With Them But Not With Them?
One can’t continue to identify with the Christian religion without at some point giving tacit approval to all the evil that is being done today “in the name of Jesus.”
NOTE: In a recent article I expressed my opinion that because every Christian picks and chooses which doctrines and practices to embrace, the word “Christian” actually conveys less information than one might think. However, both those who call themselves Christians and those who don’t tend to treat “Christians” as a group, emphasizing the broader values and beliefs that they may share, or think they share. In this article I’m using that broader sense of the word.
The articles I’ve read on Medium describing the boorish behavior of Christians or Christian churches/denominations, or examples of hate, bigotry, and prejudice from the same, invariably get comments from people who say they are Christian but “not like that,” or that their churches teach tolerance and love to all (or words to that effect).
I am not questioning their sincerity. I accept that they probably truly believe that they are different and better than those other Christians, even though they probably wouldn’t say “better” since that would go against “Christian humility”(!oxymoron alert!). At some point, however, such people must decide if they want to embrace all that characterizes their religion in the world today, or reject it. “With them but not with them” only works up to a point.
I don’t claim to be a historian, but I expect that early in the rise of the Nazis in Germany, the most hateful and evil aspects of the group weren’t as obvious. During that time, it might have been reasonable for people to say that they were members of the Nazi party, but didn’t agree with those in the party who promote extreme positions like ethnic cleansing in pursuit of the master race.
However, once the party was fully in power, and the systematic elimination of “inferior” groups was underway, “with them but not with them” was no longer a valid option. Calling oneself a Nazi meant tacitly if not explicitly embracing all the party stood for. The only legitimate alternative was to remove oneself from the party altogether.
Likewise, I don’t know the early history of the Ku Klux Klan, but perhaps in its early days, people could have identified as KKK members because they liked the religious aspect, wearing costumes, or just hanging out with friends, with the qualification that they would never mistreat people of other races.
Once the lynching started, however, that assertion would no longer have been acceptable or believable. “With them but not with them” was no longer a valid option.
Sooner or later, you have to decide whether to identify with a group and accept responsibility for all the actions of that group, or cut ties because of the despicable, hateful things being done.
Christian leaders continue to abuse children sexually, and their churches and denominations continue their efforts to cover up the abuse or, failing that, avoid having to compensate the victims.
Christians are at the forefront of efforts to discriminate against or even eliminate various groups, take health care decisions for children out of the hands of their parents — and for women, out of their own hands—ban books, and demand revisions of curricula to whitewash history (a particularly apt term in this case).
Christians are actively and openly working to subvert fundamental tenets of the Constitution by conforming government and laws to their particular beliefs.
Not all Christians are doing these things, but the most vocal, the most visible — the ones who are to a large degree driving the perception of what it means to be Christian in 2024 — are.
In light of all this, one has to wonder if the time has come when “with them but not with them” is no longer acceptable, when “good Christians” must make the choice faced by “good Nazis” or “good Klan members” — embrace or reject.
