Sermons
Inside Sojourn
Say Hello To Fundaphobia
Fundaphobia – the irrational fear of someone with uncompromising beliefs that differ from your own.
There’s a lie that’s being spread from every level and layer of our culture. It begins in Kindergarten with sweet-smiling platitudes about getting along, and ends in institutions of higher learning in programs of all stripes – Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Literature, History, and Religion. It’s present in our civic ceremonies, in the language of our news media, and in the stories being told on sitcoms and dramas.
The lie is this: we live in an age of tolerance, diversity, and without moralistic absolutes.
Now this is nothing that Tim Keller hasn’t said (much more brilliantly than I, for certain), but it’s come to my mind this morning as I read the comments section on the Courier-Journal’s story about our 10-year anniversary. The vitriol runs loud and proud, with accusations of fundamentalism, homophobia and misogyny flying like rocks at an Old Testament stoning.
If there’s anything our post-Christian western ethos is not, it’s tolerant.
Drive around Louisville’s urban neighborhoods for a few minutes, and you’ll probably see a few dozen Co-exist bumper stickers. These are bumper stickers with a cross, a crescent, a Star of David, a Yin Yang, and more displayed together. It’s a perfect snapshot of this deep cultural lie, and the intellectual blindness that goes along with it.
If we actually embraced a vision for tolerance, there would be a deep and wide cultural sentiment of, “I’m okay, you’re okay.” True tolerance would have to embrace a sort of religious libertarianism. You want to be a Muslim? Okay. Have fun. You want to believe the Bible? Go for it. There’s no God? Oh. Too bad. Enjoy the way that shapes your world. You want to believe that aliens landed on a volcano in Hawaii and revealed the true and only way to God while you were tripping on mushrooms? Fantastic.
Religious dialogue would be able to take place with a depth of honesty – here we agree, here we disagree – and politics would have to take seriously the need for dialogue. In light of these deep and distinct differences, how do we live together in harmony? That would be tolerance.
Instead, we have a predominant religious worldview that insists upon enforcing the warm-and-fuzzy feelings of elementary school; the Rodney King sentiment of getting along. To do so, we must enforce a kind of liberalization of every religion in order to bring them together. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that hold to foundational documents – The Bible, the Torah, and the Qur’an – is dangerous fundamentalism, insisting on traditional views of hell and judgment, gender, sexuality and morality. These values might disturb the warm fuzzies, particularly amongst people who believe that they can do whatever they want whenever they want. Obviously, in their minds, sexual liberty has proven itself to be wondrous for society, and we can’t allow that to be threatened by traditionalism. And so the arguments go.
It’s classic pluralism. In a pluralistic society, all religions are welcomed, so long as they don’t threaten the stability of the society by making claims like exclusivity. Roman culture was proudly pluralistic, absorbing the religions of their conquered neighbors into their pantheon, allowing these conquered peoples to continue their practice in peace so long as they made room for the pantheon and honored Caesar – a demi-god himself. When Christianity arose, making claims that Jesus alone was the way, the truth, and the life, it disrupted the dominant religious ideology, and had to be put down. Out came the crosses, the lions and the rack. Babylonian culture had the same approach to their empire as the Romans, which is what caused so many problems for Daniel and his friends in the book of Daniel.
Welcome to modern American spirituality. Under the banner of tolerance lies a rabid and angry fear, a spiritual anxiety that can’t tolerate disagreement. Jesus is welcome at the table, so long as he’s never quoted speaking about hell or marriage. Words like fundamentalism are spit out like expletives. It’s fundaphobia – the irrational fear of someone with uncompromising beliefs that differ from your own.
Our priests of pluralism insist that we’re all talking about the same thing when we talk about religion. They tell us we’re all climbing up the same mountain to god, or we’re all blind men with a hand on a different part of an elephant – one says “god is a trunk” and another says “god is a leg,” but we don’t realize that we’re all touching the same thing.
