Do “Christians” Know their History?
Posted by Wade on July 26th, 2006
I’ve always found it interesting to visit Christian* book stores. It’s interesting to me because I am invariably led to the aisles dedicated to anti-mormon literature. Indeed, anti-mormon literature has always been interesting to me; in fact, I can honestly say I’ve learned quite a lot from reading it (one book in particular strengthened my conviction ten-fold). Lately however, I have not been too interested because I find there is nothing new — it’s all the same recycled stuff. Some is interesting, most is not.
I was first introduced to this bigotry while serving a good chunck of my mission in what is dubbed the “Christian capital of the world” (a.k.a. Colorado Springs, Colorado). Since that time, I have come to understand why so much of this literature is produced — I have even come to appreciate the motive: cognitive dissonance.
A main theme running through much of the literature is of course rooted in an attempt to discredit Joseph Smith. You know the old saying: “Cut off the head and the body dies”. These propogandists percieve themselves succeeding in discrediting Joseph, and thus think the rest of LDS theology and Mormonism dies as a result. Their approach seems logical. But it’s the approach taken by the Carthage Grays, who obviously failed in their attempt to kill the body through decapitation. Hatred dies a slow death I suppose; especially when aimed at the wrong head (the modern bigots have failed, just like their Carthage brethren, to realize that a group in Palestine already succeeded in killing the head of Mormonism — He rose from the dead three days later as the victor).
While thinking about the goal and approach of anti-mormon literature, I have formulated a question: have the mainstream christian apologists (who invest enormous amounts of time and money propogating bigotry against Catholics, Jehova’s Witnesses, and Mormons) failed to see and understand the problems with their own roots because they are so caught up in attempting to undermine others? I think so. Moreover, I think this is the case because their majority position allows them to constantly be on the offensive; they are apathetic about their own beliefs because there is no need to discuss the serious problems of authority, practice, doctrine, and scripture. There is no need because they are never seriously brought into question.
Do Christians understand the purpose of the Council of Nicea (held in A.D. 325)? Do they know how it was brought about? Do they acknowledge that Emperor Constantine was a pagan until just before his death-bed baptism by a Bishop who was a follower of Arius (one who believed the Son of God was a created being)? Do Christians even know why these questions are important to their belief system?
The nature of Christ was “decided” (not determined, His nature already existed) at this Council. Constantine called the council, not because he was worried about the truth; no, because he was worried about losing his power! Pope Sylvester didn’t call the Council — he acknowledged he had not the authority to do so. However, he attended the Council; as did numerous Bishops, none of which claimed Church-wide authority.
Much of the fundamental doctrine of mainstream Christianity today has sprung from this debate about the nature of God. The Bishops were compelled by Constantine to come to a consensus; this forced out ALL OTHER BELIEFS as heretical. Similar Councils of men, who claimed no legitimate authority, would later define God as a concept to unify the people politically.
Today the debate rages. Only now the debate is between “Christians” and those whom the Christians dub as “cults” (cults because we are heretics for believing in truth revealed instead of fabrications from Rome).
Do Christians know their history?
*I use this word loosely because there is certainly a lot of debate about what makes a person Christian. (E.g., virtually all mainstream born-again christians preach, and actually believe in a rather bigoted manner, that Catholics are not Christian).
No, they don’t know their history. They, like countless others, are satisficers, complacent with what they already know and think.
We have people like this within the church, but I think to a far lesser extent than other religions. It boggles my mind how unwilling people are to explore the history of the beliefs they so adamantly profess.
Comment # 1 left by Connor Boyack on July 27th, 2006
Connor:
We have people like this within the church. . .
Yes, we do. Yet, as you say, I get the feeling that the percentage is substantially lower than those in mainstream christianity.
Satisficers indeed!
Comment # 2 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
I fully agree that the percentage is substantially less within the church. I think one of the attractive things about the gospel is the answers it provides to many, many basic questions about life and religion. As you point out in this post, there are several things that Christianity as a whole ignores in their own history.
While some antis take it upon themselves to attack and scrutinize our history, I think they set a large double standard. Let’s analyze their history. Who else focuses so much on their history, upbringing, and founding? I think members of the LDS church do quite well at remembering, studying, and understanding the history of the faith they profess. Others? Yeah, not so much.
