PoAC: The Perception of Christianity, from inside and outside

[velvetpage]

For the uninitiated amongst you, PoAC stands for Post of Actual Content. Term stolen from jinzi. Used by permission. :)

This will not be the most lucid PoAC I've ever written, because I do not have the time or energy this week to set it up properly and give it my full attention for an hour or two as I would like to do. There will probably be errors in logic and missing information. I apologize in advance, and humbly accept well-meant corrections. I reserve the right to stand by what I say if I have to disagree with you, though. :)

Here we go, then.

I made a statement the other day in danaeris' journal, asking rhetorically why it was always my faith that got slammed, and why I was seen as the person with the problem for not liking it when that happened. Though one or two people agreed with me that the slamming was wrong, at least one more pointed out that a) Christianity was not the only faith to get slammed in this way, and b) with the number of people who have been hurt by Christianity, some would say the slamming was deserved. The response highlighted what I had already privately recognized: that the statement was made in a fit of pique, and that it came more out of a collective Christian culture than out of honest anger on my part. Now, don't get me wrong: the event that sparked the statement did leave me angry. My reaction to it, however, was primed by my Christian upbringing and culture. (I use the word "culture" in the anthropological sense here, of anything that binds a group of people together. In this definition, each of us has a private culture that is formed of all the different parts attaching us to all the different groups to which we belong.) My feeling is that both parts of the response were also primed by the commenter's personal experiences with the Church, and that we had managed to point out what is probably the most fundamental difference in outlook between Christians and non-Christians in just a few sentences.

First, there's my statement. It has three parts: one, Christianity is always getting slammed; two, that it is the only faith that comes in for this treatment; and three, I'm expected by many people to laugh it off or stop being so darn sensitive about a joke.

Let's deal with part one first. Christianity has a martyr myth that is very, very well-developed. It goes something like this: the first Christians suffered and died for their faith. Jesus suffered and died to bring hope to the world. To be a good Christian, you must be like Jesus and (to a lesser extent) his apostles. Therefore, a good Christian must suffer for their faith. A Christian who doesn't "take up (their) cross and follow (Christ)" is not a good Christian, and a cross is not a comfortable thing to take up.

I've been primed by my faith to develop this martyr complex, always looking for ways in which I am being "tested", either to tempt me (Satan is involved at this point) or to make me stronger (this one I lay at God's feet) or, in many cases, both. The nice thing about this particular requirement of the faith is that there's no such thing as a perfect life. There is ALWAYS something going on that could be seen as a temptation or a test. Life is convenient that way. On the downside, though, when things are going comparatively well, there is a tendency to look for areas of persecution. Christians often feel the need to create this, or just exacerbate the little bit that is there, in order to satisfy the martyr requirement. (I'm grossly oversimplifying here, and I'm aware of it. Just let me make my point, please.)

Now, this is not to say that there is no persecution. There certainly is. I can think of half a dozen instances of popular culture that were extremely offensive to Christians of every stripe, just off the top of my head. But what happens in the West is a little like a teenager rebelling against parental controls. The criticisms launched by the teen (in this case, non-Christian groups) are sometimes valid, and sometimes way over the top, and sometimes overgeneralized to a wider group of people than really deserve them. The long and short of it is, the parents in the scenario have a lot more power than the teenager, even when they're feeling victimized by the teen. The feelings of victimization are out of proportion to the actual events. The Church, and individual Christians, blow them out of proportion because of a) the martyr myth, and b) the correct perception that the other faiths are attacking the power of the Church in society.

So, part one, that Christianity is always getting slammed, is true but exaggerated by Christianity itself. What's more, most denominations have some variation on this theme, so most Christians identify with the martyr myth in some way. The theory grows in the telling, until it becomes popularly accepted in the Church as a whole. In fact, it doesn't need to be accepted; it's already there. It needs to be reinforced, and that happens often.

Part two, then: that Christianity is the only faith that comes in for this treatment. This is patently untrue, though there are certain scenarios that support it. For example, I've discovered recently that launching a discrimination suit according to Ontario Human Rights legislation requires that one be part of a minority group being discriminated against. Christianity is not a minority, therefore I would have trouble launching a human rights case if I were discriminated against because of my Christian faith. (There are loopholes here, and cases like this have gone to the human rights tribunal only to be thrown out. It seems a majority never gets discriminated against.) The thing is, Christians believe this. They have been brought up on the martyr myth. The whole world is against them because they are following the difficult path of Christ. Every scenario that feeds this myth gets adopted as part of the mythos, until it becomes an accepted aspect of Western Christianity.

