Here’s the premise of the conversation.
Previously in the conversation: When I ask my brother a question, I am assured that he’ll do the best that he can, but what that looks like can vary from entry to entry. Sometimes it’s just good. Sometimes it’s the usual excellent. Sometimes it reaches even greater levels than that. I’m not obliged or under duress to recommend you read what he writes. I don’t have to – that’s why I take the time here to give a reason why to read it. For this occasion of brilliance, a great reason to read it is some fundamental reasons why British society at present is incompatible with Seven Laws that you could legitimately suggest are good foundations for the community to flourish. Read what he says and consider carefully what it says about the state of society. You gotta read as well what he says about conspiracy theories and the quest for truth – so much wise words uttered to provoke understanding on our part – it’s just good grace to read it and digest it for what he says on the value of truth. From time to time, we give ourselves the opportunity to be brutally honest and personal, I’m grateful for how my brother answered the issue about reasons to be bitter about what the state has done – it’s not vitriol or just spouting feelings to get something off his chest. As ever, even the anger is considered and channelled in a way that should at least get us looking at ourselves and the things we and our loved ones have gone through. All that to say, this is much better than good and even better than his usual excellence – so click here and give it a read.
My brother really came through with three outstanding questions for me to tackle. Will I do justice to these beauties? Here goes:
Q – When is it right to hate someone? Explain your reasoning.
True story. Sometimes I tread carefully around certain questions to be as diplomatic as possible. I don’t seek to impose my beliefs on here as though I’m more concerned with being tactful, considered and balanced in my view, rather than going in gung-ho with deeply held convictions. This question cannot allow me to do that, because the issue is too important.
Getting definitions right means a lot to me. As a man who loves words, I applaud where it’s used masterfully and I despair when it’s abused and manipulated. The word “love” and the word “hate” are among the most misunderstood and abused words that are frequently used. I grow up in a culture that suggests it’s important that we “love” each other and allow people to “love” whoever they want. And the opposite to that is usually “hate”. So a lot is done to address “hate” and stamp it out as though it in itself is a great evil. There are even Christian sentiments that say that there is no hatred in Christ. One of my favourite songs by Andrae Crouch has that lyric in it.
My current understanding, however, is that the same God who is love is the same God that hates. He hates evil and He has often extended that to having a hatred for those who commit themselves to evil. The state of the world was so full of this evil that God hated that He wiped it out in the time of Noah. The same state is the reason why there’s a Christian reading of what is yet to take place that sees God sorting the problem once and for all including wiping out all those He hates … because they’ve shown hatred to Him in their commitment to evil. They have turned their back on Him and His ways.
However, your question is about when it is right for us to hate someone. So we have to investigate what that would look like and what that would mean. For me to hate someone would require that individual to actively take a position with evil that makes engagement with them totally incompatible. What that would look like for me would include making it clear the disdain I have for the individual as well as whatever views that individual holds.
That does, however, require a lot. That is to say, it would take a lot for me to express hatred for an individual. It would take much because my desire would be for individuals to receive the grace and mercy of God. My desire would be for them to have an encounter with Jesus that can turn them from their total commitment to evil. If their antagonistic behaviour looked to provoke a reaction from me, that would be only the more reason why I would want them to be sorted out by God, knowing that my idea of “sorting them out” would not necessarily reflect the righteousness of God. Plus the investment of time and energy into those who oppose me, are embittered towards me as part of their stance of being committed to evil has to be done with the wisdom of God.
Ironically, those who campaign for things about “love” in their view, take on an attitude of hatred toward those who even mildly oppose their stance. People. We are so foolish.
A man hurts my children. He refuses to acknowledge it. He even scoffs at my sense of outrage and suggests that he’s right in doing whatever he does and if I have a problem, that’s tough for me. I could pursue legal retribution. I could seek some degree of moral recompense where he’s concerned. I could become embittered by his allowance to continue with his evil. I could become angered at it as well. I have to be so careful to ensure that what I do with those feelings is done in what is right by God’s sight. That might call for taking a strong stand against things that people hold dear and the hatred for evil can often be conflated with the hatred for a person if they seek to intertwine themselves to that degree. That’s just one of those things that happen if people don’t want to accept the approach to right and wrong as we understand it.
Q – Social media has made us antisocial. True or false. Why?
Ahhhhhhhh this.
What does it mean to be social? Where did we get that definition from? Is that definition something that was designed to be a static immovable definition? Has technology and companies who have exploited it via social media companies cultivated something that has made us unable to be social anymore?
I think there’s a degree of laziness about such a critique. It paints a picture that our style of being social was going well and then social media – by which I refer primarily to the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and that kind of company – entered and now we’re no longer able to be social. Rather we’re caught up in dramas and echo chambers that divide us rather than bring us together.
I get the impression that what’s closer to the truth is that social media has been a vehicle through which human tendencies can be exposed. Social media is not a monolith that has captured people’s minds and rendered them incapable of getting on with other people. Social media is a vehicle that has enabled us to expose what it really means to be human in our day and age. Is it really that much more antisocial than we used to be without it? How would that be measured?