Comment # 3 left by Connor Boyack on July 27th, 2006
Actually, I think that there are quite a few Christian apologists who are aware of the problems of their own history (including some who probably don’t think so highly of Mormon theology). I wouldn’t dare guess about percentages, either.
Comment # 4 left by John Anon on July 27th, 2006
John:
I don’t doubt there are some apologists who acknoledge problems. But it has always interested me that they are so quick in their attempts to undermine the foundations of faiths they dub “cults”.
Moreover, they define many christian faiths as cults based on differences in belief about the nature of God. Interestingly, these differences spring from serious problems (I call them problems — of course christian apologists do not, they virtually never address them) in mainstream Christian theology that started when christianity began to be accepted in the world through the actions of Roman emperors.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
I also think it would be helpful to note that this post largely applies to the average Christian, not the exception to the rule (an apologist). Just as we have our LDS apologists (FARMS, FAIR, Jeff Lindsay, and others), it’s best to analyze this assumption when applied to the vast majority of believers, who are not apologists.
Comment # 6 left by Connor Boyack on July 27th, 2006
I admit that I think it would be hard for me to take religion very seriously if I had had a protestant background.
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on July 27th, 2006
It may be hard to take religion as a protestant seriously when most “Christians” don’t even know what they actually believe in. This is a generalization, but once they get past faith in JC and going to heaven there’s… nothing, they don’t know, they don’t think, they don’t question. Seeking answers and knowledge only shoots holes in their beliefs, raises doubts and threatens their life styles. -
Comment # 8 left by OKIE on July 27th, 2006
I have a hard time believing the characterizations of Christians as unquestioning and ignorant of their history
The study of Christianity as a whole is pretty thorough and is engaged in by scores of reputable scholars.
If I were a trinitarian Christian, I might rebuff the Nicean argument thus:
“Who cares who called what meeting where and how? The point is that there is sufficient biblical support for the doctrine of the trinity. Introducing extenuating circumstances does not refure the validity of those scriptures. The argument as a whole is precariously ad hominem-ish”
Comment # 9 left by Ryan on July 27th, 2006
once they get past faith in JC and going to heaven there’s… nothing
Exactly! And when confronted with this reality, the majority of them are satisfied with it because they don’t care about the details if Pastor John says they are going to heaven no matter what.
There is no need to understand the meaning of becoming heirs of God and the sufferings mentioned in Romans 8:17.
There is no need to reconcile the majority of references to works because Pastor Hank says faith alone saves; they don’t wish to understand James because Pastor Hank is easier to understand and follow — after all, he appeals to the carnal man.
Nevermind those practices mentioned in the Bible such as tithing and baptism for the dead, and calling for the Elders of the Church to anoint with oil to bless the sick.
This all nonsense because Christ’s Church, His practices, and teachings are not relevant now. Pastor John and Pastor Hank say so. Well, at least by implication they do!
Comment # 10 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
The point is that there is sufficient biblical support for the doctrine of the trinity.
Nonsense! The character of God as it currently stands among the whole of mainstream christianity was drafted out of whole cloth by politicians exerting their influence over the Church hundreds of years subsequent to the life and times of Christ.
Books are lost (and fortunately some have been found). Truth has fled. A study of biblical texts reveals the doctrine of the trinity as a frabrication of man! Unless, of course, one wishes to ignore the fact that Christ wasn’t speaking to himself whenever he prayed; or that Stephen saw Christ standing on the right hand of God. Maybe Stephen saw God physcially stooping down and standing on his own right hand? Could be I guess.
Comment # 11 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
I have even come to appreciate the motive: cognitive dissonance
Let me see if I understand your claim here:
1. Questionable circumstances surrounding the formulation of many mainstream christian creeds
2. These circumstances seem unreconcilable with how the Gospel “ought” to be.
3. Attacking other religions elevates mainstream Christianity as the only acceptable substitution despite it’s weaknesses.
Is that what you meant by cognitive dissonance?
Comment # 12 left by Ryan on July 27th, 2006
Is that what you meant by cognitive dissonance?
