Beyond Belief: Meet a "Practicing Christian"

Sounds weird, doesn't it? You can say "a practicing" or "an observant Jew" and it doesn't sound strange at all. But Richard Beck, the brilliant, thoughtful Christian psychologist who writes the blog Experimental Theology, makes the utterly fascinating point that Christianity has focused too much on "orthodoxy" -- right belief -- and not nearly enough on "orthopraxy" -- right practice.

Christians have lost (or never acquired in the first place) a robust notion of "Christian practice." [...]

Students in one of Beck's research classes at Abilene Christian University (where he's the department chair of psychology) objected when one respondent in a survey self-identified as Christian, a faithful churchgoer and participant, and an agnostic. Beck's response is so wonderful I can't resist quoting most of it. Don't let that be a substitute for going over there and reading his blog.

"How can you be actively engaged at church, call yourself a Christian, and be agnostic?" I responded, "Easy. You're a practicing Christian." The students responded, "What? How can you be a practicing Christian? If you don't believe then you are not a Christian." I responded, "Well, what about times when your faith fails or falters? Wouldn't continuing to practice Christianity during that dark time help keep your faith alive while you struggled? If so, practicing Christianity might actually be more important, more vital, than believing in Christianity."

Now I'm not suggesting that belief or orthodoxy are unimportant. I'm simply suggesting that most Christians have an anemic vision of Christian practice or Christian observance. Given my struggles with doubts, for much of the time I'm basically an observant Christian. Specifically, I believe all kinds of weird things. And I doubt a lot. And this chaotic mix of "belief" in my head is constantly shifting and changing. Thus, my Christian identity is anchored in my practice rather than my beliefs. In sum, a good portion of the time I'm an observant Christian, a practicing Christian. What do I believe? Well, who knows? What day is it? Because it will be different tomorrow...

I've encountered lots of people who are in a similar situation. And, because Christianity has de-emphasized practice, these people tend to feel marginalized, like they really aren't "Christian." Well, if they follow Jesus (i.e., orthopraxy), I think they get to own the title Christian even if they are agnostic or heterodox. For me, beliefs are like the tides, they ebb and flow. But how I treat my neighbor, how I practice my faith, should be constant and unchanging.

WOW.

Beck's idea of Christian practice also informs his summing up of the Kingdom in the one word "Welcome," instead of "love":

Here's why I love the word Welcome.

First, welcome is tangible and behavioral. Many would summarize the Kingdom vision with the word love. But love, as a word, has been distorted and diluted by overuse and misuse. Generally, love has gotten associated with feelings. But welcome is behavioral. It is an action. To welcome is to do something. [ . . . ]

Second, welcome affects the minutiae of life. It affects how I treat my wife, my children, my co-workers, and the strangers I meet today. Do my words, and face, and actions truly welcome these people? Do they feel acceptance and openness in my presence? As Christine Pohl points out, welcome and hospitality are about recognizing the fundamental humanity of the person. Do I convey this to those who encounter me? [ . . . ]

Finally, although welcome affects the details of life, it also scales up to encompass the larger issues of social justice. Welcome isn't just about my encounter with you in a supermarket. It is also sociological and global. How does my city of Abilene welcome the poor? How does the world welcome the newborn child? Social justice, to me, is about welcome on the global scale.

This is so good.

Comments

[geoduck2]

I think religious practice is a really interesting subject. And it has been undervalued, perhaps because of our modern emphasis on reading the Bible verus other forms of religious practice. (going to church/ other religious actions/ singing psalms/ the religious meanings of everyday life, ect.)

[DEAN BERRY -- REAL CHRISTIAN, REAL AMERICAN]

THE CFR MUST GO, FOR AMERICA'S SAKE. http://deanberryministries.org/
DINOBERRY@FRONTIERNET.NET

[Tom Strong]

Refreshing.

I've wondered sometimes if Jews shouldn't just declare Christians to be Jewish - members of a large, somewhat ungainly Jewish sect (the Jews for Jesus I suppose). Some Christians might object, but I think if they started seeing themselves as Jews, it might lead to a great reduction in anti-Semitism.