The religions of the world, at their core, say “no.” They disagree radically about the nature of reality and the universe. Christianity says there’s nothing you can do to save yourself from the wreck our souls and our world have become, because of sin. Islam says that there is a path of obedience that saves the soul. Zen Buddhism says that the idea of a soul that needs saving – a self - is a myth, and that we need to reconnect to the oneness of all things, or as The Matrix said, “There is no spoon.”
The fundaphobes hear this disagreement and it fills them with anxiety. They come in as priests of pluralism, proselytizing these poor ignorant slobs to try to tell them they’re all the same. But their pluralism is itself a fundamentalism. Their commitment to belief in a world without absolutes is itself, an absolute. As they cast their vitriol at the traditionalists of the world, calling them prideful and arrogant for insisting on their narrow world view, they themselves arrogantly cast judgment over the sacred texts and traditions of religions that have lasted for thousands of years. Never mind that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others don’t want to be lumped together. For the fundaphobic pluralist, they must change.
The same is true with views on sexuality. The traditional views of Christians (and other religions) regarding sexuality and marriage are viewed as narrow and arcane. Sexuality is deeply personal and diverse, and the doors on what is viewed as culturally acceptable swing wider each year. Absolutes, like a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, or a belief in chastity before marriage, are shouted down in a barrage of anger.
Why? Because there is deep anxiety about disagreement. It’s fine that you want to live that way – married to someone of the opposite sex for life – but don’t you dare advocate that it’s a better way than divorce, multiple partners, or homosexuality or transgendered living. That would disrupt a pluralistic anything-goes worldview. (It might even awaken our consciences.)
I’m a strong believer in religious liberty. I thank God that I live in a nation where I have the freedom to practice my faith and you have the freedom to practice yours (even if it’s pluralistic and fundaphobic). Political life should be about working out how we live together, not about crushing one another’s worldview for the sake of a fundamentalism – whether that’s pluralistic fundamentalism or religious fundamentalism.
No doubt, Christians have seriously messed this up over the years, both in imperialistic Christianity of the distant past and fundamentalist efforts of the recent past. But I’m convinced that Christianity isn’t embattled. The Bible says that God will build His church and I believe it. So with no anxieties, I can live my life as a Christian, share my faith, and not fear the reactions of those around me even as I pray that the Spirit of God will open their eyes to the glory of Christ. I’ll pray for them, serve them, and love them, and the gospel will do what the gospel does. I can love people I totally disagree with, befriend them, and not feel any pressure to change them myself, because that’s God’s work.
So to my fundaphobe friends: I am okay with your fundamentalism. Are you okay with mine? Are you aware of yours? As they say… the first step to getting help is admitting that you have a problem.
About Mike Cosper
Well said Mike.
Mike, a home run. Thanks for taking the time to pen this piece.
Pingback: Say Hello to Fundaphobia « Mike Cosper's Blog
Great truth and clarity amidst a bunch of confusing noise.
We’ve been told with great authority that opposition will be constant. I guess I was a little shocked to see this much over a brief description of a church who has never claimed to be anything less. This must mean our mission is moving forward and those who are against us have taken notice.
Well said, bro. I just posted a short article on the rhetoric of the Coexist sticker two weeks ago: http://indesertum.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-rhetorical-violence-of-your-coexist-sticker/
It might interest you, since you’re thinking about this stuff (and apparently, so is all of Louisville).
To the dismay of mediocre worship pastors everywhere: I’m pretty sure Bono pioneered that coexist design into popular culture.
Well, they may not be that dismayed, but they ought to be.
Well said. Sometimes the self-professed “open minded” person is anything but… Man, Sojourn seems so friendly to all peoples, I’m stunned that people would slam it. Which I guess is part of Cosper’s point.
Your argument that all religions cannot coexist assumes two things:
1) that one of these religions (in your opinion, Christianity) is absolutely right. and
2) that one of these religions is the whole sum of truth.
