Monday, 3 September 2012

The necessity of picking sides: pro- or anti-Christian

*

If you are not pro-Christian now, in the West, then you are anti-Christian; because all the other sides are anti-Christian either actively or permissively.

Indeed (except for small and closed minorities, who will not be reading this) there are only three sides: Christianity, Islam and secular Leftism - and the two non-Christian sides are (at present) in synergy.

Even if you are not yourself religious, you are on one side or another - you are either a pro-Christian non-Christian, or an anti-Christian non-Christian - and there is a great gulf fixed betwixt.

Note: If you are not religious but think that neither category applies to you, then you are anti-Christian.

Everyone has already picked a side; but of course you can repent.

*


11 comments:

Wm Jas said...

Well, being a "pro-Christian non-Christian" doesn't make a lot of sense, but I suppose that's what I'd have to call myself if the sides are defined as you say, since I think Leftism and Islam are much worse than (some forms of) Christianity.

In practice, of course, most Christianity is Leftist.

bgc said...

WJ - I was thinking of this:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/great-eternal-divide-is-between-atheist.html

Brandon said...

Yes, the hardest part is being a reactionary traditional Christian, when in the west, most 'Christianity', even so-called conservative 'Christianity' is functionallly advancing liberalism.

One is condemned as a crazy fool by all quarters and it becomes a case of 'with friends like this, who needs enemies?'

bgc said...

@Brandon. Agreed.

Yet of course this is exactly what traditional Christians would have expected, and exactly what was prophesied concerning the shape of history.

As Tolkien said: ""I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a long defeat" (1956, Letters 255)."

The Crow said...

I have always been very supportive of Christians, but have lately abandoned that default stance, since in my experience, Christians almost universally prefer to label me as 'evil', for - I assume - not adhering, word for word, to their dogma.
I feel I am actually a whole lot more 'Christian' than Christians are, since my position more or less replicates that of Jesus (Christ!) when he tottered in from the desert. I defer to his position, rather to the incompetents and agenda-bound interpreters that transformed His life into a weird and incomprehensible religion.

bgc said...

@Crow - to be a Christian is to regard Christ as one's Divine Lord, not as role model or teacher.

To be pro-Christian may be to want to be Christian, to seek to be a Christian - but to be unable to do so at this moment. Jesus said that such seekers after Christianity will find, and will be saved.

Of course, being a Christian (and a member of the mystical Church) is one thing; joining a church and attending church is quite another.

JP said...

"Well, being a "pro-Christian non-Christian" doesn't make a lot of sense,"

In the United States this describes a lot of the secular right.

bgc said...

@JP - perhaps, I hope so; but it is rare in the UK.

The tough thing is to be pro-Christian when this goes against Leftist motivations: eg to favour Christianity above other religions, to favour Christianity above freedom and democracy etc.

But (according to Pascal's interpretation) to be a 'Christian seeker' (sincerely to want to be Christian, but at the moment unable to make the step) is to have crossed the line between the damned and the saved - and is therefore no trivial matter!

Refusal to reject the sexual revolution is probably the main stumbling block on the secular right, perhaps - probably because if you do this, and are *not* a Christian, in the modern context it can seem a miserable situation (i.e. rejecting your main source of motivation, distraction, intermittent pleasure, and vague hope).

The Crow said...

You're saying, then, if I understand you, that no man, ever again, can be what Jesus was? That Jesus was not showing men what they could be, and to strive for that?
Surely this does not bode well for His return?
Should He be reborn, in the flesh, or reborn in other flesh, He would be immediately be taken for a charlatan, and crucified, all over again...

That's where Christianity and I part company, I suppose. A shame, that.

bgc said...

@Crow - it is possible you have misunderstood Christianity. Jesus was God (one of the Trinity) so no man could be like him. Men cannot be without sin, and cannot win salvation by their own effort - salvation is a gift made possible only by the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. When Christ comes again it will be as God and and judge, and this will be the end of this world. Thus, for Christians, history (in this world, in Time) has a beginning and an end, and no repetition.

Anonymous said...

@Crow,

1) No, Christ was in no way illustrating what men could can be. As Dr. Charleton says, Christ is God. You cannot be God.

2) Yes, you are still meant to strive to be like Jesus. Do you give up on everything just because you will never be completely perfect at it?

Being a good person isn't something you achieve. It's something you do. There is no point at which you can stop and say, "Oh good, I have achieved goodness. Now I shall move on to another project."

Christ is not God because he was capable of being perfectly good. He is perfectly good because He is God.

- ChevalierdeJohnstone