What does it mean to be "Christlike"?

Would he be canceled in today's culture? And have we ever considered what it means to be "Satanlike"?

The world has generated only a few stereotypes of devout Christians, and all of them are wrong. As we approach the neo-pagan Inquisition of Bible-believers, it will be increasingly important to figure out how to be “Christlike” under pressure. What does it mean to emulate Christ in the 21st Century, especially when confronted?

Jesus the Lamb

I have been an observer of pop culture’s depiction of Jesus my whole life, due to my upbringing as a Mennonite. One of the Mennonite tenets is that the world (in the sense of referring to society at large, as per the New Testament usage) is hostile to Christ, and we should never expect to see a fair treatment of him. It would be impossible for me to catalog and triangulate some exact notion of Jesus in Western culture, but I can say that my interactions with non-believers who discover that I’m a devout Christian almost always creates in them a consistent, distinct expectation about how I “should” act. Whether it is conscious or unconscious, they have a pretty clear idea of what a serious Christian ought to be like; an idea which they can only have absorbed from their culture and not the Bible itself, obviously.

Judging by the way people expect me to act, they view Jesus as a meek and moderate figure, afraid of confrontation, loving everybody to a fault, selfless to the point of giving up his own life just to make others feel nice, never judging anyone, tolerating evil quietly, and humbly inspiring downtrodden sinners to give up their emotional baggage because self-doubt is harmful. At the end of the day, we’re supposed to prioritize kindness and harmony above truth. Jesus is blurred together with spiritual gurus like Gandhi and Buddha rather seamlessly. Christ is considered to be a dainty man, sensitive and easily shocked.

Unbelievers think of Christians as gullible rubes, timid wallflowers, overly-friendly losers, out of touch with the way of the world and repressed both sexually and socially. Women think of Bible-believing men as sterile, harmless, or judgmental. We are assumed to lead lives of shame and hidden motives, outwardly putting on a show of holy confidence to cope with their deep-seated hypocrisy. We may be well-intentioned and naive enough to think we’re on the righteous path, but we are disingenuous nonetheless because we refuse to face facts. In fact, the main reason we turn to religion is for protection from “hard truths.” We are “sheep” in the negative sense, weak-willed and herded about by church leaders, in need of a “sky daddy” to pray soft little feelings to.

This stereotype is contrasted by the classic American ideal man: a rugged individualist, a pragmatist, and an ambitious man of worldly knowledge who is willing to break the rules and get his hands dirty in order to win.

The ghost of Reagan

America is still grappling with the ghost of Ronald Reagan. Who knows if they will ever let his memory go. His “family values” okie-dokie chump act, inspired by Leave It To Beaver and other saccarine trash TV of the post-WWII era, was enough to convince a generation (and apparently more than one) to think of Christians as all of the above. The very thought of indecency, naughty words, and mature themes are enough to make such a Christian blush. These people want to censor media, protect the children from anything controversial, and scrub reality of all inappropriate thoughts. They are Thought Police of their own kind. They want a small little bubble to hide in.

In churches themselves, there has been a methodical and steady shift of focus. Through constant outside pressure, media brainwashing, and old-fashioned church infiltration, churches have been softened. In order to not offend their more delicate members, they have replaced high standards for personal conduct and deep doctrinal study with basic appeasement and infantilization. “Give them what they want” is the credo of the modern church.

Jesus the Offender

What do we find when we look at the actual words of Jesus Christ? If we want to be “Christlike” maybe we should copy his style of talking?

(Matthew 12:30) “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters abroad.”

This isn’t very inclusive. In fact, it would be considered the definition of a “false dilemma fallacy” where a choice is given between two options that leaves no room for alternatives. Jesus is being unnecessarily divisive by attacking everybody who isn’t exclusively on his side.

(Matthew 12:34-35) “Offspring of vipers! How are you able to say good things when you are evil? For from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person from his good treasury brings out good things, and the evil person from his evil treasury brings out evil things.”

Have you ever called somebody the offspring of a viper? Jesus did.

Wow, should we call people “offspring of vipers” today, and label them as “evil” because they reject Jesus? The people to whom Jesus was speaking were Pharisees, and therefore guilty of more than average urbanite skeptics, but even the Pharisees had a right to question him, didn’t they? And if we compare them to modern skeptics, today’s opponents have all the benefit of the compiled, translated Bible and 2,000 years of apologetics to look back on! Opposing Christ today is a much more full rejection of what Son of God represents than the ignorant people of Jesus’s own day, who had no idea what he was ultimately going to strive for, or whether God was going to bless his mission. Why didn’t he sit down and debate them on theology, or teach them all about the scriptures? Shouldn’t he have demonstrated a longsuffering example of patience, debate, and tolerance?