If you allow yourself to possibly believe that something in your religion can be wrong, then you have no other choice than to look elsewhere for truth. This may cause you to look at other religions who, in some instances, disagree with you voraciously. If you believe God is truth, then he is indeed in every religion (unless you’re foolish enough to suggest that all other religions are completely, 100% wrong, which could get awkward when discussing Judaism).
Of course, as an atheist I am free to take from these man-made systems what I like. I appreciate the compassion that is promoted by Jesus. I appreciate the calmness of mind that is promoted by meditation in Buddhism and other (mostly) Eastern religions. I admire the discipline of those of the Islamic faith. And I can appreciate all of these things without fearing some eternal damnation for my sins (of which, if still counted, would for sure be in the millions at this point). I can rest assured knowing that my final resting place will be back into the earth from which I first came, putting everything I took from her back in.
In response to Pat’s post, I wish to point out error’s in his counter-argument. First, Mike isn’t arguing that all religions cannot coexist, but that all of those that hold to exclusivity in some way cannot do so. If one is correct about it’s relation to absolute truth, then all others that claim that position must be false.
The second error is that this does not logically require the assumption that one of these belief systems actually is true. If they are all wrong, then it is the pluralistic world-view that is correct, which is inclusive of every other belief system that doesn’t challenge it. Of course, every person who believes in an exclusive religion believes they are following the correct one. To do otherwise is conflicted.
There’s lots for fair-minded people to object to in this piece, from the condescending tone to the straw arguments to the bitter defensiveness of the writer to not-quite-accurate historical assertions.
The trouble begins with the first three words: “There’s a lie.”
Look around on the Sojourn Web site and you will see that word “lie” in post after post after post — if you don’t agree with Sojourn, then you are “lying.”
How is that helpful? To BEGIN by approaching your neighbor with an accusation of deceit, untruthfulness, and bad faith?
Furthermore, you say: “When Christianity arose, making claims that Jesus alone was the way, the truth, and the life, it disrupted the dominant religious ideology, and had to be put down.”
It’s important to remember that the “Jesus is the Only Way” brand of Christianity did not just “arise” in 33CE. It developed. You seem to be referencing most clearly the view held by the writer of the gospel we call John, but that writer’s view was not the only view of Christianity. It did come to be a dominant view over time, as other views were either harmonized or discarded, but in the early years, it was precisely the existence of a pluralistic society that allowed the religion you now practice to develop.
Ebionites “co-existed” with Marcionites and the multiple groups that we lump together these days under the label “gnostic,” and many other groups with their own ideas about Jesus and his relationship (or not) to divinity. To accept and borrow your term, it was the triumph of the first wave of fundaphobes (those who codified the canon of the New Testament, developed the idea of the Trinity, and insisted on the idealogical purity of the religion that was soon to be adopted officially by the Empire) that created Christianity as we know it today. And they created it by forcefully and sometimes violently suppressing all those they branded as heretics.
In other words, this debate is nothing new, or as the writer of Ecclesiastes would have it, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
I am not a Christian. I am not a Buddhist. I am not a Jew, nor a Muslim, nor a Hindu, nor an atheist. Furthermore, I am not “someone with uncompromising beliefs.” I am happy to investigate all religious beliefs and make compromises between them to better understand the world and my place in it.
One of the compromises I had to make early on was to realize that the “Jesus is the only way” formulation I learned as a Fundamentalist Christian in Louisville didn’t seem reasonable anymore, once I knew and understood the reasonable religious beliefs of others in my community. Once I really TRIED to understand other beliefs, I modified my own, and now I do believe (very sincerely believe) in coexistence. It’s not simply a “warm fuzzy,” as Cosper would denigrate it. It’s a real attempt to bridge differences between real people and bring some real understanding to the table and approach people’s variant religious faiths with real openness, kindness, and respect. And it makes me as sad to see this mocked.
