Posted by Helen on: 08.25.2008 /
If you had to choose between someone with good character and no faith (no belief in God) or someone with faith and no character which would you prefer?
If Jesus had to make that choice which do you think he’d prefer (if you have an opinion about that)?
Comment by: fernando
1 08/25/08 4:37 AM | Comment Link |If it we are talking about airplane mechanics, chefs and doctors, I would take character over faith. The rest of the time, I would still take character over faith.
I read Jesus’ words as suggesting that the truth is what we do, which seems to place a lot more weight on character than on faith, at least in the abstract sense.
Comment by: no offense
2 08/25/08 6:09 AM | Comment Link |I think the choice is a false dichotomy, a Hobson’s choice, as it were.
It is the result of ‘Post-Enlightenment’ thinking. We are reductionists at heart and so have separated the ‘ancient unity’ of God’s Kingdom into a realm of ‘faith’ that has nothing to do with a realm of ‘daily life.’ This is a totally foreign context in which to discuss any individual of significance prior to to 17th Century Europe, much less Jesus.
Character is defined by an active reliance upon the source of all goodness. A rejection of (or even a passive failure to rely upon) that goodness could never be consistent with character.
Fernando says Jesus places more weight on character, but I think he is misreading Jesus. Jesus’ emphasis on action is precisely because it is evidence of what is on the inside. (A tree and it’s fruit.)
I read Jesus as pointing to the seamless unity
of a woman’s faith and her goodness, a man’s willingness to receive from God and his wholeness.
Having said that, there are some very important caveats:
If faith is defined as ‘belief in the existence of God,’ then it has nothing to do with (and will never lead to) character. If faith is defined as trust, reliance upon, and confidence in, then it will.
This is obviously an attempt to answer the question for Jesus so, if you don’t believe that Jesus is important, or don’t believe the canonical documents to be an accurate source of historical knowledge, then the question is moot.
Comment by: Helen
3 08/25/08 7:27 AM | Comment Link |Fernando, thanks for your comment. I’m pretty much where you are. I’m glad you noticed Jesus’ emphasis on character. I’ve noticed that too.
no offense, I know kind, loyal, honest, trustworthy atheists. How is that possible in light of what you said?
Comment by: Jim J
4 08/25/08 8:16 AM | Comment Link |The atheist with good character is first, not a narcissist. I’ve known several people like this. He/she lets themselves be guided by the goodness that hangs above man’s narcissistic existence, particularly in nature. Romans 1 and Psalm 19 touches upon this truth.
Jesus said we can judge a tree by its fruit. That is a sweeping statement. Jesus wasn’t merely a “Christian”. He is God. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus teaches that we will be judged by how we treated the least among us. The point being, the sheep saw what God was doing for us, and joined Him by doing the same for others. The goats were narcissistic, waiting for some subjective rule to be put in effect. They ignored the hungry, the sick, the naked, and the prisoners. The parable mentions nothing of joining a “faith”. Jesus shows us here the general revelation of God, to do good to others.
If an atheist is honest, kind, and humble, I don’t think he’d reject Jesus when he sees Him, nor will Jesus reject him.
Comment by: Helen
5 08/25/08 8:23 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Jim J.
If Jesus exists I hope that’s true. I’d like to think so.
Comment by: Amy
6 08/25/08 8:30 AM | Comment Link |Well what do you mean by which would we prefer? What are we choosing such a person for? If you are asking which person would I prefer to do business with, or to have as a friend, or to have as my doctor or my mechanic, well of course I would prefer the person with character. Faith without goodness is worthless, as is pointed out by St. Paul in his ode to Love in 1 Corinthians 13. James also points out that even the demons believe. So mere intellectual faith is of no worth.
But in terms of the economy of salvation, being a good person isn’t enough either. Our good deeds are not enough to overcome the gulf between us and God created by our sinfulness. I do lots of good things and generally have “good character” on the outside. But I am also aware of the sins I commit daily, even if they are hidden to everyone else.
I would second many things no offense said. Helen, the answer to your question is that God’s common grace is given to all people, who are made in His image. In God we all live, and move and have our being, and so we all are capable of doing good sometimes. But no one is capable of always being good, and that is why we need Christ.
