What do Christians have to live for?

Les linked to this via Google Reader. For some reason, aspects of it stuck in my craw, even though I’m hardly the world’s most orthodox Christian, nor anything close to an official spokesperson thereof.

A recent post at Separate Spectrum started me thinking about this question. What do Christians have to live for? Some will answer that they live for their god. Fair enough, but I’m not sure how they do this? Many will claim to believe in some sort of afterlife, but most still fear and avoid death. Do they live primarily for this imagined afterlife? If so, that seems like it would be an awfully empty sort of existence. Nothing in the here-and-now would matter except insofar as it affected a poorly characterized afterlife.

Some Christians do indeed seem to live primarily for an afterlife, and in that context, in theory nothing here-and-now matters in comparison. But since everything here-and-now does have affect on one’s afterlife, it would be argued (Jesus recommended all sorts of things to do in the here-and-now), that keeps it from being an empty experience.

Note that living for the afterlife is usually, at least ostensibly, oriented toward the joy of an afterlife’s reward (living in fear of an afterlife’s punishment has gone a bit out of style in more progressive circles). 

Most Christians would likely argue that, regardless of the tedium of this world or the prospective joys of the next, part of the job in this world is to stick around until “called” onwards. While here, then, one has duties and obligations to do (one would hope with joy, too), including all those good things that Jesus suggested one do (caring for the sick, feeding the naked, etc.).

Many Christians are clearly uninterested in making the world a better place. They obsess about something called “the rapture” and imagine that there time here will be too brief to make any sort of impact. I suppose these Christians are in fact living for some sort of afterlife.

Those Christians, if they are orthodox, would do well to recall that “no man shall know the day or hour,” and that twiddling one’s thumbs waiting for the “Rapture” (itself a bit dodgy theologically) seems hardly to be what Christ was recommending to anyone.

But others at least claim to care about improving their present worlds. Why is this important to them? Is it because they think they will be rewarded for it, or are there other reasons?

For some it probably has to do with reward. For others, it is what they believe they have been commanded to do, and something that in fact can bring joy and fulfillment.

And how about morality? Some Christians believe that one of their deities (Jesus I think) already somehow guaranteed their place in “heaven.” When he died, their sins were forgiven. For these Christians, I wonder how they could refrain from raping and murdering at will. After all, if they are already destined for eternal rewards, why would they remain moral during their brief time on Earth?

Which is as facile an argument-by-facetious-question as the one wondering how atheists could refrain from raping and murdering at will; after all, if there is no bigger meaning or eternal rewards or punishment, why would they remain moral during their brief time on Earth?

Leaving some Calvinists out of it for the moment, the Christian orthodox answer would be that what Jesus did was allow for eternal life for all (as opposed to eternal death), but that it still has to be earned or attained or deserved — not by good works (though some argue on that one, too) but by accepting and believing in God and God’s message. To that line of thought, good behavior is (mostly) an outcome, not a prerequisite, of receiving that gift.

Calvinists, with their idea of predestination, would argue that the “elect” are already predetermined — but, of course, we and they cannot know who is truly among them (though some might offer some opinions).

In either case, of course, belief in salvation through Jesus is not seen as a “Get out of jail free” card. Someone who “raped and murdered at will” would arguably not be a true believer (since a true believer would not do such a thing, if they were a true believer).

The argument, of course, is that there are plenty of Christians who Do Very Bad Things. It’s easy to retort that they are not True Christians, by definition, but that’s both irresponsible and far too easy of an accusation to make (since what is defined as a Very Bad Thing is likely to vary from person to person). Moreover, many Christians do Bad Things using their Christianity as an excuse (often arguing that the someone else’s definition of a Bad Thing is incorrect). The only answer here is that there is, for better or worse, no MoralityMeter(TM) to register how Good or Bad an action (or thought) is, which means (to me) paying attention to that “judge not” suggestion from Jesus isn’t a bad idea for all Christians.

The other point is that the above description of orthodox belief is likely more sophisticated that what a number of Christians believe (which is more along the line of saying the Magic Believing Words + Doing Good = a Halo and Harp). That simplistic way of looking at things, though, would still be a pretty sound barrier against unrestrained rapine and murder.

I’m not a Christian apologist (nor do I play one on the 700 Club), but it’s not clear that the original poster understands much about Christianity (in which case I hope to have further clarified some matters), or whether they are taking the sort of cheap rhetorical shots that I’d condemn whether levied at Christians, Buddhists, or Atheists (in which case I hope I’ve not belabored the point).