Why Christianity Mattered, and Still Does, Examining the Benefits of Christianity to America and the West: Part 1(The Attack)

The 21st century highlights more than past periods, the onslaught of criticism that has been directed towards Christianity. Look at media, public opinion, social media and other avenues of thought. When an average American or western citizen takes a look at the way Christianity is viewed, it becomes immediately obvious that the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity are marginalized and considered worthless by an ever growing population and antagonistic media. Let it be clear here, that this work wishes to capture much of the same spirit that C.S. Lewis did in his famed work, Mere Christianity. Namely, that this work is not necessarily intended to argue for one singular branch of Christianity – rather it is a case for the whole of Christianity. There could be eons long conversations about which Christian branches fall under the umbrella of ‘Normalized Christianity’. I would also be dishonest if I were not to mention, that as a lifelong Southern Baptist, that I do not have serious issue with teachings of the Catholic Church and other denominations. However, this writing is not intending to prove that Christianity matters because of the Baptists, Methodists, Catholics or Non-denominational church. Rather, the intention is to prove that all branches of Christianity embrace a core set of beliefs that have impacted both the western world and America in a tremendous way.

Lewis, delivering Mere Christianity in the midst of WW2 and a German barrage that could spell death at any moment, similarly parallels the current situation of Christianity. He said,  “the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.”1 To illustrate this “common” system of belief and thought, he described the different variations of Christianity as doors opening to rooms off a hallway. His hope was to bring the different iterations of Christianity out into the hall to see what they had in common. My hope is to accomplish much of the same; to bring Christianity out into the hallway of truth to see what we all have in common. There is more though – the hope is also to show the unbelieving world the only reason they can so easily disparage Christianity, because of the thinking infrastructure which was established by Christianity.

If one were to take but a cursory look back into history, a robust list of good works performed by Christianity would be immediately available to any interested party. Even within the unique American experiment of freedom, starting only in the late 1700’s, the view of Christianity has widely shifted when compared to modern times. Benjamin Franklin, who needs no introduction, said this in a letter to Yale President Ezra Stiles in 1790: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see”.2 Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Franklin would be aware that he was not a particularly devout Christian – and probably not a Christian at all – at least by Orthodox or Evangelical standards. However, his quote reveals much about the view of Christianity just a few short years after moving both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution into relevance. Namely, that Christianity was held in high esteem, even if one did not necessarily believe in all the specific teachings of Christianity. It would have been obvious to those at that time, that Christianity had done more for the world than any other belief system. That idea, that Christianity has been beneficial to the world, is what this work wishes to capture and explore. Christianity has done more for science, medicine, philosophy, ethics, and the political sphere than many other. It has helped usher in a period of prosperity.

For whatever reason, and there is a certainly a long list of ‘reasons’ (which will be explored throughout series), Christianity is no longer viewed with the same spirit of appreciation seen by Franklin and others throughout history. I would be remiss to mention that throughout history Christianity, rather those practicing it, have used their wayward religious beliefs to enforce all sorts of evils. The Inquisitions, slavery in the south, and other frowned upon practices benefited from Christianity. It would be impossible to find any century old institution and not find wrongs it was responsible for.

The relationship between religion and government has perhaps never seemed more tenuous in the U.S. Amy Coney Barrett, a nominee and eventual sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, was considered by many to be an unworthy candidate because of her Catholic faith. Many desired a religious test of sorts that would have viewed her as unable to perform her duties. Her detractors viewed her backwards and old-fashioned religious beliefs as just too far outside the norm for her to hold such a position. Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says that lawmakers and federal employees, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States”. No religious test, meaning you cannot be forced to pass a certain religious test to serve in office. This constitutional clause was in stark contrast to a longstanding practice inherited from England. The Church of England was established with the help of religious tests. Specifically, the Tests Acts, in force from the 1660s-1820s

This may seem a little backwards to us in 21st Century America, but Barret was essentially seeing the reverse of the ‘religious test’ clause. She was not being tested to see if she measured up to a certain Religious Belief, rather, she was being tested because she held any religious beliefs. Dianna Feinstein, a Democrat, challenged Barrett in 2017, when she was being appointed for an appeals court position, “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”3 Feinstein is putting a religious test on Barret. Saying, essentially, that having deeply held religious beliefs might disqualify one from public service in the U.S. What Feinstein is saying is, how could these old fashioned ‘dogmas’ be trustworthy and unbiased in performance of duties as a potential circuit court judge? Feinstein not only shows her bias, but also a growing trend of mistrust and skepticism towards Christianity.