Comment by: pamhogeweide
7 08/25/08 9:49 AM | Comment Link |i will take a kind hearted atheist over a mean spirited person of faith any day.
some of the nicest people i know do not pray or read the bible or bother to discover if God is real or not. They are just ordinary, everyday decent people who live their lives the best they can. I refuse to discount their good living based on whether or not they have faith in God or specifically the Christian god.
Comment by: David H
8 08/25/08 10:38 AM | Comment Link |I don’t think it is possible to have character without faith. What is faith? A belief in something outside ones-self, something not always seen, something greater than what is most readily apparent? Perhaps one doesn’t need God in order to have faith. Perhaps there can be faith in the benefit of doing good for others — either to them or to myself. Perhaps there can be faith that I can be a better person than I often appear. Perhaps there can be faith that anyone (everyone?) can be better given the right example, a little guidance. Perhaps there can be faith that doing something beneficial is just good in some ineffable way. Wouldn’t that also be faith of a sort?
However, to answer the question more directly. I don’t believe it is possible for a Christian to have faith without good character. If the character isn’t there, the faith is a sham. The person who purports no belief in God can still have good character. Whether they believe in something greater or outside of themselves in a non-deistic sense is pure conjecture on my part.
My tendency is to look for the person with good character because they are usually easier to identify. Having lived in Christian circles all my life, I have many memories of people trusted because of claimed faith who turned out to be lacking in character.
As for which Jesus would have preferred, it seems apparent he found faith to sometimes be an impediment to communication with people. The Saducees and Pharisees had trouble talking to him because a) he flew in the face of their faith and b) he often pointed out when their character flew in the face of their supposed faith.
However, lack of faith or character didn’t seem to affect his relationships with others. He chose to be with tax collectors, adulterous women, prostitutes, and others (what were those other two guys beng crucified for?). Somehow his message of faith and character resonated more with those lacking in apparent faith or character than it did with many of the ostensibly faithful. In many cases it brought about a change in character for those people with whom Jesus chose to relate.
So if it wasn’t faith or character that Jesus preferred, what was it?
Comment by: SocietyVs
9 08/25/08 10:48 AM | Comment Link |I would choose the person with good character every time. That comes in all fashions - from various faiths to no faith. The important thing is working alongside someone that can ‘respect’ you and yours )and in turn - you do the same for them).
I am a Christian and I see Jesus teaching about morality and character - these things are important for the human life. To me atheist and Christian are labels we use to define ourselves - but who is really all that they label themselves to be? I would we would call ourselves ‘moral’ or ‘honest’ or ‘determined, etc…but we don’t use adjectives to describe ourselves.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10 08/25/08 8:35 PM | Comment Link |I like what Jim J said- A person of character can choose whether or not they want to believe something or not. Being a believer does not imply that one has character.(at least the way we have come to define it in our time)
Comment by: Jason Horton
11 08/26/08 5:21 AM | Comment Link |A person whose faith has built their character is a better person to know than someone whose faith has stunted their growth or limited their outlook. I think we can all agree that there are some people like that. I’d even go so far as to suggest that the Pharisees might epitomise such people.
I would say that faith is not a prerequisite for good or well developed character. Then I would say that.
I would prefer character over faith. I would prefer faith with open eyes over blind faith. I don’t think that an unquestioning or blind faith allows for the development of character. So it really depends on the character of the person on how they approach faith.
Does this have much to do with the question of voting that you posed last week? The problem with that is that the character of a person isn’t readily apparent until you get to know them or test their character. Most people never get the option to do that with a political candidate and so might substitute faith to replace this test.
Comment by: Helen
12 08/26/08 6:46 AM | Comment Link |Amy, thanks for your comment. You wrote about your beliefs about God but you didn’t say which Jesus would prefer (since you seem to know the Bible well, it would be helpful if you support your answer with quotes from Jesus).
Pam, me too.
David, I like your definition of faith a lot. I wasn’t thinking of faith that way, but I agree with you that faith as you defined it is the motivation behind character. If it’s all about me why bother? There are lots of people who don’t believe in God but also don’t believe ‘it’s all about me’ and they make an effort to be people of good character. Of course there are also lots of people whose belief in God leads them to ‘it’s not all about me’. But belief in God is not the only way to get there.
Good question :)
SocietyVs I like your emphasis on character - do you think it would help if people referred to themselves with character labels? I’m not sure it would because I’d still want to know whether people were actually honest (for example), not just whether they labelled themselves that way.