You could say it that way, sure.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
Now, hang on a second, I’m not defending the Trinity, I’m just saying that attacking the validity of the council of nicea is not a satisfactory argument against the validity of the trinity doctrine.
Comment # 14 left by Ryan on July 27th, 2006
I’m just saying that attacking the validity of the council of nicea is not a satisfactory argument against the validity of the trinity doctrine.
Yes, but your approach was to argue that “scripture” provides support for the doctrine of trinity and that an attack on the happenings at Nicea and other councils is not persuasive. I only point out that scripture does no such thing; and that Christians should take a second look at their own roots instead of attacking others for their heresies. Indeed, one could argue the doctrine of trinity is heretical! I certainly believe it is.
Comment # 15 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
I bring the issue of the validity of Nicea to the fore because it began the process of redefining God from what He really is and always has been!
This is historical fact, not my opinion. The whole of christianity should take a look into their roots!
Comment # 16 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
Yes, but your approach was to argue that “scripture” provides support for the doctrine of trinity
Well, come on, the scriptures undeniably make it a complicated issue, even the Book of Mormon states, repeatedly that The Father and the Son are one God. This is clarified when you understand the doctrines but to the average reader, it can be misleading. I think it’s a bit simplistic to say that there is nowhere in all of scripture that a critical and resourceful reader could find support for Trinitarian doctrines.
Comment # 17 left by Ryan on July 27th, 2006
The study of Christianity as a whole is pretty thorough and is engaged in by scores of reputable scholars.
Well, sure. But what about the hundreds of millions (or billions, if you account for those who have passed away) of “average” Christians?
Again, I think the point of this post is to address the complacency of the “average” Christian - not the apologist or scholar.
Comment # 18 left by Connor Boyack on July 27th, 2006
I think it’s a bit simplistic to say that there is nowhere in all of scripture that a critical and resourceful reader could find support for Trinitarian doctrines.
I disagree heartily. Indeed, if a “critical and resourceful” reader actually did read the Bible in context, he/she would certainly discover the multitudinous references to the real oneness of God.
Your argument actually bolsters my point: the fact is that the majority of Christians do indeed find support for their positions in scripture, but they flat out ignore the plethora of other references that should cause them to think a second time. This is because they don’t understand where their beliefs are rooted (not in scripture at all, rather in creeds drafted by the puny brain of men caught up in their drive for political domination and control).
Comment # 19 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
Nice post, Wade. I think you are right that Christians rarely know their history. They probably know what they pick up at church (like most Mormons) or, if they read a book, they likely read one written by a minister rather than a historian (again, like many Mormons).
On top of that, Christians feel no real ownership of their history. This is a real difference, as Mormons feel a living connection to their history. Mormons feel defensive about the Mormon Meadows Massacre (which happened 150 years ago) and Christians feel justified in somehow using what happened there as evidence against LDS faith claims. Why?
Do Evangelicals feel any responsibility for the hundreds or thousands of African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and Mormons lynched by Southern Christians over the years? Why not? And lynchings went right into the 20th century, closer to us than the MMM. Only Evangelicals seem to think they get a free pass on their past wrongdoing (while holding everyone else to their past errors).
I guess ignorance is bliss for most Evagelicals, but it doesn’t do much for their credibility. At least Mormons take their history seriously.
Comment # 20 left by Dave on July 27th, 2006
creeds drafted by the puny brain of men caught up in their drive for political domination and control
You’re going ad hominem again. You’re asking Christians to drop the trinity just because of the historical context, it’s fallacious.
The point I’m trying to make is that there are a great many Christians who can put together a coherent (although incorrect) defense of the trinity.
Furthermore your post specifically singled out christian scholars, apologists and authors for suffering from cognitive dissonance. Changing the argument to address “the majority of Christians is throwing me for a loop here.
Explain yourslef you scallawag!
Comment # 21 left by Ryan on July 27th, 2006
Ryan:
LoL
For your edification, I will instruct you concerning the meaning of an ad hominem attack. An argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy because it changes the focus of the argument from substance to personal attacks on the interlocutor. So, in reality I have not (yet) engaged in argumentum ad hominem because I have said nothing about you personally. Moreover, I have said nothing about any specific individual contemporary christian (except maybe Hank Hanegraaff, but to say that was ad hominem would still be a stretch). My reference to the puny brain of men was a reference to the brain power of humans in general; and my reference to the political power brokers of the 4th and 5th centuries cannot be construed as an ad hominem attack against contemporary christians. I am merely pointing out what I perceive as the main weakness in the modern evangelical approach to reality and truth. There is no argumentum ad hominem here.