In recent years there has been rising conflict and attention brought to tension existing between religious groups – especially Christianity – and the LGBTQ movement, with the result often coming at the expense of religious liberty. As of late, a main argument of individuals who stand in favor of same-sex marriage is that all Americans should be free to choose who they can love and live their lives with. However, the question has implications; does that supposed freedom mean that the government should coerce those who have religious objections to homosexual marriage celebrate what they fundamentally believe to be wrong? In the state of Washington, a florist had employed and served homosexual individuals for years. However, she declined to arrange flowers for a same-sex marriage and was sued by the Washington State Attorney General on the basis of discrimination.4 The American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Attorney General office hold that this florist is guilty of discrimination when she acted in accord with her faith and thus decided against the use of her florist shop to celebrate and commemorate the wedding of a same-sex couple. In Oregon, the owners of a bakery faced a fine of over 130,000$ in penalties for refusing to bake a cake for the wedding of a same-sex couple.5 As a result of this action, the Klein’s were left with no choice but to shut down the bakery they ran together, “Sweet Cakes by Melissa”, and had their savings forcibly seized as a result of the court ruling. In a disturbingly symbolic gesture, the state government even seized a separate bank account the Klein’s had opened specifically for their church giving.

       The question of whether private entities such as private Christian colleges can hold religious views on marriage without falling into the realm of government defined discrimination is tenuous. A few years ago, California was considering senate bill 1146 which would have strictly restricted religious freedom in higher education.6 The legislation would have narrowed a religious exemption in California that had previously allowed religious exemptions for universities that were faith based to exist without punishment for religious beliefs. The new law would have limited the religious exemption just to student programs preparing for vocational ministry. This functionally would have severely limited religious liberty for students and faculty of California religious universities. The ability to incorporate spirituality and authentic religious belief would have been effectively terminated, especially as relates to religious views on sexuality. Christianity’s positive effect upon higher education is completely ignored. Not taking into account that compulsory education in America was brought to bear by Christianity, for both male and female alike. The Puritans, for example, established Massachusetts Bay Colony and just a few years founded Harvard. Later, in the 18th century Yale followed along with a number of Christian centered universities.7 The effect of Christianity as a belief system has been integral to the role of higher education, but accreditation is at stake now, in a cruel reversal of Christianity’s relation to higher education. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) debated the accreditation of Gordon College. This was based upon the universities traditional religious view of homosexual practice as forbidden behavior in its student handbook section on Life and Conduct.8 This belief was obviously contrary to the NEASC and the risk of losing its accreditation was a possibility for Gordon College. Ultimately, Gordon College was allowed to retain its accreditation; however, the recent California bill and the Gordon College accreditation issue reveals a deep divide within the relationship between government and Christian higher education.

The field of medicine and science has historically been an area Christianity has brought much value to. Continuing with the theme of skepticism towards Christianity, the average American would not be aware of how grateful they should be to Christianity for its advancements in these areas. Before the arrival of Christianity on the global playing field, there was a lack of structure in the area of medical care. In the areas influenced by Buddhism there were several hospital-like centers. The Greeks of antiquity performed simple forms of medicine and Greek temples had places where the ill could sleep and be helped. It was the Christians, with the help of the Roman Empire and its long arm, that the world’s view of how the sick and dying were to be treated shifted. As is often the case, when Christianity steps into an arena – the status quo is challenged and viewpoints are radically shifted.

              It was not the until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD that Christians were able to influence and impact the world with medicine.  The significance of this Edict lied in Emperor Constantine declaring Christianity legal across the Roman Empire, “No man whatever should be refused complete toleration, who has given up his mind either to the cult of the Christians, or to the religion which he personally feels best suited to himself “.9   In just a few decades, Julian the Apostate, would attempt to revive Paganism in opposition to Christianity. His desire was to mirror much of the charitable activity that had advanced Christianity, “Why then do we think that this is sufficient and do not observe how the kindness of Christians to strangers, their care for the burial of their dead, and the sobriety of their lifestyle has done the most to advance their cause?”.10 Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire issues a decree that a hospital should be attached to every cathedral that was built in his empire. 11

              What of science? Those irrational and unscientific Christians could in no way have given any actual benefit to the field of science. A cursory survey of several important scientific figures and several key points of scientific development may be helpful to dispel the theory that Christianity and mental acuity are mutually exclusive. Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps amongst the most recognizable of scientists for his formulation of the laws of gravity and motion, wrote more about theology then he did scientific topics. Newton penned around 1.3 million words on topics related to the Bible and the Christian faith. Michael Faraday is best remembered for his advancements in the area of electromagnetism, considered by many to be amongst the greatest experimental scientists in the history of the world. Multiple scientific discoveries were named after him: Faraday constant, Faraday effect, and the Faraday cage. He said, “God has been pleased to work in his material creation by laws,” and “the Creator governs his material works by definite laws resulting from the forces impressed on matter.”12 James Maxwell, known for his second great unification of physics; unified the scientific topics of electricity, magnetism, and light. He was a staunch Presbyterian and later became an elder within the Church of Scotland. Faith and science were not bifurcated for these men. Rather, the connection between both religion and faith were of vital importance.13 The current atmosphere of critique towards Christianity would probably never acknowledge that Christianity has been responsible for aiding scientific and medical advancements. That topic will be explored in more detail later.  