Jason wrote:
Good point, and very relevant these days in the US, but that wasn’t actually why I posted it :). I posted it because of a comments conversation on Pam Hogeweide’s blog. I noticed that some commenters focused on faith and others character as the key indicator of being Christian.
I think I care about this partly because for many years when I was Christian I assumed people who shared my Christian faith would be trustworthy in business or as friends. When I realized that was not a good assumption I decided from then on I was going to care about character more than faith. Things like that contributed to the undermining of my faith.
Comment by: Pops
13 08/26/08 8:24 AM | Comment Link |Hi Helen
Yeah, a big problem this!
For a few days now, I have been trying to figure out an answer to your question here but must say, I am quite flummoxed!
Mostly I think because of what you described here.
But then the question is not so much about the faith itself but about the people practising, or failing to practice that faith? We can’t blame the faith/message itself can we?
So if it is the people, then I would be inclined to ask those people, “Are you really of that faith? If so, then what is wrong with your character?”
This is where the leaders need to be - facing these issues with the people concerned and laying out the specifications for being part of or belonging to the faith as opposed to allowing them to imitate the parts that they want to - I think it is part of the “I need a fire escape” attitude picked up because of the incorrect hell fire preaching instead of the full message of the gospel.
We never do the ‘altar call’ thingy at the pub for this very reason - if a person shows an interest in becoming a Christian, then we discuss it with them over a period of time (weeks and months) and describe the whole message of the gospel. We then leave them to make their own decision.
Sorry, a bit of a long post!
Lots of Love!
Pops
Comment by: Jason Horton
14 08/26/08 9:33 AM | Comment Link |I’ve just stumbled onto this quote:
I thought it was relevant to the question.
Comment by: Bob
15 08/26/08 1:52 PM | Comment Link |Prefer is a tough one, do you mean prefer to hang around with or prefer as in give priority or preferential treatment?
I think you have to be careful about the character of people in your life that you hang around with and admire because they can make you better or worse character wise.
I believe to have a sincere faith in something you have to be a person of some humility. I would much rather spend time with someone capable of admitting they’re wrong and sees the best in people, than someone who never makes moral mistakes but lacks a compassionate and forgiving spirit. Sometimes, when we get caught up in being “good” people it’s pretty easy to become judgemental and unkind. This is true of Christians and everyone else. I think I am a better person because of my weaknesses (which you could translate as character flaws). Without them I would not be as loving or compassionate because I wouldn’t require as much love and compassion as I do. So to answer your question, that would depend on the person and what drives them.
In terms of Jesus, I think faith was the issue. The Pharisees were of good character in a lot of ways and Jesus despised their attitudes and behavior. Jesus hung around with people of ill reputation just as often. I think he preferred them in some ways, because they were able to understand and admit their need for him. Jesus (to me) was more interested in helping people than in the quality of their deeds. He wanted to point them toward good character but it was no cause for dismissal or favoritism. He primarily wanted to reconcile them to God.
In the real world they are not mutually exclusive of course. Everyone has character flaws and everyone has faith in something. I would like both as long as the people are sincere and caring.
Comment by: no offense
16 08/26/08 7:37 PM | Comment Link |I guess i wasn’t very clear in my definition of faith. Helen you talked about people ’sharing your Christian faith.’ I was using the word faith to mean something very different than this meaning of faith.
If you take the word (faith) out of its religious context and use it the way you would in its everyday context, (I have faith in a politician, I have faith in my safety equipment, etc.) then you have the word as I was attempting to use it.
“I agree with the many who have commented that the Table is not designed for the pure, the righteous, or the perfect, but for the impure, for the unrighteous, and for the imperfect. I see no difference: if anyone is seeking God’s grace and God’s blessing through Jesus Christ, they should be welcomed to the Table of the Lord. The Table is for cracked Eikons, and only for cracked Eikons. The one thing clear from Jesus’ table fellowship is that his opponents wanted purity before fellowship, and Jesus created purity out of fellowship with him.”
Scott McKnight
Comment by: Helen
17 08/27/08 6:47 AM | Comment Link |Pops wrote:
Pops, I’ve tried this on and off and what I’ve realized is that people use the Bible to justify themselves. Jesus was harsh in Matthew 23 so they can be too when they deem it appropriate. Jesus turned over the tables in righteous anger so they can be righteously angry. Paul was sarcastic so they can be too.