. . . there are a great many Christians who can put together a coherent (although incorrect) defense of the trinity.
Indeed, you have said it yourself: their belief according to the bible is incorrect. One can argue til they’re blue in the face that the trinity is truth, but the plethora of biblical references that outright refute the trinity is proof enough for those not caught up in a deficiency of understanding history.
And lastly, you are definitely right that my post specifically singled out christian scholars, apologists and authors for suffering from cognitive dissonance. But it’s these leaders of the evangelical movement who keep their flock in the dark ages of apostasy by NEVER expounding the difficulties of the creeds and how they were creations of men and not God; creeds to which both scholars and the main body of christians adhere to despite the historical record.
I’m sorry for throwing you for a loop here! Moreover, my reference to cognitive dissonance was not necessarily what I think you perceive it as. Hence my response to you question about it. And yet, I’ll admit my reference to the need for christians to fill the gap in reasoning is a bit counterintuitive to my argument because it is based in the fact that they aren’t actually aware of the truth anyway. I suppose I’ll have to deal with this further if you wish to pursue it.
Comment # 22 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
Connor:
Despite what I have set out in my comment to Ryan, I do think you have taken a correct interpretation of my post. That is, I meant to address the lack of understanding of history by mainstream evangelical christians. Indeed, I mention the word “mainstream” several times as an implication to the whole of christianity.
Ryan may be attacking my inability to keep the argument focused on one or the other? However, it wasn’t my intent only to speak to one or the other; although the argument can certainly be made that I wasn’t quite clear.
Thanks for reading, and thanks for the comments; and for backing me up here.
That Ryan character can be a tough nut to crack sometimes.
Comment # 23 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
Dave:
Thanks for you comment! I like your point about ownership of history; it’s a great concept — one worthy of a post.
The contrast between MMM and modern lynching is great! Thanks again.
Comment # 24 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
There is no argumentum ad hominem here.
pffft.. try the following equation:
(formal fallacious ad hominem equation)
A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.
(Your fallacious ad hominem equation)
The Nicean Council established the majority of today’s mainstream Christian doctrine
The Nicean Councilmen were wicked or unqualified to determine doctrine
Therefore today’s Christians should accept Nicean doctrines as false.
Ta-dah! Ad Hominem. Saying “argument” in latin doesn’t scare me Bro. Poulson.
The problem with this argument is, suppose the Council of Nicea, in their spare time, also determined that Charity never faileth and that the earth shall receive its paradaisical glory. These doctrines do not deserve refutation simply because they came from the Nicean Council
NEVER expounding the difficulties of the creeds and how they were creations of men and not God;
Again, I’m not convinced that this is true. Sadly my only evidence to the contrary is purely anecdotal so I will consult master Google and see if he has any information on surveys or something.
Comment # 25 left by Ryan on July 27th, 2006
The Nicean Councilmen were wicked or unqualified to determine doctrine
Therefore today’s Christians should accept Nicean doctrines as false.
Where I’m from, and according to my light and knowledge, if a person unqualified to make a determination makes such a determination and that determination is actually false, then OF COURSE one should accept it as exactly that, false.
Your allegations of fallacious argumentation are not sound. The truth is that the Bishops argued amongst themselves (while professing to not have authority over the church as a whole) to come to a consensus about the nature of God. Because they were unqualified, (I never alleged wickedness) their creations of doctrine were wrong. How this line of reasoning is fallacious escapes me.
Take note, I have not denounced every single thing done by the councils; neither have I attacked anyone as an individual. If my reference to political power brokers is perceived as an attack on character, it is because you have made a value judgment based on my statement, not because I have attacked anyone’s character.