A suggestion: Go learn about another religion. Go practice it. Investigate it (for real). Meet other people who have different beliefs, and engage in dialogue, rather than evangelism. You might be surprised.
Thursday is the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Sukkoth. Jews read Ecclesiastes for this observance (you accept this book too), and reflect on the transience of life as represented by the sukkah, or booth, the construction for which is described in the book of Leviticus (you accept this book too).
This might be a great place to start… with a religion not so far away from your own, and with the reminder that every day could be your last, so maybe you don’t want to spend it insisting that everyone who doesn’t believe exactly like you is “lying,” and going to hell.
First, as a moderator here, a few general comments to all:
1. Thanks to everyone who has visited this blog today, and for your continued hits. This has been one of our highest trafficked days.
2. These comments are moderated. Slurs, obscenities, personal attacks, and repeated, spam-like diatribes won’t make it through. To the few of you who engage in this kind of thing: we know you hate us, think we’re stupid, wish us harm, etc. We get it. We’re praying for you.
Now to Pat: thanks for the comment, and welcome. A couple points:
As Pastor Mike develops in his closing three paragraphs, of course we can, and should, live peacefully alongside each other, being friends and seeking the good of this city. The point is that many who claim they value “coexistence” show that they do not. Just read the comments in the Courier piece (which I found to be a very fair and well-researched article).
Also, we do in fact believe the two things you mention: Christianity is absolutely right, and is the whole sum of Truth. We certainly respect your right to believe otherwise. And as fellow-citizens in this society, we’re also glad to find areas where we can agree with those who don’t accept Christ as the only way — in your case, we too appreciate compassion, calmness of mind, and discipline.
To Andrew: sorry you feel this post is condescending (at all, and also in relation to the comments on the CJ thread).
As far as the claim that we’re calling anyone who disagrees with us “liars” — nope. But we do believe Satan is the father of lies, and that he is busy in the world, deceiving everyone he can. I (and we at Sojourn) acknowledge that you disagree, and that you probably feel offended that we regard you as someone who has bought into this deception.
As far as the history lesson goes (“It’s important to remember …”) — This section of your comment just isn’t factual. Of course we’ve heard it before. It doesn’t matter how often something is repeated, if it isn’t true to begin with.
There are intelligent people and scholars who hold your position. Hopefully you will acknowledge that there are intelligent people and scholars who hold to ours. I can quote sources or include links, and then you can come back with different sources and links — neither will convince the other or accept the other’s sources. But I do find it interesting that many leading agnostic and athiest scholars who debate Christians are willing to cede a lot more historical territory than you are ceding.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day we can agree to disagree. We’ll use our “channels” and “platforms” to talk about what we believe, and you will use yours to talk about what you believe. We respect your right to do so.
Last, I personally have investigated other religions and philosophies. Many Sojourners have done so, as well. We’ve come to a different conclusion than yours.
Have a nice day, and thanks for visiting the blog. Once again, everybody, we greatly appreciate all the traffic and the time you’ve spent here.
Thank you, Mike, for the intelligent and well-written article. As a Christian, for years I have longed to find a church that is both theologically conservative and yet reaches out to the very fringes of society by putting aside legalism and traditionalism. People assume that because you believe the whole Bible is the inspired Word of God and you teach it and organize your church by it that you are out to bash people over their heads with your views. 2 thoughts about this: (1) I have experienced nothing but love and grace from the leaders of Sojourn in the short time I have been a member there. And (2) many who want us to be more tolerant are denying the whole message of the cross. We are all worthless sinners and yet God, in His amazing mercy, sent His one and only Son to die on the cross and take that wrath upon Himself so that we might be saved from our sins unto everlasting life. This love is what propels us, as Sojourners, to love our community the way we do. This message is so interwoven throughout Scripture and esp. the Gospels that there is no room for compromise. Jesus Himself said that you are either for Him or against Him and that whoever seeks to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for Christ’s sake will find it. But He also wept when He saw the size of the harvest and even asked God to forgive the very people who nailed him to the cross.
