Put Christ back in Christianity

By Bill Kilpatrick

DURING MY HOUR-LONG conversation with Kevin Taylor about his motivation for starting friends for dinner, he stated very bluntly that, while Friends for Dinner is not a Christian initiative, his inspiration for doing friends for dinner was inspired by the behaviour of Christ. While this may seem to be a confusing answer, there is a difference between these two points. Friends for Dinner's goals, said Taylor, was to step out of your comfort zone, build new friendships, strengthen community bonds, all while sharing a meal, but it was not about recruiting new adherents to Christianity, and this is an important distinction. Being motivated to follow Christ's behaviour can happen without trying to convert people, it might result in conversions, but that is secondary to the motivation to follow Christ's footsteps. Leading by example for example's sake is not the same as leading by example with the goal of conversion. Just because something is inspired by Christ does not mean that it is a recruiting mechanism for the church or the Christian religion, and subsequently just because someone goes to church and recruits people to the Christian religion does not mean that they are a follower of Christ.  
Before I continue speaking about Christ and Christianity, I want to be clear that I was baptised in the Anglican Church, went to Sunday school during my childhood at the United Church, briefly flirted with Evangelicalism in my early teens. I'm familiar with the Bible and Christian teachings. I then went through a brief period of being a militant atheist, but it was too close to a rules-based religion for me, so I settled on being an agnostic. Which to me means accepting the fact that the existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven. I guess you could call me a sophisticated fence sitter.
In my studying of the Bible it became obvious that the Bible is not a historical document, no matter how much some people want it to be. There are no footnotes or endnotes, no one really knows who wrote it, and the accounts in the gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, while allegedly coming from firsthand sources, were written many decades after Christ's death. Science has discovered that you cannot trust any memory that is longer than seven years old because memories are a reconstructive and malleable process. It is not an exact recording. While people may remember the general event, the details are highly susceptible to distortion over time because we fill gaps in memory on a constant basis. This is very problematic when it comes to holding up the Bible as a historical document.
It is estimated that there are some 900 plus English versions of the Bible, and 3,000 versions in other languages, which has given birth to over 45,000 different Christian denominations. So, when someone claims to be a follower of Christ, it makes sense to ask which version? In the Bancroft area alone there are over 30 different churches with different denominations and different teachings.
Taylor's version of a Christian is a follower of Christ's behaviour. And what did Christ do? In a nutshell, He fed the hungry, comforted the ill and afflicted, loved those who are social pariahs, He forgave people who did wrong to him, despised riches, wealth, and power and He attempted to inspire those without hope. When we look at people in power, the Victor Orban's, the Donald Trump's, and the Vladimir Putin's and their followers, do they follow Christ's Behaviour? Nope, but they all claim to be Christian. How is this so? Well, there's a little theological loophole that was created called antinomianism. This loophole boils down to a belief that divine grace frees Christians from the obligation to follow moral laws, viewing salvation as solely by faith, not works. The belief has further been perverted to argue that once you are saved, then all your behaviour good or bad, works towards the greater good of Christ's return to earth. Add to this the prosperity gospel and it's a virtual free for all. It's the perfect way to have your cake, salvation, and eat it too, by doing whatever you want and not having to follow Christ's example. Rules like these almost make me want to convert from a heathen agnostic to a heathen Christian.
So, it seems that the real question is does salvation come down to works or faith or both? To call one's self a Christian and not follow Jesus' behaviour is simple hypocrisy at best and  to me anyway, is one of the reasons that I abandoned Christianity long-ago.
Living the life that Jesus led and following his behaviour is difficult which is why most people do not do it. It's difficult to forgive people who have wronged you, revenge feels more natural. Feeding the poor means having to acknowledge class differences, inequality, and privilege. Comforting the ill and afflicted means facing our own mortality and being uncomfortable, because it's hard to watch others suffer. It further means that one must examine how society is structured to let some people suffer but not others. And who does not want to be rich and powerful? Our culture tells us all that this should be all of our goals because it means you're successful and who does not want to be successful, comfortable and powerful? But there is a price to pay when you value wealth, comfort, and power over everything else.
As an agnostic, I think Christ should be put back in Christianity, but it needs to be his behaviour, not just a belief in his godliness. Following Christ means being uncomfortable and challenging unequal power structures. It means risk, both personal and social. I admire Christ and his teachings, but it's not for everyone and that's okay, because he did end up nailed to cross for his behaviour. If you want to be Christian, great, please follow Christ and his behaviour, just don't pretend that you bear a cross without the nails. In other words, don't be a Christian in name only.