Social media is another mirror that reflects what we’re like. There are other cultural forces and developments that have enabled the antisocial virus that has been a part of the human condition since it’s been the human condition.
In a similar fashion, it’s my belief that social media isn’t “neutral” as such. Social media reflects the human condition superbly – it does a great job of being pious hypocrites. Superb.
Q – How much does the history of the Christian church over the past two millennia impact your Christianity? The stories of the break between Jewish and Gentile Christianity around Paul’s time. The Reformation. The relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. The Crusades. Is the history of the Christian Church irrelevant to your own Christianity. Additional insights into this question would be great.
This is a very deep question. Two millennia of Christianity – that is no simple single-stream narrative. As your question implies there are so many streams of Christianity from its inception to the present day. So many expressions, so many issues, so many problems, so much drama.
Although my perception of my upbringing might have me thinking that rootlessness is my heritage, I actually appreciate having a history beyond my parents. I don’t really highly prioritise the “cultural” history of whatever it is people think “my people” should be. My idea of “my people” tends to be more about those who share the same faith heritage. What that faith heritage is, though, where that comes from and how that shapes my Christianity is very important.
It’s important in the sense of what happens in that gap between the end of the Apostolic age to my day to inform my approach to faith. It’s important in as much as it fits what I read about that apostolic age in the New Testament. So, for example, a lot of history that’s involved Christianity and Christians has made me wonder if it really was about Christianity. If you know what I mean. The Crusades. Yeesh. The whole thing about the marriage of the Church and the State during the time of Constantine. The way that certain traditions of Christianity went in a different direction from others and so on and so forth. Those elements of history have been hugely informative to me about what people are like just as fascinating as the history of the people of Israel is in what I refer to as the Old Testament.
Learning those elements of history points me back to the heart and the core of the faith as expressed in the Scripture. Learning what I can of church history is about looking once more at what happens when people use the Christian faith as their badge of honour and permission to commit atrocities. Learning about church history informs me a great deal about just how easy it is for well-meaning people to be diverted from the truth and captured by the “spirit of the age”.
That there is enough of a remnant that refers back to the source of the faith in Jesus and the church He had in mind is remarkable considering the various efforts to distort and dilute that centre through so many schemes. I hope that I am very aware of the negative elements of the history attached to Christianity. It is relevant because it is something that people will point to in a bid to diminish the faith and understandably so. It is right there with those claims that religion is the source of wars, etc.
How I endeavour to engage with those issues, however, is to refer to what the faith is based on and how there are still sufficient historical pointers to what was started at Pentecost positively affecting lives, relationships and communities since then. It doesn’t condone, cover or in any way get over the real damage done by so much in the broad stream of Christian history, but it does reinforce the importance of getting to the heart of the faith and understanding that narrative and endeavouring to continue it.
I’m really glad you asked that question as well because growing up I had the mentality that the particular denomination I was in was the only true denomination and it was as though where the New Testament ended the next thing that happened was the specific denomination I was a part of. I genuinely had that thought for the best part of the first fifteen years of my life. Then I had some explaining to do in terms of the real stream from the apostolic writers to what I regarded to be “my denomination”. That proved to be somewhat problematic.
Later on in life when I worked for the YMCA I was exposed to a wide range of Christian expressions and information about certain key streams of the faith over the centuries. That kind of insight helped me to not be so narrow-minded when it came to what made the Christian faith as well as to discover and hold dear that which is valuable to the faith and look to spot that through the changing trends and expressions of Christianity over the years. And when we talk about Christianity over the millennia, it’s not just one branch or tradition – it’s so rich and varied and there’s so much to learn and appreciate in it as well as be critical about.
To a large degree, I don’t immerse myself as much in the history of the church as I used to – but it is important. It’s important to consider it as we consider the content of the scriptures we have and look carefully at what’s being outlined both in terms of the nature of God and the nature of those created in His image. The more I read it, the more I look at God and thank Him so much for His grace and mercy and patience with humanity. The more I consider the history of Christianity it’s one that can lead to great sorrow, but also to immense hope at how there have been movements that have got generations and cultures to turn back to God. As well as the impact of the gospel in lives, relationships and communities.
The questions continue to plunge me into great areas of consideration into matters that I’ve not given myself over to write about. I’m grateful for the opportunity to begin that process with these questions. Many thanks for that.
Here are some questions for you:
Q – “My mind tells me, no, but my heart tells me yes.” In your view is there an actual difference between the mind, the heart and the soul? What is your understanding of the proper use of those terms when describing our human existence?
Q – If you wanted me to write a book for your son and those of his age range, what topic would you want me to write about and why?
Q – There are countries (state officials) who feel it’s their duty to inform other countries that they will not engage in business with them unless they live up to their values and standards. Is there a problem with this morally, if so what is the problem and what is the solution?
It is a truly marvellous privilege in my life to engage in this conversation with you, Hesediah. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
“Learning what I can of church history is about looking once more at what happens when people use the Christian faith as their badge of honour and permission to commit atrocities.”
Fantastic statement