Andrew,
I can say as someone who spent much of their life not really giving Jesus a second thought and thinking that what someone believes is really their personal business, I agree with Mike. An amazing thing happened to me a few years ago and I now believe that Jesus is the only way. It’s not an arrogant “I got it right, you’ve got it wrong” kind of thing, I can honestly say it’s the last thing I thought I’d ever be saying. However, that is what I believe.
This belief is based on Biblical claims that are not my own. So…that’s where things get difficult. If I really believe that faith in the person of Jesus is the only way to avoid eternal separation from God (Hell), is it really the most loving, considerate, helpful thing I could do to keep my mouth shut for the sake of avoiding any potential conflict? If I believe that God is calling His people to Himself through the proclamation of the person and work of Jesus, do I avoid the possibility of disagreement by not saying (with love) the very things I believe truly hold the key to Life?
If there wasn’t eternal implications associated with what I believe, the concept of focusing EXCLUSIVELY on peaceful co-existence might be more appealing. However, I believe that the end of this life is not the end. I believe the only thing that will save me before a Holy and Just God is my faith in the provisions He’s made to cover my sins by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I believe this is real and I believe this forgiveness of sins is available for all who will believe. If I really believe this and I care about other people…how can I sit back and be OK with someone putting their hope in anything else?
I know this has been muddied up by sinful arrogance and pride for thousands of years. God is good, people are not. That’s why Jesus is such good news! I want to personally say I’m sorry for all the unloving, arrogant, prideful appeals you’ve heard claiming that what you believe is wrong and what someone else believes is right. I’m thankful for your curiosity and sensitivity to the many different beliefs of the people in the world in which we live. I have no doubt that there is much I could learn from you.
My appeal to you is not to believe what I believe for my intellectual edification. My belief is that true eternal life is found in Jesus Christ. If I really believe this is true, that sins can be forgiven and eternal life is a reality for those who put their hope in Jesus, then this is the greatest news in the universe! If this is true, there is nothing else more important. If this is true, while there is certainly room for respectful consideration of the beliefs of others, there is really no room at all for one who claims to be a Christian to consider anything other than faith in Jesus Christ alone to be a path to God. My prayer is that God would work a miracle in your heart and give you the eyes to see this amazing and undeserved gift. I think Mike’s prayer would be something along the same lines. Peace!
Pingback: Footnote: Say Hello To Fundaphobia | Pulpit 2 Pew
Hi friends.
Sorry for the long post below. I thought some things needed clarification.
First of all – thanks to those of you who’ve posted encouraging words. It means a lot.
To Pat – My argument is NOT that all these religions cannot coexist. Far from it! I’m a firm believer in the need for a political worldview that makes space for freedom of religion. We need desperately to learn to coexist or else the kind of hate-filled rhetoric that dominates our airwaves and discussion boards will be the only thing we can hear. But that can’t mean that we demand that all religions are equally true and valid. It can’t mean that we demean concepts of morality to the lowest common denominator and demand that anyone who disagrees be shouted down. That isn’t coexistence. It’s pluralist fundamentalism. It’s the same spirit that causes TV preachers to baptize a political movement as “Christian” and to moralize economic and political worldviews. And it’s hypocrisy. In their eager hatred of fundamentalism, the pluralists of the world have created a new fundamentalism of their own. If you don’t line up on our doctrines of inclusiveness and human sexuality, you’re an outcast.
To be clear as well – my post isn’t primarily an apologetic for the Gospel or for the existence of God. My point is simply that the kind of anger towards conservative Christians that dominates the discussion amongst progressives (a group in which Sojourn lives and moves) is hypocritical and is rooted in its own sort of fundamentalism.