However, Christians' treatment of other faiths never comes under the same scrutiny that we apply to those criticizing us. We never look on our denunciations of paganism, for example, as anything but spreading the truth about a dangerous lie. It never occurs to most Christians to see that as slamming other religions. Christianity (or at least, most of it) defines itself as the One True Faith. Ergo, practitioners of all other faiths are at best deluded and at worst evil tempters of the faithful. Ergo, it is our job to either enlighten them or cast them out. From the Christian perspective, this is not anti-pagan propaganda so much as spreading the truth in the effort to save souls. The idea that this could be called a hate crime is beyond offensive to Christians. It's not about hate. It's about being right. It's about God's love.

So, the Church prepares us and teaches us to look on our relationship with the rest of the world as a martyrdom in progress: everyone is, indeed, out to get Christians, just because we are Christians. It also puts itself on the highest moral pedestal it can: the Church and the Church alone has the key to Truth, and everyone else needs to hear it for the good of their own souls. They may not like it, but it is a Christian's job to preach it and take the persecution that comes with that. (See how the myth feeds itself?)

Three: I'm expected to be able to laugh at jokes where my faith is the butt.

It wasn't that long ago that jokes about a Jew, a Negro, and an Arab were fairly common. I remember hearing them while I was growing up, with various other races/ethnicities substituted for those three, and I'm not yet thirty. It's been a while since I heard one. Why? Because the anti-racism movement, aka the political-correctness movement, has stifled jokes that are discriminatory in that way. People telling such a joke in public risk censure of various kinds; from polite laughter followed by avoidance, to being told off or complained about to employers.

Closer to home, I often find myself defending my faith and explaining it. I can see both sides, usually. I can see how a non-Christian would perceive the action in question, but I also know the rationale for it from inside the faith. In many cases, I might once have acted that way myself. I have been told to lighten up when I commented that such-and-such was offensive to me. I have been told that no other religion would have a problem with that kind of joke aimed at them. My response to that is: do they really have no problem with it, or have they learned to cover hurt with laughter? Have they decided to pick their battles, and to not pick this particular one as worth fighting at this time? Or did they start out covering hurt with laughter, and end up raising the next generation thinking they really were okay with that type of joke?

I have trouble believing that a group of people could take lightly a joke that was sacreligious and mocking of their faith. Exactly how much did they really believe if they were capable of laughing at their beliefs like that? I haven't managed to wrap my head around this one fully yet.

I know this: I find it offensive to hear and participate in jokes or performances that would be sacreligious to anyone. Sometimes I will tolerate it in the interests of social cohesion. Sometimes I will leave. Sometimes I will speak out against it. But I am never comfortable with it. If I'm aware of it, I will be uncomfortable with it. I have no desire to develop a thicker skin. I'm comfortable with the skin I've got. If it makes me more sensitive to some situations, it also makes me a more empathetic person, and I will not sacrifice that on the altar of humour. It's about respect. I would not do that to your faith, not even in the guise of enlightening you to the truth (unless you asked, in which case I'd tell it as I see it.) I expect the same respect from others.

In summary, then: Yes, Christianity gets slammed. I purposely didn't go into whether or not Christianity deserves that slamming. That is a subject for an entire university course, and I'm not willing to take on that particular battle at this time. Yes, Christianity exacerbates the slams it takes through the device of an ingrained martyr mythos. No, I'm not prepared to let my faith be ridiculed in my presence.

I'm going to bed.

Comments

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

(1) I hope no-one jumps down your throat for the teenager/adult analogy. I know what you mean, but that particular choice implies childish/knows better, which is not what you meant (I assume), but would piss others off.

(2) I still don't know what to think about the whole idea that people should be able to laugh about these sorts of things. I think anyone who is saying that any joke should be ok is oversimplifying. And quite frankly, my experience is that to make a joke about Jews, for instance, you have to BE Jewish, or perhaps be dating one, for it to be socially acceptable. Of course those who made the joke skit that prompted this train of thought may be christian. I personally doubt it, however.

I can't help but wonder if there is a PhD thesis or three in a study of religious jokes and their acceptance among different populations.