Comment # 26 left by Wade on July 27th, 2006
I served a mission in Georgia, and at first was worried about going to the Bible belt. Oh no! I thought. These people will really know the Bible - they are going to be tough.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I was incredibly disappointed with the lack of basic bible knowledge of the people as a whole. To paraphrase:
Mormons believe the Bible. All others claim to believe their own interpretations of a few selected verses in the Bible. That seems to be the difference.
Also, I think the doctrine of a fullness of salvation by grace alone puts a doctrinal deep sleep upon all those who buy into it. Why care about anything else. That’s why I said it would be hard for me to take seriously. I see myself in a Methodist sunday school class at about 17 years old and raising my hand to ask if we really ultimately believe in a fulness of salvation by grace alone. When the instructor honestly says ‘yes’, I say ‘bye’. There is no need to go any further whether you believe that doctrine or not. That is further within a faith that teaches that.
Comment # 27 left by Eric Nielson on July 28th, 2006
the doctrine of a fullness of salvation by grace alone puts a doctrinal deep sleep upon all those who buy into it.
Very well said my friend! I, along with you, would be surfing and golfing every single sunday while those other suckers were sweating it out in church.
A doctrinal deep sleep indeed! I think I’ll steal that phrase from you if you don’t mind.
Comment # 28 left by Wade on July 28th, 2006
hmm.. I wish I was golfing right now
Comment # 29 left by Ryan on July 28th, 2006
If wishes were fishes we’d all have a fry!!!
Get me on the course!
Comment # 30 left by Wade on July 28th, 2006
I have to both agree and disagree with your assumptions. Often I find your “Mormonism” showing a little strongly. Frankly, I don’t think there are many Mormons who know their own history any more than your “Christians” do on average.
That said, on gut level it does seem that the vast majority of Christians don’t know their own history to a level beyond the ignorant Mormon population. What I mean by that is Mormons may not know the particulars of the problems, but they at least know the problems exist. Its hard not to with so much “anti-Mormonism” and skeptical viewpoints floating around. On the other hand, average Christians are not faced with such in your face refutations beyond the politics of the moment. They don’t realize or acknowledge that the all-encompasing “Historical Christianity” or “Biblical Christianity” is hard to define beyond catch phrases. Recent research has shown exactly what a mess the formation of “Orthodoxy” really was.
Those who are apologists against the recent research in Christian history and scripture (particularly origins) end up dismissive. They call them and their work “fathless atheists” and argue theologically (rather than on equally rational terms) why those doing the research are wrong. To be fair, Mormons don’t engage the critics at all even when the arguments relate to many shared faith values. Of course, part of this is the belief in the Apostasy; wiping away the slate of our own connection to the origins of Christianity.
Finally, I have to agree that the true problem is not just ignoring their own history and attacking the history of others. Rather, it is not owing up to history. They are quick to forget their own questionable pasts as if they never had a past. Part of that, I feel, has to do with the splintering of Christian secterianism. They can say “that was the Catholics” or “That was the Methodists,” and not themselves. Bringing us back to the point of this post. Most Christians today, especially evangelicals, have a clean and unblemished idea of where they get their beliefs. They refuse to have it any other way. Mormons might be similar in knowledge for their own history, but they do face it when they are confronted for good or bad. I don’t believe I can say the same for the vast number of Christians who seem only to read the Bible and listen to their preachers. If they did more than that, I would imagine much more discussion about at least the problems of Biblical texts.
Comment # 31 left by Jettboy on July 29th, 2006
Often I find your “Mormonism” showing a little strongly.
I’ll take that as a compliment!
I slightly disagree as far your claim about Mormons not knowing their own history. True, many of us don’t know the intracacies of the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the details of Joseph’s plural marriages. So what?
Furthermore, I think the main difference in ignorance levels comes when it is pointed out that the vast majority of Christians actually believe the bible was compiled by God himself, i.e. the texts we have today are the fullness of all truth ever given or handed down by God. This is astounding to me. Also, that evangelicals claim salvation through Christ is great; but their notions of his nature are still deeply rooted in Catholicism and what has come out of the creeds of the third through fifth centuries.
In other words, it seems to me that mainstream christians are ignorant of their origins in a fundamental manner; whereas most Mormons are ignorant of things such as the exact colors adorning the uniforms of the Nauvoo Legion.
Comment # 32 left by Wade on July 29th, 2006