Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 4.2
What you will learn
- State the main secular moral critiques of Christian history and teaching fairly.
- Distinguish between a critique of Christian conduct and a critique of Christian teaching.
- Respond honestly, conceding real wrongs without conceding that they refute the faith.
- Notice where the critique itself rests on moral assumptions that need justification.
The big idea
Many people who reject Christianity do so on moral grounds. They point to crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, complicity in slavery and colonialism, the treatment of women and sexual minorities, and abuse scandals. Others object to doctrines such as hell or substitutionary atonement. These critiques are serious. An honest reply admits real wrongdoing without excuse, separates what Christians did from what the teaching of Jesus requires, and asks what moral standard the critic is using. It neither denies history nor treats history as a final verdict on truth.
Key terms
- Moral critique
- A criticism that something is unjust or wrong, as opposed to a criticism that it is false.
- Presentism
- Judging people of the past only by the standards of the present, without regard for their context. Historians debate how far this is a fault.
- Complicity
- Taking part in, or benefiting from, a wrong done by others.
- Inquisition
- Church courts, especially in the medieval and early modern West, that investigated heresy. Their history is complex and debated.
- Corporate repentance
- A church or community publicly confessing and turning from wrongs done in its past by its members or leaders.
- Genetic fallacy
- Judging a belief true or false by its origin or by what people have done with it.
- Moral realism
- The view that some moral claims are objectively true, whatever people believe.
Background
Moral criticism of Christianity is not new. Pagan critics in the ancient world charged Christians with impiety, and Enlightenment writers such as Voltaire attacked church intolerance. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, critics such as Nietzsche argued that Christian morality was weak or life-denying, from a very different angle than those who find it too harsh. Modern secular critiques draw on concerns about human rights, equality, bodily autonomy and the protection of the vulnerable.
Historians complicate popular accounts. The crusades are variously described as defensive wars, as acts of papal policy and as popular movements, and scholars debate their motives. The Spanish Inquisition killed fewer people than some popular claims state, yet it caused real terror. Christians were among the leaders of slavery’s abolition, such as William Wilberforce and many Quakers and Black churches, while other Christians defended slavery from Scripture. Church leaders also covered up abuse in recent decades. Each case requires careful study, and careful study does not make the wrongs less serious.
The objection also touches teaching. Critics argue that doctrines such as eternal punishment, or ethical teaching on sexuality, are cruel. Christian traditions differ on these points, and all of them have had to answer the charge. This lesson focuses on the manner of reply, not on defending every position.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: State the critique at full strength
A strong version: ‘An institution that claims to carry the moral teaching of Jesus has repeatedly done the opposite, with power on its side. It burned dissenters, blessed wars, defended slavery and sheltered abusers. If the faith produces such fruit, its claims to moral authority are suspect.’ Jesus himself said that a tree is known by its fruit (Matthew 7:16 and 7:20).
Do not minimize. Cite specific cases, and read historians, not only apologists.
Step 2: Concede what is true
If an atrocity occurred, say that it occurred and that it was wrong. Christian traditions have often said so themselves. Pope John Paul II made public acts of repentance for historic sins of Catholics in 2000. Orthodox and Protestant leaders have likewise expressed regret for particular wrongs.
A concession does not require accepting every claim the critic makes. If a number is inflated or a story is false, say so politely and with evidence. But do not use a correction to avoid the main point.
Step 3: Distinguish conduct from teaching
A critique of what Christians have done is not automatically a critique of what Christianity teaches. The question is whether the act was done because of the teaching or in defiance of it. Persecution of heretics can be defended by some texts and theories and condemned by others. Many Christians cite the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 to 7) as the standard by which these acts are judged.
Honesty also requires admitting that some wrongs were done with theological arguments, and that some Christian teaching has been used to support harm. Do not say simply that those people were not real Christians. They professed the faith, and the church should own its history.
Step 4: Ask about the moral standard
Often the critic assumes that cruelty is wrong, that all persons have dignity and that the weak should be protected. Many historians argue that these convictions were shaped in the West partly by Christian teaching, as in the belief that humans bear the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Others, such as Nietzsche, traced the idea of human equality to Christianity and rejected it. Philosophers continue to dispute the source of these values.
Ask gently what grounds the critic’s moral standard. This is not a trick. It is a real question, and it applies equally to Christian ethics. Many secular philosophers have careful answers, in terms of human flourishing, rights or social agreement. Hear them honestly.
Step 5: Reply to teaching-based critiques with humility
On doctrines such as hell, state what your tradition teaches and note that Christians differ. Catholic and Orthodox teaching and most Protestant teaching affirm some form of final judgment, though they differ in detail, and some Christians hold forms of universalism or annihilationism. Explain why you think the teaching is just, and admit the difficulty.
On contested ethical questions, such as sexual ethics, treat the critic as a person and speak without contempt. State the teaching and its reasons as your tradition understands them, and acknowledge the pain that some have experienced.
- Which specific wrong am I being asked about, and what do reliable historians say?
- Can I say without hedging that it was wrong?
- Was it done because of Christian teaching or in spite of it?
- What moral standard is the critic using, and where does it come from?
- How do different Christian traditions answer this?
- Have I spoken to the person, or only to the argument?
Examples
Slavery
A critic says that the Bible supports slavery. Honest reply: some Christians defended slavery using texts that regulate it, and that defense was a grave error. Other Christians, drawing on texts such as Galatians 3:28 and Philemon, and on the creation of all in God’s image, led abolition movements. Both sides read the Bible, so the question is which reading is faithful. (Constructed example, reflecting recognized history.)