To those in opposition to Christianity, even to a portion of Christianity, rationality and faith are two topics that cannot be reconciled. While no orthodox believer would declare himself as a pure rationalist, as that would be a contradiction in terms, the majority of Christians certainly believe the Christian faith is rational. Christianity is coherent, intelligible, sensible, and fits together in a consistent pattern of truth claims. There may be many instances within the Christian faith that certain ideas and doctrines are mystical and hard to grasp as there is much about the Christian faith, in all its majesty, that cannot be reduced to a few philosophical understandings by the human mind. Nevertheless, what God has revealed to humans is understandable and coherent to the human mind. A Christian faith that does not make sense and cannot relate to reality is a faith that does not have practical application. Jesus himself recognized the need for humans to use their mind, “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”.14 Christianity and its adherents must continue to present faith as an intelligible, rational, and trustworthy way to live and flourish.

              The atheist or agnostic holds that faith is an untrustworthy way to interpret life and its meaning. Friedrich Nietzsche describes faith as a willful desire to conduct oneself in an intellectually lazy pattern, “Faith means not wanting to know what is true”.15 This is one of the general approaches that skeptics make towards faith and religion, namely, that it is lazy and simple. Nietzsche goes further to declare Christianity as out of touch with reality, “In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point”.16 Here lies one of the chief objections of skepticism; that faith and Christianity are entirely based not upon that which corresponds to reality, rather, faith is based on the imagined and is akin to belief in the tooth fairy. Richard Dawkins assaults the rationality of faith, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness”.17 Dawkins further assaults the rationality of reason and faith, “religious faith … does not depend on rational justification”18 and later states that religions demand, “unquestioned faith”.19 Christians need a robust response in the area of philosophy and argumentation and that is probably one of the most common areas of academic publishing by Christian academia. Further, the attitudes of Dawkins, held by many, would seem to indicate that the Christian faith has nothing to offer within the field of philosophy. Even basic logical reasoning seems outside the realm of possibility for a Christian. History tells a different story, with a robust canvas of advancements in this field orchestrated by Christians. Those advancements will be explored in more depth in the broader look into the field of philosophy and the Christian influence in that area.

Part 2 will begin a more in-depth look into Christianity’s achievements in some of the above fields, as well as others.

Sources:

  1. Mere Christianity.
  2. Ben Franklin letter to Ezra Stiles.
  3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-and-dogma-1504826418.
  4. Delvin, Josie. “Memorandum Decision and Summary Judgment of Arlene’s Flowers vs. Ingersoll.” Alliance Defending Freedom. February 18, 2015. Accessed October 26, 2016. http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersSJruling.pdf/
  5. McCullough, Alan. “Sweet Cakes Interim Order.” http://www.oregon.gov. January 29, 2015. Accessed October 26, 2016. https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/BOLI Sweet Cakes Interim Order.pdf/
  6. Lara, Ricardo. “Senate Bill No. 1146.” http://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. September 9, 2016. Accessed October 10, 2016.
  7. Clifton, Olmstead. History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1960, 69-80, 88-89.
  8. “Gordon College Student Handbook.” http://www.gordon.edu. July 16, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2016. file:///C:/Users/School/Downloads/Gordon College Student Handbook 2016-2017.pdf/
  9. Pamphili, Eusebius. “The Edict of Milan” In A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337. Translated by J. Stevenson. Revised by W. H. C Frend. Baker Academic (2013).
  10. Based in part on the translation of Edward J. Chinnock, A Few Notes on Julian and a Translation of His Public Letters (London: David Nutt, 1901) pp. 75-78 as quoted in D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History (Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall, 1995) pp. 314-315
  11. AITKEN J T, FULLER H W C & JOHNSON D 1984. The influence of Christians in medicine. Nottingham: Intervarsity
  12. Observations on Mental Education: A Lecture Delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Saturday, May 6, 1854. J.W. Parker, 1854
  13. McLaughlin, Rebecca. Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion Crossway, 2019.
  14. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. Matthew 22:37.
  15. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and H. L. Mencken. The Antichrist. Waiheke Island: Floating Press, 2010. 12.
  16. Ibid, 16.
  17. Dawkins, Richard. The  Selfish Gene. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 330.
  18. Dawkins, Richard. The  God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006. 306.             
  19. Ibid, 308.

Leave a comment