I like your assessment of Christian urban myths according to their likely impact.
Some are so minor that they are bested ignored, some are very harmful, and need to
be dealt with. The motivations are also important. Some perpetrated by well
meaning but ignorant people, others are done in a spirit of willful ignorance, yet
others in a Pharisaic attitude. All corrections should be done in love.
A current non scientific examples of Christian urban myths: in the trivial but
annoying category, the Harry Potter books were written to promulgate satanism; in
the serious category, C. S. Lewis was a harmful writer whose books should be kept
away from children (the extreme version of this is that he was in fact a witch
himself).
Jon
SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> Here's a somewhat different topic but I think relevant for us. I will
> introduce it by relating a recent incident.
>
> My wife this Fall became co-director of a ministry that teaches English as a
> second language to women (primarily wives of foreign students and visitors to
> the University of Colorado). For many years, the ministry has passed out
> candy canes at Christmas, with a card attached telling how various aspects of
> the candy cane were made as a witness to Christ. Some of the text looked
> fishy, and it turns out that most of this material, though it gets widely
> repeated among Christians, is in the "Urban Legend" category (see for example
> http://www.snopes.com/holidays/xmas/cane.htm). We decided it would be wrong
> to give out material that bore false witness, but didn't want to upset the
> little old ladies on the Board of Directors who don't like changing anything.
> Ultimately, I rewrote the text so that it was no longer false (saying things
> like "some Christians see additional symbolism") and we made new cards
> witho! ut! mentioning the previous false material to the Board.
>
> But this got me thinking about how we should go about correcting others in
> the church (or deciding that correction is not appropriate) when we see
> something taught that we know to be false. This is potentially an issue for
> all Christians, but more so for those of us with more education. And, of
> course, it often comes up on science-related matters.
>
> What principles should guide us when we recognize in the church some false
> statement about science or another matter? I'd be interested in any
> thoughts; here are a few "draft" principles to start discussion:
>
> 1) Any correction should be done in love and with grace, in a way that
> corrects the falsehood without hurting the person who may have expressed it.
> In this regard, we should be especially gentle toward those who are just
> repeating privately what they have been told; I think there is Scriptural
> basis for being more harsh with those who are teaching falsehood to the flock
> (teachers have a responsibility to avoid falsehood), and for being harsher
> still with those who knowingly bear false witness.
>
> 2) We should check our own eye for logs, and make sure that our correction is
> done to serve God's truth and not to put the other person down or to show off
> how smart we are.
>
> 3) The effect of the falsehood must be a factor. My pastor once related a
> story in a sermon about Harvard snubbing a shabbily dressed Mr. Leland
> Stanford, leading him to spend his money elsewhere. Somebody told him later
> that this was actually an Urban Legend, and to his credit he put an apology
> in the bulletin a couple of weeks later. That was relatively harmless, not
> the sort of thing for which one would demand a reprimand of the pastor. On
> the other hand, if somebody in teaching authority were spreading a harmful
> lie like the Procter and Gamble Satanism rumor, that would be more serious.
> Probably the two categories where action and rebuking is more appropriate are:
> a) Falsehoods that slander others, like the Procter and Gamble story, or the
> anti-Christian remarks falsely attributed to Attorney General Janet Reno that
> have been circulated among some Christians.
> b) Things that harm the witness of the church by making us look stupid. Here
> I have in mind things like "Joshua's Long Day," the false things that get
> cited in "15 reasons Jesus will return this year" sorts of talks (like an
> increasing number of earthquakes) and some of the more ludicrous young-Earth
> claims. This category can get touchy as what seems "stupid" to me might not
> to others.
> c) MAYBE a third category requiring action is where the falsehood contributes
> to related unhealthy trends in the church. The "increase in earthquakes"
> could be in that category, for example, since it reinforces the Doomsday
> Prophecy obsession in some parts of the church (here again that gets touchy,
> there are those who would not consider Chuck Missler unhealthy). Another
> example would be the myths about America's Founding Fathers being devout
> Christians intending a "Christian nation", which supports "Patriot" movements
> and others who seek to do for America what the Muslims did for Iran.
>
> For things that are fairly harmless, we still serve a God of truth so we
> should seek to correct those too, but we must weigh the cost (both in our own
> energy and potential discord caused) and there will be times when it is best
> to "let it slide".
>
> 4) We can be more willing to offer correction in areas where we have
> legitimate expertise. Since I'm a scientist and not a historian, I should be
> more reluctant to offer correction to the "Christian nation" myth than to the
> "increase in earthquakes" myth or misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> Our willingness to "let it slide" should increase in areas where we are not
> experts, particularly if there are others on the scene who are experts.
>
> 5) As with the instructions in Matthew about confronting sin, correction of
> falsehood is better done in private than in public. But there might be times
> where something public is called for, if the falsehood was promulgated in
> public.
>
> 6) Deference to those in spiritual authority over us must come in someplace.
> If I am leading a Sunday School class, I might correct a guest lecturer or
> especially a class member on the spot if the falsehood were serious enough,
> but if one of our pastors were addressing the class, it would probably be
> more appropriate for me to talk to him privately later with a "Maybe you're
> not aware of ..." sort of approach.
>
> 7) Is our own relationship to the person telling the falsehood a factor? I
> think we are more called to confront sin in a close brother or sister than in
> a stranger or mere acquaintance -- would the same idea apply to falsehood?
>
> 8) Humility, humility, humility, going back to #1 and #2 because they are so
> vital.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 18:01:59 EST