Sandals at the Gate

What has grown tired in the last few days for me is the notion that the history of Christianity is so dark and obnoxious that we just must expect the cross to be hated. That, is really, just not true.

Not to seem disrespectful, but you still misinterpret. I said nothing about Christianity's "dark and obnoxious" past. If anything, I am focusing purely on Christianity's public image TODAY.

Even divorcing the Church today from some of its mistakes in the past (a feat not easily done but we'll suspend disbelief for a moment) let's just look at today, the church on its own terms.

Christianity has become increasingly obsessed with untenable social stances for the sake of self-identifying in opposition to the prevailing culture.

• The distrust of global family planning;
  
• the oppression of women (see Baptist Convention's reassertion of the women as subservient to husband position)
  
• not to mention the women's ordination issue;
  
• the reproductive choice issue with NO exceptions for the life and health of the mother as passed by conservative christians in South Dakota;
  
• the continued exploitation of "reparative therapy" for GLBT people not to mention a host of other discriminations;
  
• the continued support of Israel's occupation and violation of human rights vis a vis Palestinian people;
  
• Continued propagation of virulent anti-semitism and racism as espoused by Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Bauer, Bob Jones U., et al... all very PUBLIC faces of "Christianity;"

No matter where you stand on the issues above on the social or theological spectrum, there can be no doubt that these issues are divisive.

While the public faces of Christianity continue to spout rhetoric over the mass media on these issues (and I mean rhetoric in the clasic sense) there can be no doubt that it appears intolerant, unequivocal in the extreme, and leaves little room for secular culture to imagine room for dialogue on issues where it is supremely required.

Our lovely woman at BA, to whom we now return, has publicly admitted that her desire to wear the cross at work was not a matter of personal taste in jewelry or a matter of expression of her personal faith journey, but was intended to give the message to those who approached her (in a professional capacity) that the cross was there for their salvation... more de-humanizing of others than BA could possible have dehumanized her although some may be inclined to inappropriately romanticize this as evangelism.

The cross would be a whole lot more appealing to, and indeed would transform, the prevailing culture if the message it sent was that no matter where you were on your journey, God welcomed you. God does not exclude you, God does not hate you, God does not give a whit about imperial power, or divisive social issues that will eventually resolve themselves as the always do and as they always have (see women's suffrage, democracy, end of slavery, civil rights, human rights, child labor laws, etc.)

For all the blustering of men seeking to retain power, or reclaim it at the expense of whomever is most threatening to them today, they forget that the Gospel stands in opposition to this power.

If today, the cross has become a symbol of these power struggles, and the divisions they cause, why should secular democracies seeking to equalize power (and incidentally informed by the Gospel to this effect) not find the cross's identification with this misuse of power repulsive?

I still believe that Christianity holds tremendous relevance for culture today. But it risks losing it if it becomes so wrapped in self-righteousness that it ceases to be HEARD over the din of its own protestations.