Loading…

Should we stop gatekeeping who counts as a real Christian?

LordMonroe
Public 10 conversations 38 thoughts 688 upvotes 111 downvotes 0 series 3,931 views

Something occurred to me today. For centuries, especially in the English-speaking world, Catholics were often portrayed as superstitious, anti-intellectual, hostile to freedom, and blindly obedient to authority. Some of that came from real conflicts. Some of it came from centuries of Protestant polemics and what historians call the Black Legend. Either way, the image became deeply embedded in Western culture.

In groups

Discussion content

Something occurred to me today. For centuries, especially in the English-speaking world, Catholics were often portrayed as superstitious, anti-intellectual, hostile to freedom, and blindly obedient to authority. Some of that came from real conflicts. Some of it came from centuries of Protestant polemics and what historians call the Black Legend. Either way, the image became deeply embedded in Western culture.

Then Hollywood arrived and inherited many of those assumptions. How many movies have we seen where the religious figure is narrow-minded, afraid of science, obsessed with rules, or trying to control people's lives?

What I find interesting is that I don't think those stereotypes stayed confined to Catholics. At some point, people stopped making distinctions. The stereotype became "Christians."

The priest became the pastor. The Catholic became the evangelical. The old caricature of one denomination slowly became a caricature of the entire faith. The Black Legend backfired And the irony is that Christians helped this happen. Protestants spent centuries attacking Catholics. Catholics attacked Protestants back. Every denomination seemed eager to explain why the others were the problem.

Meanwhile, the broader culture looked at all of us and concluded that Christianity itself was the problem. I find that depressing because most ordinary Christians I know are not the people from those stereotypes. They're teachers, engineers, nurses, scientists, parents, and neighbors trying to live out their faith as best they can.

We still have theological differences, and those differences... honestly don't matter too much. But I sometimes wonder whether we spent so much energy fighting one another that we forgot how we appeared to everyone else. To many people outside the Church, we're not Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, or anything else. We're just Christians.

Maybe it's time we remembered that too.

Thoughts

  • exvangelical_em

    From inside, the gatekeeping wasn't an abstraction, it was the whole architecture. Which church, which reading, who was "really" saved, whether the family three pews over counted. That stuff organized everything. So when the OP says outsiders just see "Christians," sure, but the flattening cuts both ways. The day I stopped going, none of the distinctions I'd been taught were eternal followed me out the door, and the thing I actually missed wasn't the doctrine, it was the casseroles and the rides to the airport. The differences felt enormous from the inside and weirdly weightless the second I left. Both of those were true at the same time.

    Permalink
  • fultonsheen_fan

    The sociological observation is correct and worth sitting with. Where I'd push gently is the line that the differences "honestly don't matter too much." What an outsider can't see and what doesn't matter are two different claims, and the post slides from one into the other. A nurse on the street can't tell a Thomist from a Calvinist, granted. That tells you about the nurse's field of view, not about whether the doctrine of justification is load-bearing. Chesterton's version fits: the big things weren't tried and found wanting so much as found difficult and left unmade. Solidarity in how we're perceived is a fine thing to want. It just isn't an argument that the things we disagree about are small.

    Permalink
  • occams_chainsaw

    Half of this is outgroup homogeneity bias and it isn't special to Christianity. To an outsider every internal distinction collapses, and the people inside always find that maddening because the distinctions are the entire point to them. Ask an atheist whether they enjoy being lumped in with whichever loud guy was on cable last night. The part worth flagging is that the post runs the same move in reverse: "the broader culture concluded Christianity was the problem" is itself one undifferentiated bloc doing the concluding. There is no single culture that reached a verdict. That's the same lump, just pointed the other way.

    Permalink
  • Martin1987

    Whether one is Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, the article raises an uncomfortable possibility:

    The culture may have spent less time listening to Christians argue with one another than Christians imagine, and more time concluding that they were all part of the same story.

    Permalink
  • Pinkflower

    And perhaps that's the irony.

    Centuries of Christians arguing about which branch represented true Christianity may have helped create a culture that stopped distinguishing between branches altogether.

    Permalink
  • LindaRosse

    I think the article ultimately makes a plea for perspective.

    Not for theological uniformity, but for remembering that shared identity exists alongside disagreement.

    Permalink
  • TheMonkyKing

    Hollywood priest: evil , controlling , hates science

    actual church guy: trying to figure out why the projector isn't working

    Permalink
  • SweetDreams

    That's probably why ordinary Christians often get frustrated with the stereotypes.

    Their lived experience looks nothing like the caricatures.

    Permalink
  • CommonSenseCarl

    Honestly?

    If your neighbor helps coach little league, volunteers at church, and brings you soup when you're sick, nobody cares whether he's Anglican or Catholic.

    Permalink
  • RoccoEvanguelista

    Theologically, differences matter.

    Sociologically, the article is probably right.

    Most non-Christians see one broad religious civilization rather than dozens of competing traditions.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?

    One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…

  • Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?

    One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.

  • Did Catholic monotheism make the universe safe to study?

    It is easy to tell the story of science as a clean break from religion. Enlightenment replaces superstition, observation replaces faith, reason replaces authority. It sounds tidy, and it flatters modern assumptions. But it misses something more interesting and, honestly, more uncomfortable for that narrative: the idea that the universe is intelligible in the first place is not self-evident. It is a metaphysical claim. And Catholic monotheism is one of the major historical reasons that claim…

  • Is Christ's message eternal, but never meant to be read literally?

    Christians rightly say that the truth revealed in Christ is not temporary, but rather eternal. That is true, but it does not mean literalism and it does not mean that we are to drop interpretation. The mistake comes when some believers quietly turn that into a different claim: because the truth is eternal, every biblical utterance should be treated as though it arrived outside history and therefore needs no interpretation any longer, but rather has to be taken literally in the same way...

  • Does Christianity actually fear knowledge?

    One of the most persistent stereotypes about Christianity is that it fears knowledge. The story is familiar. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on evidence. One asks questions, the other suppresses them. The heroes are the people who challenged religious authority, while the Church stands as the institution that tried to hold them back. There are moments in history that support parts of that story. The Church has made mistakes. It has sometimes resisted new ideas. The Galileo affair…

  • Does the state corrupt the Church more than the Church ever corrupts the state?

    Constantine's church became an instrument of imperial politics within a generation. Franco's bishops became collaborators in child theft. Patriarch Kirill blesses wars. The question is not whether you will gain political influence. The question is what will be left of what you started with once the people who wanted the influence are done with it.

  • Is the Catholic anti-abortion argument as obvious as Catholics think?

    I understand why the Church speaks about abortion in absolute terms. Once you believe that human life begins at conception in a morally decisive way, the conclusion feels obvious. But what strikes me, reading both Scripture and the reality of human biology, is how quickly that certainty runs into complications the rhetoric does not know how to hold.

  • "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

    There is a particular kind of Christian speech that has always made me uneasy. It is not the language of moral conviction itself. Christianity is not shy about naming sin. It is the tone that slips in when conviction quietly turns into self-assurance, as though the speaker has stepped outside the condition they are describing.