Problems with Christian Cliches

I don’t want to “bury the lead” on this one. Two problems with Christian cliches (that I am prepared to talk about at least) are:

— Christian cliches have just enough truth to them to attract people to them to explain complex theological things. (These cliches, however, can’t support the complexity of the issue.)

— That same “catchiness” often shuts down thought and nuance. (They become mental ruts that our minds tend to slip into often hampering our ability to be reflective.)

#1. Starting a bit off-topic, years ago I took an English class in college. The professor was trying to help us think creatively. She gave different contrasts and we were suppose to come up with a sentence that embraces the contrast. The contrasts might be “light vs dark,” “hope vs despair,” “true vs false.” Well, one of the contrasts she gave was “beautiful vs ugly.” Well the students came up with a wide variety of interesting sentences. But there was an exception. For “beautiful and ugly” every single person (including myself) came up with the exact same sentence— “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone.” Of course, it is a well-known joke saying. But it is also a cliche. Consider my points above.

— “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone” has a certain amount of truth to it. In fact, it becomes more true (and a bit of a truism) if written, “Superficial human qualities can be characterized as only ‘skin deep,’ at least in comparison to non-superficial human qualities that can be thought of as more as permeating the entire being of a person.” It is more true… but less catchy and less entertaining.

—“Beauty is only skin, but ugly goes to the bone” creates a mental rut. As I noted, EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CLASS ended up sharing that one. I remember sitting in class after hearing everyone else share the same one and trying to think of a different one. I really struggled— I kept being pulled back into that mental rut.

#2. “Ready for Harvest” is a Youtube channel, and one time the host asked viewers to share their favorite (or technically least favorite) Christian cliches. It seemed as if the top one was “It’s not a religion… it’s relationship.” And yes— it is a pretty odious one. However, it is not hard to find some level of truth behind it. There are, of course, dozens of major religions, and thousands of minor religions. If one truly believes that one’s own religion is exceptional… how does one show that it is better than every other religion out there? One way is to make it NOT a religion. Christians are not the only ones to think this idea up. I recall talking to a (Muslim of course) imam. He told me that “Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology.” I nodded my head… but recognized that statement as being every bit as ridiculous as the Christian one. I also recall a Bible teacher at our church talking about how every time religion is spoken of in the Bible, it is spoken of negatively. Again, there is some truth there. However, going from the common sense definition of religion, to its anthropological sense, and even going back to its etymological sense (“religio”) in Latin, there is no doubt that Christianity (and Islam) are pretty near the center of the set of institutions that might be considered to be a religion.

But the relational aspect of Christianity is pretty important. I had a missionary friend that really complained about salvation being described as having a personal relationship with God. He said it has nothing to do with that— it is all and only about faith (and considering his theological leanings, I suspect he was thinking in terms of “imputed faith.”) At the time I sort of kept my thoughts to myself… especially since I needed to think about it. The fact is “have a personal relationship with God” may be exactly that sort of cliche that shuts down thought. But as I reflected and looked in Scripture— the relational aspect of our position with Christ is too important to be thrown aside. It is pretty clear that “Christianity is absolutely, by pretty much any definition one is likely to find, a religions, but one in which dogma and ethics compete to some extent in terms of priority with the relational aspect with God.” Again, a more nuanced, and less catchy statement— unlikely to become a cliche any time soon.

#3. In the Comments section for the question posed on Youtube, I suggested the cliche’ “It must be God’s will” I was a bit surprised that I got some pushback on this one. However, I should not have been surprised. A cliche tends to grab hold of one’s thoughts and doesn’t like to let go. I would argue it is a cliche because it expresses something about a very complex concept in a simple un-nuanced manner, and it tends to pull people into a mental rut— making it hard to think more reflectively. In this case, the cliche tends to be used in times of tragedy or of grief. It falls into place in situations like, “I am sorry to hear about your house burning down— but it must be God’s will.” This is often followed by uncertain speculation on why it may be a good thing that the fire happened, or how God has something better waiting, and the old house was “just in the way.” Could that be true? Perhaps… but maybe it isn’t.

Of course, this tends to be an issue because of the very slapdash way we deal with the issue of “The Will of God.” The first person who responded to me said that he felt that “It must be God’s will” is not a cliche because he believed that “God is sovereign.” I completely agree that God is sovereign— having the right to rule. When I was in the Navy, the captain of the ship had complete sovereignty over the ship (ignoring limitations like the chain of command above him on land, and naval regulations he was required to abide by). But even the level of sovereignty the captain had did not mean that he did not delegate things to other people… or that he was under the requirement to directly control everything on board. The right to rule does in no way establish an obligation to fully control. Frankly, “God is sovereign” also becomes a bit of a cliche as well. Sovereignty does not really have any direct connection with God’s will or God’s control. However, it is a term that people get stuck in (like a rut) when talking about causation. The Lord’s Prayer addresses how God’s will and control are different than sovereignty. “Thy (God’s) Kingdom come, Thy (God’s) will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” Heaven is where God’s will is fully done— that is much of what makes it Heaven. Earth is where God’s will is NOT fully done. We are to pray that Earth will become more like Heaven. And one day it will happen (God’s kingdom is coming.) God is NOT NECESSARILY the author of sin and suffering. If a child dies of leukemia and the parent asks me “Why??”, I don’t think that I am expressing good theology if I say, “Well, all I know is that since God is sovereign, He did it. God actively chose to kill your child.”

Of course, whenever we are dealing with nuance, the problem often comes back to definitions. Some define “Will of God” as “Whatever happens.” If God did not actively prevent something from happening, in some way it must be part of his will. I suppose one could say that— call it God’s “sovereign will.” We could take this idea of “sovereign will” and apply it back on the navy ship I was on. While I was aboard, there was a petty officer who was caught stealing things from the ship’s store. Who did it? I would say that the petty officer willed to do it and then did it. Did the captain will it? He accepted the young man on the ship. He allowed him to be assigned to be in charge of the ship’s store. The captain chose not the have a person keeping an eye on the petty officer 24 hours a day to ensure that he did not steal. The captain allowed the circumstances to occur that would result in theft. Of course, the captain is not omniscient. But even if he was omniscient, things still would not actually change much. The only difference is that the captain would then have the information needed for him to actively prevent the theft from occurring. That being said, as sovereign over the ship, the captain has the right to act to stop it from happening, OR to allow the petty officer to break the law.

Normally, when we say “It must be God’s will,” I feel that we must be speaking of God’s preference or desire. Otherwise, the (what I call a) cliche devolves into meaninglessness. If it is sovereign will, the statement essentially becomes “The unpleasant stuff… happened.” And if we go with God’s will meaning preference or desire, we are left with “That unpleasant stuff… well God really wanted it to happen… so get over it.” A far more nuanced and accurate statement would be…

“I don’t really know why this happened. God can see these things in ways that neither you nor I can see. Perhaps there may be a day when we can get some glimpse of good in this tragedy, or maybe not. All I know is that God is here with you in your suffering, and so am I.”

Somehow I don’t think that statement will ever really catch on.

There are a lot of cliches… many of them bad.

One of my least favorite is: “God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.” It is true on a certain level… but not on the level in which we live our lives. And it tends to stifle reflection about suffering.

Another cliche that was shared a few times on the Youtube posting was, “Let go, and let God.” I think one must be hard pressed to find any good in that one. But I suppose there is a way of finding a particle of truth in it.