author of the serenity prayer, but he was a powerful force within the development of welfare capitalism and the shift from liberal optimism to liberal pessimism.

There's a pretty good overview of his book here. The most applicable quote for this discussion from that article is "Reason can sharpen ethical sensitivity and practice, but, ironically, it can also sharpen the capacity to rationalize selfishness and the will to power—and, doubly ironic, sometimes both at the same time....The tendency to rationalize, Niebuhr argued, is especially pronounced in man’s 'collective life.' While individuals in their personal dealings often transcend self–interest (hence 'moral man'), nations dealing with other nations, or social classes with other social classes, have little or no capacity for self–transcendence ('immoral society')."
posted by cali at 11:40 AM on July 27, 2005

The Christian ethical formulation ... was an extremely sophisticated ethical model that pre-saged Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Mr. Klangston beat me to the punch, but yeah: not only was this particular Messianic sect of Judaism late to the Golden Rule party, I'd even quibble with your description of it as necessarily any more sophisticated than alternative formulations of the same basic idea. Confucius beats him to the punch by a good five centuries (give or take?).

the Christian formulation [of the Golden Rule] was at least unique in its cultural context (that is, it represented a significant departure from the prevailing ethical formulations of its specific place and time)

I have to disagree with this assessment, too. The Jewish thinker Hillel articulated an eerily similar ethical point before Dr. J even built his first birdhouse in dad's shop out back, as it were. I know there are far more qualified folks 'round here (qualified in the sense of: more familiar with Jewish thought than I am) who would be able to expound on this, so I'll leave it at that. Suffice to say, if the historical Jesus ever did, in fact, articulate a specific moral philosophy, it appears to have been culled from other sources. (This is excepting, of course, all of the metaphysical and theological stuffs that make his teachings uniquely Christain: i.e., claims to/of divinity, a blood sacrifice of atonement for humanity's "fallen" status, the threat of an eternity of torture for disbelievers, etc.)
posted by joe lisboa at 12:01 PM on July 27, 2005

joe lisboa writes "The Jewish thinker Hillel articulated an eerily similar ethical point"

Reb Hillel was approached by a man who was not a Jew. The man said, "If you can teach me the Torah while I stand here on one leg, I'll convert."
Reb Hillel said, "Treat your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is commentary. Now, go and learn."
The man, of course, converted.
posted by OmieWise at 12:59 PM on July 27, 2005

Thanks for the info, joe lisboa & co.--the point I was really hoping to emphasize though (ineffectively, it seems) is that the New Testament's formulation of "whatsoever ye doeth do so also unto..." etc. is arguably the closest thing to a succinct ethical code offered by Jesus himself (accepting the New Testament accounts), and it represents a more abstract (what I should have said instead of sophisticated) mode of ethical thought than that offered in the Old Testament, which tends to formulate ethical norms in terms of listing offenses, rather than taking a more principle-driven approach. (This is a borrowed idea, although I forget who I borrowed it from.) Anyway, the really critical piece is just that there's nothing especially Christian about the Ten Commandments at all, so it seems odd that displays of the Ten Commandments have become such a hot-button issue for some Christians.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:07 PM on July 27, 2005

In my fantasy world, a question that Bush is asked in a debate is, "You have said that Jesus Christ is your favorite philosopher. As best as you can, please explain to me what you feel his philosophy was." What would he say? Help the poor? Love your neighbor? Blessed are the peacemakers? Turn the other cheek? He who is without sin cast the first stone? The obvious follow-up question would be to ask him how the philosophy of Jesus is reflected in his policy making decisions.

People in the US who identify themselves as Christians, really are "Mosesians" or "Davidians." When they quote the bible or talk about its message, they invariably are choosing Old Testament quotes and passages. Some of those quotes or passages are rather embarrassing if read in context. They seldom will quote or talk about something from the New Testament. Even when they do that, they are pulling from Paul. They generally avoid the four gospels -- the only places in the bible that actually quote and tell the story of Jesus. One would think that if they are naming their religion after a person that they might be interested in what his teachings actually were.

I believe that the religion issue can be taken back from the Republicans by the Democrats. The Democrats need to show how their position on issues (help the poor, etc.) are much more consistent with the teachings of Christ than the Republicans positions are. The two biggest problems with this approach are that Democrats are more reluctant to talk about religion in the public arena and their position on abortion.
posted by flarbuse at 5:52 PM on July 27, 2005

Some people in this discussion are missing the point of the article, which is not that the church or those who attend it don't do their part (because a lot of them do). The point of the article was that although the USA mostly considers itself Christian, as a nation it does not act in a very Christian manner.

The rest of the article just makes a really good case backing that up. No need for Bulgaroktonos to act as an apologist for any Christians who happen to be doing their part. Instead you should be drumming up noise and calling out those who use a facade of Christianity as a pretext for their own personal agenda rather than the agenda of Jesus Christ.
posted by furtive at 5:53 PM on July 27, 2005

Humility is exactly what's missing.

I'd like to see more rendering unto Caesar and more of this:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them, for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him.

posted by kirkaracha at 7:02 PM on July 27, 2005

Ah, evidence of why salvation by works is such a better theory . . .

It is interesting to imagine a truly Christian nation: I've known a fair handful of Christians (mostly Catholic) who actually took Jeebus seriously, and though I'm not into the whole invisible superhero thing, I can't say I'd be sorry to see them running the country.

Lately, too, I've been struck by the social factor of so many evangelicals. The church is a community in a nation where true community can be hard to come by. I'm not terribly suprised to see people fall into something for community and then take on the belief--people like to fit in mostly. It's just too bad that the beliefs further balkanize the broader community. Why can't Quakers make megachurches that offer all the services suburbanites lack and maybe stop the dismantling that drives people into the divisive, arrogant churches?
posted by dame at 8:50 PM on July 27, 2005