As to your own point about your ability to draw from these various religions, I’d encourage you to consider how convenient the atheist worldview is. Without accountability, without objective morality, you’ve created a worldview that appeases your conscience and in which you can immediately dismiss anything that rubbed against your preferences. You rule your moral world, discerning from your own will what is good, what is evil, and what is true. That’s a pretty god-like place, isn’t it?
To Andrew –
With regard to the lie comment, I think you’ve missed my point. I’m not saying, “If you disagree with Sojourn you’re a liar.” I’m saying if you walk around calling for tolerance and coexistence, simultaneously shouting down and berating someone who’s worldview differs from your own, then you’re not asking for tolerance and coexistence. You’re believing a lie about what tolerance means. Tolerance doesn’t mean agreement. It means toleration. I’ll put up with you and hope you put up with me, even though we totally disagree. I will tolerate the fact that my wife watches Glee, even though I find it repellant in every way because I love my wife. Likewise, though I disagree with the worldviews of many friends and neighbors, I can tolerate their worldview and our differences because I love them. I don’t feel the urge to attack every time a difference comes up.
I’m definitely not excluding Christians from this tendency. Christian fundamentalism – especially as it’s manifested politically in the last 30 or so years – has not been about coexistence either. So I acknowledge that some in my camp are guilty as well.
Bobby has graciously commented on your historical references to Ebionites, Marcionites, and the Canon, and I would echo what he says. (Though frankly, I think the scholarship to support the later dates for the authorship of the scriptures and the place of the Gnostics that you suggest is weak at best.)
My intention is not mock coexistence but to point to the fact that when it’s articulated, when diversity is articulated or tolerance, it’s a mask for a pluralistic worldview, such as the one you articulate when you talk about your personal journey. Pluralism invites spiritual pilgrims to explore the worlds of religion and find what works for them, what speaks to them and what resonates with them. All “spirituality” has equal value and worth in pluralism, and it’s deeply personal and individual. What I would call pluralist fundamentalism is a posture that vigorously attacks anyone who disagrees with that religious worldview – particularly when someone makes exclusive claims for theirs.
Though my intention was not primarily to post an apologetic for the Christian worldview, I can’t help but comment on something you said. You said:
I am not a Christian. I am not a Buddhist. I am not a Jew, nor a Muslim, nor a Hindu, nor an atheist. Furthermore, I am not “someone with uncompromising beliefs.” I am happy to investigate all religious beliefs and make compromises between them to better understand the world and my place in it.
One of the compromises I had to make early on was to realize that the “Jesus is the only way” formulation I learned as a Fundamentalist Christian in Louisville didn’t seem reasonable anymore, once I knew and understood the reasonable religious beliefs of others in my community. Once I really TRIED to understand other beliefs, I modified my own, and now I do believe (very sincerely believe) in coexistence. It’s not simply a “warm fuzzy,” as Cosper would denigrate it. It’s a real attempt to bridge differences between real people and bring some real understanding to the table and approach people’s variant religious faiths with real openness, kindness, and respect. And it makes me as sad to see this mocked.
My challenge to you would be this: What’s at the center of your universe? How is truth objective in your world? You describe a picture of discerning truth amidst these religions and modifying your beliefs, but that’s extremely subjective. At the end of the day, it’s still you serving at the center as the final arbiter of truth. Think of it this way: Could God disagree with you? If truth isn’t something that’s objective and outside of your own conscience, then like Pat, it leaves you in the judgment seat for God.
And here’s the thing: I’m not about demanding that you all change and agree with me. I can’t influence that. It’s in God’s hand to reveal himself and his Son to you, and I pray that he will. But I am happy to coexist in a city full of pluralists, hyphenated Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others. I think we can all work together in many ways to make the city a better place. But I’ll get fired up every time someone insists that we all need to believe the same thing or assumes that we all share a worldview (as most of my friends of other faiths would as well.)
Just because I feel that everyone (Christian and Non) needs to reread this at least 4 more times for it to really sink in.
