On this lovely Christmas morning, I find myself reviewing several diaries criticizing Christianity, and in each of them I find a common flaw. Each diarist criticizes Christianity as an "it" - what "it" does or has done in the past, how "it" is practiced - as if there exists any singular concept that can be called "Christianity."
There is no such singular concept. There are hundreds of sects that may or may not be included in "Christianity" - depending on whom you ask - and among them you can find disagreement on every doctrinal issue. There is, literally, no single thought upon which all "Christian" sects agree.
More below the fold....
Criticizing Christianity seems to be a popular pastime here on DKos. Much of that criticism is arguably fair, but a lot more of it is firmly grounded in ignorance. Specifically, any criticism that begins with or includes the words "Christianity is" or "what Christians believe/teach/say/do" ... is firmly grounded in ignorance.
There is no singular institution, belief system, or concept that can properly be called "Christianity."
Just in Catholicism alone, there are Eastern, Vernacular (Vatican II) and Latin (pre-Vatican II) Roman, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, and Anglican sects. Protestantism has literally hundreds of different sects, which may or may not include Mormons, Christian Scientists, and/or Jehovah's Witnesses, depending on whom you ask.
Among those various sects you can find disagreement on: monotheism versus polytheism, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the immaculate conception of Mary, the virgin birth of Christ, Mary's perpetual virginity, whether Christ was crucified, whether he was resurrected, and if so whether his death and resurrection was complete or incomplete propitiation for humankind, whether our knowledge of God is based on scripture, tradition, divine revelation (continuing or already complete), and/or reason, whether conscience is subjective or objective, and even whether there exists an individual "soul."
There are Christian sects that teach a ranking of sins, from The Unpardonable Sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit), to the Seven Deadly Sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride), to varying lists of mortal and venial sins. There are Christian sects teaching that all sins are equal before God. There are Christian sects teaching that sin is singular, either in intent or that there was only one Original Sin of which present "sinful acts" are mere echoes. And there are Christian sects that have no concept of "sin" at all, in the common sense of that word.
There are Christian sects that reject any notion of Hell, others that say Hell exists but no one is there, and others that say only 144,000 "true" believers will escape Hell.
Between "Hell exists but no one is there" and "only 144,000 'true' believers will escape Hell," you can find sects that treat baptism as "necessary and sufficient," others that treat baptism as "necessary but not sufficient," others that treat baptism as "sufficient but not necessary," and still others that treat baptism as "neither necessary nor sufficient." Within those are sects that recognize baptism by immersion only, others that also recognize baptism by pouring and/or sprinkling (once or three times), and still others that also recognize baptism by intention (commitment made but the act not completed prior to death) and/or baptism by blood (martyrdom, voluntary and/or involuntary).
There are Christian sects for which baptism is the only sacrament, and sects for which baptism is only one of several sacraments, including but not limited to: confirmation, communion (transubstantive or mnemonic), matrimony (with or without consummation by sex), anointing of the sick and/or dying, and ordination of deacons and/or clergy. Among those you can find sects which teach these sacraments as sacerdotal, salvific, or merely symbolic. And there are sects which teach no sacraments at all.
There are Christian sects that teach their brand of Christianity as the only path to God's grace, sects that recognize any variant of Protestant Christianity as equal for God's grace, sects that recognize any sect that calls itself "Christian" and/or meets some minimal doctrinal or sacramental threshold, sects that recognize any of the Abrahimic religions (including Judaism and Islam), sects teaching that anyone who sincerely seeks God - by whatever spiritual path - will be found by God, and yet others that teach that God's grace is already complete, for all humankind, regardless of belief or non-belief.
There are Christian sects teaching that Christ will return to earth someday, before or after a thousand-year reign of Satan (whom some sects teach does not exist, or exists solely as a symbol of humankind's own capacity for evil), before or after taking up all believers into Heaven, either all believers who have ever lived (the dead remain in the grave until the Rapture) or those still alive (the dead have already been taken into eternity), including or not including the Jews (who may or may not need or receive a second chance to believe in Christ as their Messiah). This Second Coming may or may not require or involve the establishment of a Christian government over the whole of the earth, before, after, or not including the emergence of an Antichrist and the destruction of his army in a final, climactic battle in the Valley of Megiddo (Armageddon), by Christ, and/or an army of angels, and/or an army of believers. And there are Christian sects that teach no Second Coming doctrine at all.
Most of what gets criticized here at DKos is a very narrow subset of "Christianity," if it is even a subset of "Christianity" at all. It is more commonly the critic's perception of modern American evangelical Protestantism, based on media reports of some outrageous thing that some "preacher" or "follower" has said or done. The more outrageous the act or comment, the more likely the critic will treat it as if it were singularly emblematic of what "Christians" believe, teach, say, or do.
It's classic "Othering" at work: (a) cherry pick some outrageous acts or statements by members of the target Other; (b) attribute those outrageous acts and statements as emblematic of the target Other; (c) ignore acts and statements that contradict that thesis as being only individual and thus irrelevant exceptions; and thus, (d) demand the marginalization of the target Other.
That is logically and ethically flawed, and the specific identity of the Other is irrelevant to that logical or ethical analysis, unless you can prove that the Other is indeed a logical or ethical monolith: that all of its members act and speak the same, either from singular common belief or in obedience to a single leader.
You cannot prove that of "Christianity." There is not one single doctrine or concept on which all "Christians" agree, individually or as sects. If ever there was real unanimity of belief in "Christianity" - and I would argue there never was, not even when Christ was still alive - that unanimity ended with the Ascension. Every attempt to foster (or coerce) unanimity of belief in "Christianity" has failed.
Except, it seems, among Christianity's critics....
Happy Holidays!