The crusades
A critic says that the crusades prove Christianity is violent. A reply that concedes that massacres occurred, such as at Jerusalem in 1099 and the sack of Constantinople in 1204 (an act that the Orthodox remember with sorrow), and then notes that these acts contradict Jesus’ teaching on loving enemies. The reply does not excuse them. (Constructed example.)
Abuse scandals
A critic says that the church cannot claim moral authority after concealing abuse. A fitting reply begins by agreeing that concealment was a grave wrong, expressing grief for the victims and affirming that accountability is a Christian duty, before saying anything else. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic thought
Catholic teaching holds that the church is holy in her Lord but made up of sinners, and so can need repentance. The Church formally asked pardon for past sins in the Jubilee year 2000. Catholic apologists often add that historical claims should be checked, while not denying grave wrongs.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox writers also confess the sins of the church’s members. Many point to the Western sack of Constantinople in 1204 and to the failings of Orthodox peoples and states. They stress that the church is holy and that its members fall short.
Protestant thought
Protestants hold that the church is always in need of reform and that Christians remain sinners. Reformation-era persecution of Anabaptists and others, and Protestant support of slavery, are admitted by many Protestant historians and churches. Evangelical and mainline traditions differ on how to handle contested ethical issues.
Secular and humanist view
Secular critics often argue that religious authority has been used to defend injustice and that moral progress came from challenges to religion. Others, including some secular historians, acknowledge that Christians were prominent in reform movements such as abolition. Views vary.
Jewish perspective
Jewish communities experienced centuries of Christian persecution, including expulsions and massacres, and have shaped their memory around it. Many Jewish thinkers also note changes in the Christian churches after the Second World War, such as the Catholic declaration Nostra Aetate, while stating that the past cannot be erased.
Why it matters
A defense of the faith that cannot face its own history will not be believed. Critics rightly distrust claims of moral authority from those who deny moral failure. A truthful reply, which owns the wrongs and still explains why the faith is worth believing, is both more honest and more persuasive. It also leads believers toward repentance, which is a Christian duty and not a concession.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The wrongs of Christians prove Christianity false.
Correction: This is a version of the genetic fallacy. The conduct of adherents bears on whether a faith has been lived well, not directly on whether its central claims are true. It does bear on credibility, and should be faced.
Misunderstanding: Those who did wrong in the name of Christ were not true Christians.
Correction: This dismisses real history and may be a no true Scotsman move. It is more honest to say that they professed the faith and acted against it.
Misunderstanding: Historians have shown that the church’s record is no worse than anyone’s.
Correction: Comparisons are complicated and often used to deflect. Whatever the comparison, the wrongs must be acknowledged as wrongs.
Misunderstanding: Moral criticism of the faith always comes from hostility.
Correction: Many critics are motivated by concern for victims and for justice, values that Christianity itself teaches.
Knowledge check
Why concede wrongs when answering a moral critique?
Because they are true, and because denial destroys credibility. Honest concession shows that you hold the faith to its own standard. Jesus himself judged a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:16). Concession need not accept every claim a critic makes, and facts should be corrected politely when they are wrong.
What is the difference between a critique of conduct and a critique of teaching?
A critique of conduct says Christians did wrong. A critique of teaching says that what Christianity teaches is wrong. They can be separate: a wrong may contradict the teaching, or may have been defended by it. Honest reply examines which is the case in each instance.
Why ask what moral standard a critic uses?
Because the critique assumes that some acts are really wrong. Where that standard comes from is a serious question for everyone, Christians included. Asking is not a trick but an invitation to compare grounds. It should be done respectfully, and the critic’s answer should be heard fairly.
Why is saying ‘they were not real Christians’ a weak reply?
It shields the faith from history by redefinition, which is the no true Scotsman pattern. The persons professed Christianity, and often had church support. A better reply admits that they were Christians who acted against Christ’s teaching and that the church must own the history.
How should you address teachings such as hell when critics call them cruel?
State what your tradition teaches, note that Christians differ on the nature of judgment, give the reasons believers offer for its justice and admit the difficulty. Speak with humility and without contempt, since the critic may be reacting to real hurt.
Think it through
- Which historical wrong committed in the name of Christ troubles you most?
- How would you respond to a person who was harmed by a church?
- Is there any wrong in your own tradition’s past that you have not looked at closely?
- What grounds your own sense that cruelty is wrong?
Independent assignment
A reply to a moral critique
In your own notebook, write 600 to 800 words. Choose one moral critique (for example, the crusades, slavery, the abuse scandals or a doctrinal objection). Read at least one historian or reference work and note what is established and what is debated. Write a steelman of the critique, then a reply that concedes what is true, separates conduct from teaching, asks the question about the moral standard and states honestly where Christian traditions differ. Keep this private.
Further study
- Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity A readable history that includes the church’s failures. Read selectively on the crusades and the Reformation.
- Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals A famous moral critique from the opposite direction. Read a section to practice stating it fairly.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosophy of History For the problem of judging the past.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Moral Arguments for the Existence of God On the relation between morality and God, with objections.
- Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 volumes) A history of doctrine, useful for seeing how Christian teaching developed. Read selectively.
- Matthew 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them.
- Micah 6:8 To do justly, and to love mercy.
- Galatians 3:28 Neither bond nor free.