(Matthew 13:36-43) Then he left the crowds and came into the house, and his disciples came to him saying, “Explain the parable of the darnel in the field to us.” So he answered and said,

“The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world. And the good seed are the sons of the kingdom, but the darnel are the sons of the evil one. And the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.

“Thus, just as the darnel is gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all the causes of sin and those who do lawless deeds, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth! Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The one who has ears, let him hear!”

This is shocking for many reasons! Let’s list just a few:

1. Jesus clarifies that the devil himself is responsible for raising up an army of deceivers who will pose as Christians (wheat) but are actually darnel (weeds that look a lot like wheat);

2. These “sons of the devil” will be doomed to Hell without an apparent option for salvation due to their prescribed nature, even though the devil is responsible, not them individually;

3. It is therefore fair for us to say that many people we deal with in the world (the field) are actually the sons of the devil who will be gathered up and burned in Hell (the fiery furnace).

How exactly does this align with being “Christlike” in the modern day of being sensitive and inclusive? Jesus is not lamenting the fact that this is how things will go. He’s very matter-of-fact about it, and even seems to enjoy that it will lead to the righteous people being able to shine like the sun in the Kingdom after it’s completed.

Division, not peace

Now that we’ve gotten a taste of how Jesus handled those who questioned him, let’s have a more direct teaching about what he represents in the world:

(Luke 12:49-51) “I have come to light the world on fire, and how I wish it was already kindled! However, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and what distress I feel until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to authorize peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!”

Division? Lighting the world on fire? Not authorizing peace? And what is this… he even wishes the world was already burning? These are the words of a judgmental and warlike God, not a harmless dope who just wants harmony!

(Luke 14:25-35) Now large crowds were going along with Jesus, and he turned around and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and furthermore, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

What outrageous words! The cross was a famous symbol of death and torture at the hands of an oppressive colonizing power (Rome), so why should Christians voluntarily carry it around? Are we supposed to volunteer to be killed for following Jesus? And why does he promote HATRED? That’s the opposite of love! Hating your own father and mother and wife and children? And hating your own life, too? Is Christianity based on hatred after all? Let us keep reading…

“For which of you, wanting to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise after he has laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish!' Or what king, going out to engage another king in battle, does not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand. But if not, while the other is still far away, he sends an ambassador and asks for terms of peace. In the same way, therefore, every one of you who does not renounce all his own possessions cannot be my disciple.

So now we see that the warning about hating your life and your closest relationships is really about knowing the “cost” of being a Christian. You should calculate the “cost” ahead of time, or else you will become a fool later on when you have to choose between those things and staying true to Christ. But even so, this is a harsh teaching! Isn’t Christianity’s true goal about fostering positive relationships, and using the story of Jesus to make each other feel good? How could Christianity become a source of hostility to the point where it destroys families? There is one last part of this saying…

“Now salt is good, but if salt becomes tasteless, with what will it be made salty again? It is usable neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; they throw it out. The one who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

So wait a minute, how does this salt analogy apply to the other teachings, which were about being ready to sacrifice everything you love? Could it be that Jesus is comparing cowardly Christians—those who are not willing to sacrifice everything—to tasteless salt, which is not even worth throwing onto piles of shit? That’s extremely harsh!

Slavery

What about universally accepted ethical standards, such as condemning slavery?

(Luke 17:7-10) But who is there among you, having a bond-slave plowing or keeping sheep, that will say, when he comes in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down at the table,’ and will not rather tell him, ‘Prepare my supper, clothe yourself properly, and serve me, while I eat and drink. Afterward you shall eat and drink’? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded? I think not. Even so you also, when you have done all the things that are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants. We have done our duty.’”

Jesus himself did not challenge the logic of having bond-slaves. The English translators like to soften the Greek original word doulos to merely be a “servant” but it actually means a proper slave. He makes his point about his own followers by appealing to the logic that a master should not thank his slave for following commands. This isn’t very politically correct. Are we supposed to be “Christlike” by endorsing slavery as a valid option and reminding people that they shouldn’t even thank their slaves if they faithfully obey commands?

How do we apply this?

That’s a sample of how being “Christlike” is not as straightforward as pop culture likes to assume. Whenever I meet unbelievers who have a stereotypical notion of Christianity and try to project it onto me, I remember examples like these that I could share with them. But let’s get to our conclusion and see how we can apply the example of Jesus, and compare it to the example of Satan, who always tries to overtake him. I think this may be one of the most important insights I have ever found in my Bible studies.