“To be clear as well – my post isn’t primarily an apologetic for the Gospel or for the existence of God. My point is simply that the kind of anger towards conservative Christians that dominates the discussion amongst progressives (a group in which Sojourn lives and moves) is hypocritical and is rooted in its own sort of fundamentalism.
As to your own point about your ability to draw from these various religions, I’d encourage you to consider how convenient the atheist worldview is. Without accountability, without objective morality, you’ve created a worldview that appeases your conscience and in which you can immediately dismiss anything that rubbed against your preferences. You rule your moral world, discerning from your own will what is good, what is evil, and what is true. That’s a pretty god-like place, isn’t it?”
Mike — Thanks for the blog. Refreshing and well said.
I look forward to learning so much more about the Bible within the community of Sojourn!!
Sojourn J-town to be specific. I’m excited, so excited, to see what GOD has in store for the J-town community!!
“MegaDittos,” dude.
Most of us who have read this have probably also skimmed the outrageous comments on the Courier Journal thread by now (some angry people out there, right?). I just wanted to remind us all (including myself) that this is the type of persecution Jesus told us would happen; and we should rejoice that it is evident God is working through our church in this community. As far as the angry posters, God tells us not to get into meaningless quarrels with these people. The internet (as my wife pointed out) is a very safe, easy place to ridicule, argue and insult without any real-life consequences. Comments from these people in person would be very different. Also, most of them are obviously not followers of Christ, so the message of the cross will sound like foolishness to them. We should expect that. I think it’s okay to post on threads; but let’s do it prayerfully, considering what our real goal is.
As a Roman Catholic, I have noticed the stridency of the comments and posts by those who proudly call themselves ‘fundamentalist’ Christians. I accept that they are firm in their beliefs about their own faith.
And, having read this post, I understand that they also have great pride in being ‘separatists’ from the ‘popular’ culture.
I will leave here an ancient observation of the behavior of the early Christians for comparison, since early Christianity was mentioned:
” 5:1 For Christians are not distinguished from the
rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in
customs.
5:2 For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their
own, neither do they use some different language, nor
practise an extraordinary kind of life.
5:3 Nor again do they possess any invention
discovered by any intelligence or study of ingenious
men, nor are they masters of any human dogma as some
are.
5:4 But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and
barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the
native customs in dress and food and the other
arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their
own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous,
and confessedly contradicts expectation.
5:5 They dwell in their own countries, but only as
sojourners; they bear their share in all things as
citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers.
Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and
every fatherland is foreign.
5:6 They marry like all other men and they beget
children; but they do not cast away their offspring.
5:7 They have their meals in common, but not their
wives.
5:8 They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they
live not after the flesh.
5:9 Their existence is on earth, but their
citizenship is in heaven.
5:10 They obey the established laws, and they
surpass the laws in their own lives.
5:11 They love all men, and they are persecuted by
all.
5:12 They are ignored, and yet they are condemned.
They are put to death, and yet they are endued with
life.
5:13 They are in beggary, and yet they make many
rich. They are in want of all things, and yet they
abound in all things.
5:14 They are dishonoured, and yet they are
glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of,
and yet they are vindicated.
5:15 They are reviled, and they bless; they are
insulted, and they respect.
5:16 Doing good they are punished as evil-doers;
being punished they rejoice, as if they were thereby
quickened by life.
5:17 War is waged against them as aliens by the
Jews, and persecution is carried on against them by
the Greeks, and yet those that hate them cannot tell
the reason of their hostility.”
In Mathetes letter to Diognetus (written circa 130-200 A.D.),
there is no trace of mean-spiritedness, hubris, self-righteousness, superiority, or contempt on the part of the early Christians for those around them.
To compare the early Christian people with today’s fundamentalism, one must ask how far has Christianity come in two thousand years? How far ? And where can we find Christian people who live among our countrymen with the spirit of the early Christians described so beautifully by Mathetes (who was not a Christian, by the way).