the public image of christianity

While encouraged to start this blog by others, I decided to give a proper go at doing a blog after having the following published in the Student Newspaper of the University of Edinburgh.

 This is the version I sent to the editor, which differs slightly from what was published, but not much…. click More for the whole article and tell me what you think!

The Image of Christianity 

The image of Christianity could use an overhaul. Anti-intellectual, anti-democracy, violent and homophobic and are all characterizations of it presented in media sources. 

Bestselling books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens give those who do not believe in God, or perhaps more accurately, the God presented by “organized religion,” new inspiration (pardon the pun). After the wildly successful Da Vinci Code book, popular texts which challenge traditional tenets of Christianity are now embraced.

But it is not just atheists who critique religious leaders. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently made headlines for remarks about Sharia law.  This idea that religious law overstep its “bounds” to be respected alongside the laws of the State led to an immediate call for the Archbishop’s resignation. Of course, since the Enlightenment many major Christian denominations throughout the West have engaged in a complicated struggle for the influence, power and the right to practice their faith legally.  In the U.S., an alliance of power between some American denominations and the Republican Party was forged by groups like the Moral Majority in the late 1970s. This marriage of religion and politics helped to get Ronald Reagan elected as president in 1980 and ever since, conservative Christians in the U.S. have been major power holders in the Republican Party.  Religious rhetoric became infused in State foreign policy in the U.S., specifically in the current administration.  The followers of a man who said “blessed are the peacemakers” became seen as warriors and speeches from President George W. Bush using religious language to defend the “war on terror” have only cemented this image.

But perhaps the most prominent current problem for the image of Christianity in the media is anti-gay sentiment.  For example, this Student newspaper followed the controversy over the Christian Union’s sponsorship of the PURE curriculum and its views on sexuality.  The defence of CU was that its rights were being violated. This presented the image of the followers of the prince of peace as those who, ironically, fight to have their beliefs accepted in order to criticize a vilified minority group.  The perceived traditional majority has come to be seen as antagonistic to those on the periphery of the power structures of culture.  And the media images of Christian leaders have led to all “true” believers being depicted as sharing one kind of Biblical interpretation, one kind of religious dogma. Members of “liberal” or “progressive” congregations who may embrace LGBTQI people, for example, are depicted as anti-Biblical. The idea of a Christian as someone who does not accept homosexuality, evolution or any kind of uncertainty in the authority of the Bible is an appropriate stereotype, if media is to be believed.

Of course these are just a few concerns of the Christian image. But what is a Christian to do to improve the image of the faith?

Perhaps most importantly, the church should begin to understand the true differences between operating as an institution founded on the grace of Jesus Christ rather than on corporate paradigms.  This may lead to the embrace of a positive Christian stereotype: minister as community leader in the search for social justice, talking about injustices to the poor rather than prosperity as proof of God’s favour.  The church needs visibility for ministers who tell the truth in interviews rather than craft media appearances to protect beneficial alliances with political forces or even to appease rich members of their own congregations. The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi reads, “where there is doubt, faith” not certainty.  So fighting for justice is more important than fighting against a few popular cultural texts which contain critical ideas that are often not new and at worst cause the church to re-examine what it believes (the way the church calls others to re-examine what they believe). Faithfulness, not certainty, is the goal of Christian practice.  As such, the church needs to understand the varied voices among believers and challenge the arrogance of authority as Jesus once challenged Pharisees, to be faithful to the witness of Christ.  And it needs to understand that just because Paul got it wrong in Romans 1 when he wrote that same sex desire is unnatural (it is in all of nature), it does not negate the authority of all Scripture or even the rest of Paul’s own writings, anymore than heliocentric theory negates the authority of the book of Joshua.

            Finally, Christians needs to understand that the goal of the church is to witness to what Christ has done.  The church is best built up first and foremost through patient, difficult and messy face-to-face community building, not through coercion and hegemony.  It offers the place where personal relationships grow and lives are transformed, where people can find a vision of deliverance from their pain and suffering.  This is the best publicity, and it is what the church can offer that the individualism of unrestricted capitalism and neo-liberal economic policy cannot.  Ironically, the best PR for Christianity will be the rejection of the need for self-promotion in the media. The church does not have time for it; there is too much spiritual battle to fight. Ironically, the quest of the church to protect its good image in the world will continue to cause that image to erode.