I know pagans who take their religion "too seriously" (and I mean that in the sense of "he takes himself too seriously"). They don't have much of a sense of humour about their own religion either. I have more thoughts, random theories about the intersection of modern culture and how that influences taking seriously or not taking seriously one's religion, but I don't feel like going into them on here (lazy). Perhaps we'll chat about it at some point. :)

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

"Though one or two people agreed with me that the slamming was wrong, at least one more pointed out that a) Christianity was not the only faith to get slammed in this way..."

True enough, although in recent history (arbitrarily defined as post-WW2), Christianity has been taking the worst of it, in my opinion.

"...and b) with the number of people who have been hurt by Christianity, some would say the slamming was deserved."

There's a pony somewhere around here. No matter how much people may have been hurt by somebody, slamming isn't fair. Truth counts. Slams and slurs don't.

What's that old saw about two wrongs?

"...the Church and the Church alone has the key to Truth, and everyone else needs to hear it for the good of their own souls."

This statement is why I parted company from religion - any religion - a while ago. When there are two religions that claim to have a monopoly on Truth (and there are more than that, last time I checked), I feel completely justified in giving up in confusion.

I try not to say anything against somebody else's faith. In some ways, I wish I could have the comfort that faith offers. But it doesn't work for me.

I'm expected to be able to laugh at jokes where my faith is the butt.

Excuse me while I quote Dogbert. "Bah." (waves hand)

That's ridiculous. Now, I will allow that there are some funny jokes that depend on Christian references. On the other hand, all the ones that I thought were funny, I heard from Christians. The rest are just mean.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

There's something to be said for simplification. I usually try to insert "to a point" or another appropriate caveat. Unfortunately, even when I do, very few people actually read that as anything but a "covering her rear" caveat.

I think you've shown concisely why you object to "humor" treating religion with disdain, especially so-called humor that treats your (our) faith with disdain.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

It sounds like there was a very unpleasant dust-up; I'm sorry you caught part of it. If it helps any, I have some ancestors who owned slaves, but I don't consider myself responsible for slavery, nor do I condone it or find it funny.

So while I don't know what the "joke" was, I do know someone holding you personally responsible for the entire christian faith is ludicrous. Also, to anyone saying you should just laugh painful jokes off... nonsense. If something hurts someone, it's not funny.

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

Three things I'd like to say.

1) I once heard a comedian sum up quite well how I feel about Christianity. He said that Elvis and Jesus were a lot alike, and one of the reasons he gave was this: "I like a lot of the stuff they did, but some their fans get on my nerves." And the truth is, I know a lot of wonderful Christians, and a fair few Christians who I'd like to gag and send somewhere else for a long long time. At its heart, Christianity is an admirable religion - love your neighbor, help the poor, try to be basically good.

2) Now we come to the other half of Christianity (split arbitrarily in half by me, into parts I like and parts I don't like. I freely admit it's an arbitrary split.) One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity that grates on me is that 'in order to get into heaven, you have to believe this way.' Good Christians who really are trying to be good and helpful to other people will, if they really believe in this tenet, immediately try to convert anyone they can, because they'll want as many people as possible to get into heaven. This unfortunately leads to a LOT of tension. I don't know that there's really any solution to it, but maybe a compromise can be reached - every Christian I meet is officially allowed to ask me to convert *once* and only once. Once I refuse, they aren't allowed to ask again, and they have to accept my refusal. Any chance that could become policy?

3) This is perhaps the most important thing I want to say. Christians are not a majority - not really. The truth is, get any three Christians together and they will disagree on something fairly fundamental to their faith. I can't count how many sects and branches of Christianity there are - Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and then the giant conglomeration we lump into Protestantism... This is something I say whenever the issue of 'separation of Church and State' comes up in US politics. You want your church to run the government? Well, the truth is no one sect of Christianity has a majority. Whoever you put in charge, eventually a majority of Americans will disagree with them. And the thing I like to bring up the most is, if you separate (as I do) the Southern Baptists from the other Baptists, the plurality of religion in this country goes to the Catholics, and most of the people who talk about religion being important in politics aren't thinking of Catholicism when they say that.

Basically what I'm saying is, you probably *could* argue that you're a minority, if you identify yourself as part of a particular branch of Christianity. If you really wanted to.

Oh, and I'm also saying that (with the exception of recovering Catholics ragging on Catholicism) people that make jokes about Christianity often lump the sects artificially.