[amba]

My friend who's an Assemblies of God minister wears a Jewish star with a cross in the middle. She's very taken with the fact that Jesus was Jewish and that the Jews were God's chosen people. She'd be receptive to the notion that Gentile Christians become honorary Jews through Jesus. She sometimes attends services given by "Messianic Jewish" rabbi/ministers (rabbisters?), and when she sees Hassidic Jews walking down the street she'll sometimes walk up to them and say, "Jesus loves you!"

[karen]

Tom- i was sorta under the impression that the Jewish wouldn't like that very much.

Do you think that Jews can be anti-Christian? I feel we share the same roots of our Faith, but for Christians to become Jewish would be highly insulting to Jews(you). Just my h(umble)O.

I also think that having receptive Popes to the great value of Jewish Tradition, Faith & sacrifice- as JPII and Benedict XVI- can visibly point out how absolutely stupid it is to be Christian & anti-semitic.

In my Church, we have special collections that benefit overseas education ormissions. It may seem unfortunate to a lot of people that help and education are connected to religion, but i feel our dollars do good things for less fortunate folk. It does seem that it takes the place of Christian grass roots efforts to get out in society and ~do good~, but i think that throwing $$$$ at things is the American way- added to realpc's baseball and amba's popcorn.

[karen]

ministers/rabbis = minirabbis :0)?

[Tom Strong]

karen,

Look at the story amba told about her friend, and think about your question again. If Jews sometimes seem anti-Christian to you, it may have a lot to do with the actions of people like amba's friend.

No offense, but telling an observant Jew that "Jesus loves them" is a form of assault. It may not always be intended as such, but it is clearly a challenge to their received beliefs and traditions. And even as a fairly non-observant Jew, I can tell you that it is quite insulting, and can border on anti-Semitism.

Catholics, to their credit, rarely do this, and I think the Catholic church is generally more sensitive to matters of Christian-Jewish relations than are evangelicals. See here, for instance.

[Tom Strong]

So why do I think about the possibility of making Christians "honorary" Jews? Because I think people like amba's friend might be *challenged* by this approach, even if they first take it as an honor. Her subtle bias against Jews begins with her identification as being "other" than a Jew. She may tell herself that she loves Jews, but she clearly doesn't identify with what it means to be Jewish. That's what I want to break down.

That said, I'm not really advocating this approach. There are a lot of obvious holes in it.

[Mr. Grouchypants]

If telling an observant Jew that Jesus loves them is a form of assault bordering on anti-Semitism, then wouldn't it also be considered a form of assault to challenge the beliefs of Christians that believe it is their commission to tell everyone about Jesus?

And would it be anti-Semitic to tell an observant Jew that there isn't a god? That would certainly challenge his or her traditions.

[amba]

Unlike many (even fairly non-observant) Jews, I regard Jesus as a fellow Jew and feel quite warmly towards him. But then, I tend to think that the teachings of the great belong to everyone.

[Tom Strong]

mr. gp,

No, and maybe. Context matters, and I probably should have made that clearer in my post. Simply put, there is a long history of Christians using their commission and greater numbers to oppress and intimidate Jews and other religious minorities. In the free world, there is no such history of the reverse - Christians being oppressed for spreading the Word. There is such a history in totalitarian countries like China and the USSR, as well as Rome of course. But those are all far removed from the everyday reality of most Westerners.

Beyond that, I'd advise evangelical Christians to understand that their commission, at least as frequently implemented, is actually offensive. I don't mean that in a derogatory way here - I simply mean that spreading the Word usually requires taking the initiative, and in that sense is a form of pre-emption. Denying that is just denying a basic reality. The same is simply not true of your counterexample - it is not offensive to tell someone they are being offensive, just as it is not intolerant to tell someone they are being intolerant. That's a false equivalence.

That doesn't mean its never right to challenge people's deeply-held beliefs, but if you go about doing so you should understand that you are taking offensive action, and your interlocutors are not wrong to be offended by it. Especially if your challenge recalls a long history of oppression and violence.

I happen to think that the "Jesus loves you" school of proselytizing preys on the weak and insecure, and makes the religion weaker and more insecure by so doing. Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. who are confident in their beliefs are not likely to be swayed by "Jesus loves you," let alone by its undercurrent "...and you will go to hell if you don't love him back." The people who will be swayed by this are likely to be swayable by other threats and promises. That may make for a broader religion, and a good one in many ways, but not necessarily one where believers are strong in their beliefs.

[Tom Strong]

amba,

You're certainly not alone there! Two of the most striking musical depictions of Jesus were written by Jews (both of whom, admittedly, have demonstrated pretty "nomadic" tendencies of their own). That would be Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone," and Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne".

And since I know it doesn't come through in my postings today, I'm also a fan of the J-man, even though I have some issues with his English appelation.

[Mr. Grouchypants]

Tom,

It is understandable if people are offended when their beliefs are questioned, particularly deeply held or fundamental beliefs. But it seems unreasonable to say that someone is being assaulted by such questioning. A well adjusted person should be aware that not everyone shares his worldview and shouldn't be shocked (must less feel assaulted) when encountering such a person.

[Tom Strong]

mr. gp,

Yeah, my choice of words was probably not the best, especially for such a broad point. That said, the behavior amba describes - going up to strangers who are obviously Jewish and telling them that Jesus loves them - strikes me as patently assaultive, even if done with the best of intentions.

Despite the (general) improvement in Christian-Jewish relationships over the past few decades, there remain a lot of old wounds. If I were accosted like that, I'd be pissed. And I'm generally friendly to Christian proselytizers, despite my Zen-Jewish-atheism.

[Nick]

Hmm... I think I'd find Beck's first segment more compelling if it distinguished between Catholics and Protestants. "Practicing Christian" may sound awkward, but "practicing Catholic" doesn't strike me as odd in the least. That's sort of a big foundational point of Protestantism, isn't it? That rituals like the Catholic mass are not what really matters? That faith alone and not works/deeds get one to heaven?

[amba]

Tom -- I have a suspicion this post on end-times madness, quoting this L.A. Times story, is part of what you mean about the ulterior motives behind Evangelical Christian philosemitism:

A growing number of fundamentalist Christians in mostly Southern states are adopting Jewish religious practices to align themselves with prophecies saying that Gentiles will stand as one with Jews when the end is near. [ ... ]

Bill McCartney, a former University of Colorado football coach and co-founder of the evangelical Promise Keepers movement for men, which became huge in the 1990s, has had a devil of a time getting his own apocalyptic campaign off the ground.

It’s called The Road to Jerusalem, and its mission is to convert Jews to Christianity — while there is still time.

“Our whole purpose is to hasten the end times,” he said. “The Bible says Jews will be brought to jealousy when they see Christians and Jewish believers together as one — they’ll want to be a part of that. That’s going to signal Jesus’ return.”

Jews and others who don’t accept Jesus, he added matter-of-factly, “are toast.”

[wj]

I suspect that the biggest impediment to the Jews accepting Christians as just another (slightly odd) sect is this: Judaism is strictly a monotheistic faith. Christianity, as it exists today, is poly- (specifically tri- for Protestants, but actually seriously poly- for Catholics) theistic. There's a lot of theological smoke and mirrors to attempt to cover the fact. But as practiced by the congregations, there is no real doubt. And you just can't be Jewish and polytheistic.

Not being Jewish myself, I can't be certain. But that certainly is the impression from some study. Amba, how far off am I?

[amba]

Hmmm, that's very interesting. I think I've heard Jews say that about the Trinity. After all, the central credo of Judaism is "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." Not "the Lord is Three," or "Three in One." And of course Catholicism became successful by absorbing all the pagan gods of Europe and subsuming them into saints. Good point!

But the biggest beef Jews seem to have with Jesus is the disagreement over whether he is or is not the Jewish Messiah.

[wj]

Perhaps that's one of the things Islam got right: Jesus as a prophet only. ;-)

[karen]

Amba, that's the first i've heard of pagan gods becoming Saints. I thought Saints were actual people that were found not to be lacking in Faith- i call them the honor students. They were tested and they passed w/flying colours- after a lot fo trial, usually. And death- martyrs are popular Saints. Of couse, anyone who has died is in the communion of saints- note the lowercase ~s~.

As for God being poly- i don't think so. He is one God- three persons. It's like a cloverleaf- three petals, one leaf. Or an egg- shell, yolk and white = one egg. My favourite example is H2O, existing in three forms = solid, liquid & gas. One element. One God.

Instead of searching for the perfit fit- i stay in my born Faith, praying my figure changes to accomodate said Faith; not the other way around.

[amba]

Actually, Karen, I think you're right about the three aspects of God (it's not polytheism), and those are great analogies.

It's not that pagan gods became saints. It's that Catholicism was able to convert a lot of pagans because their favorite gods, in their minds, sort of merged with certain saints. Having that imagery and those personifications of faith to mediate their worship made Christianity seem rich and familiar to them, with many different images through which to approach God, so that different regions or seasons or different personalities could find a way that worked for them. It's psychological polytheism with spiritual monotheism.

[wj]

Actually, there were quite a few "saints" which were lifted wholesale from the favorite local gods of one or another European community -- many of whom ended up as the patron saint of that community. But in fairness it should be pointed out that the Catholic Church, during the last half of the 20th century, made a major effort to go thru and remove most of those from the officially recognized collection. There were lots, and there was lots of resistance. And, of course, that was many centuries after the fact....:-)

Even so, common practice (if not formal theology) has Catholic prayers going to Mary and other saints at least as often as to God per se. Technically, the saints are merely supposed to intercede with God on behalf of the petitioner -- but the actual prayers look indistinguishable (to my eye anyway) from prayers to one of the gods in any polytheism you care to name. I suppose that you could say that the Catholic Church is monotheistic; but the congregation, as a matter of practice, is not.

In the case of the Protestent versions of Christianity, saints frequently play a limited (or no) role. But the muddle of the Trinity remains. (Has anyone here ever gotten a coherent definition of the characteristics of the aspect that is the Holy Spirit? Other than the historic one that it was a ploy to avoid including a female, i.e. Mary, in the Trinity.)

I don't know enough about the Eastern rite churches to comment on them. Perhaps someone else does.

[karen]

I want to be able to aswer, WJ. I'll give it a shot.

I think the Holy Spirit is God w/in us- leading us to do His will. I know He's more than that, even; He's in the wind. In the Book of John- esp in chapters 15-17 Jesus speaks about leaving His Apostles and John 15:26 specifically says, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify on my behalf."

It's interesting to me that while talking about the Advocate(as He is called in my bible)chapter 16:12 is the verse used by the Bishop in NH causing rift in the Episcopal church. "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own, but will speak whatever He hears, and He will declare to you the things that are to come."

I think the role of women has always been more important than given credit. I can't explain why i know this- i personally think the background folk are more necessary than the frontmen. Both are necessary.

[jack Whelan]

I'm late to the conversation but here's my two cents: Faith is in my opinion always misunderstood if it is understood to be a head thing. It's primarily a will thing. To me that why orthodoxy leads to pathologies we have come to associate with so much religious nuttiness. Faith is the disposition of the will toward a transcendent good.

Karl Rahner, one of the most important Catholic theologians of the 20th Century, used to talk about "anonymous Christians." I don't think he went around telling non-christians that they were in fact anonymous Christians, but what he meant was that the only important thing is not what one believed but whether one responded to the ubiquitious movement of grace in his or her lilfe. Ubiquitous in the sense of not just being available to professed Christians. And since from a Christian perpsective, the Christ is the conduit through which all grace flows into the world, anyone who responds to grace is therefore Christian in the life of his will if not in the life of his mind. His point was that it matters a lot more what one does than what one thinks. He not advocating orthopraxis (e.g., strict adherence to Jewish dietary laws) over orthodoxy, but he would be in total agreement with the guy Amba is posting about. I think this also a good Christian way for Christians to explain the obvious fact that there are a lot of non-Christians who are more Christian than people who call themselves Christian.

Also a word about Catholic polytheism. Catholics are very clear to distinguish the uncreated Godhead from created beings like Mary and the saints. Saints are men and women whose souls have been turned inside out and upside downb by the movement of grace in their lives. The veneration of the saints is not polytheism. It is the idea that we are altogether helping one another on this side of death and on the other. We ask help from our friends on this side of the divide; why not from our friends, the cloud of witnesses, on the other? In any event, the veneration of the saints and in particular the Mary cultus is one of the things the too-heady Protestants didn't understand and in my opinion threw out to their spiritual impoverishment.