Basically instead of the Bible calling them to a higher standard it gives them excuse to live down to a lower one. Which I find very disappointing but I don’t know what to do about it because, hey, they have God’s permission - who am I to argue with that?
*sigh*
Bob wrote:
Is that based on looking at what Jesus said and analyzing what proportion of it has to do with being reconciled to God and what proportion with the way they behaved?
I’m just wondering how you came up with that.
no offense, thanks, but I’m afraid I’m lost - I’m not sure if your answer is yes or no to my question: do you think atheists can have good character?
As for your final quote, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
None of the people I know who aren’t Christians think they are perfect. They are honest about their faults and weaknesses (when they feel safe being that vulnerable) On the other hand they probably reject the idea that they are totally depraved/sinners by birth.
Comment by: Pops
18 08/27/08 9:04 AM | Comment Link |Shiiiiiite! I have never thought of it like that!
Floored me here Helen, I never ever thought that people would use somthing like that to justify their bad behaviour!
Gob smacked to be sure!
Lots of love!
Pops
Comment by: Bob
19 08/27/08 3:08 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
It’s my opinion based on the things he said and the things he did as told in the new testament. Why did Jesus spend so much time with people the others considered unworthy? To remind them that they were unacceptable? I don’t think that makes sense. Reconciliation makes more sense to me (but that of course is my opinion as we’ve discussed). I think he spent as much time as he did talking about the way people behaved to remind us that we all have fallen short and that we need him. It also helps us behave better towards other people and be more accepting of their shortcomings. Just my two cents of course.
I wish I had know that was the question, that’s a lot simpler. Of course they can. Nobody is perfect but people of all belief systems have the possiblity of good character. Character has to do with our hearts and our choices. There may be different motivations driving those things in different belief systems but they can still result in good character.
Comment by: Helen
20 08/27/08 5:38 PM | Comment Link |Pops, I was very surprised too when I first ran into it.
Comment by: Helen
21 08/27/08 7:26 PM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Bob are you saying, when Jesus said “Behave like this” it wasn’t because he wanted people to behave like this, because they couldn’t behave like this. Rather it was simply to remind them that they couldn’t?
That was a question that came up along the way; it wasn’t my original question but I’m also interested in answers to it.
Thanks for saying atheists have the possibility of good character.
Comment by: Bob
22 08/28/08 12:59 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Not at all. Jesus expects us to behave to a certain standard but also reminds us that we fail to do so from time to time. It’s not a free pass, but a reminder that sometimes we may need one. We are capable of behaving well most of the time, sometimes we just choose not too. It’s not an escape hatch. I understand what you mean by saying Christians use the gospel as permission (I think Paul addresses this pretty specifically) to misbehave but I believe it’s a misuse.
I think you can make a case for differentiating Godly character with good character when it comes to motivation for our character. And that is not a diss, Atheists don’t believe in God so Godly character is irrelevant to them. But if good character is based on collective human standards alone, it would be unfair of me to think someone doesn’t have the potential for good character. There are kind and decent people of all kinds of belief structures and for that I am grateful.
Comment by: benjamin ady
23 08/29/08 4:00 AM | Comment Link |Good character vs. no character and faith vs. no faith are categorical scales which *may*, perhaps, not be the most effective for describing reality as we experience it.
I’m thinking numerical scales might work better. Something like Jessica does on indexed. Imagine a cartesian plane with faith on the y axis, and character on the x axis. If we use something akin to Dawson’s scale for theism vs atheism, with extreme theism at, say, -4, and extreme theism at, say positive 4, and then we have really *bad* character (I’m thinking Ted Bundy) at -4, vs. someone with really *good* character (I’m thinking … hmmmmm) at plus 4. Now here’s a problem. I don’t know anyone with good character to the same degree as Mr. Bundy had bad character. Isn’t that interesting?
Anyway, in that cartesian plane, I don’t really care *where* someone falls on the faith axis. Much more interesting is where they fall on the character axis. (That’s not totally true. I mean fundamentalists kind of creep me out, and that’s somehow related to the faith axis, I suppose, maybe)
By which I mean to say I’ll take someone who’s kind to me over someone who’s unkind, 10 days out of 10, no matter what their faith or lack thereof.
Of course, I think I’d rather have someone a bit out from the origin in either direction rather than someone who has *zero* character. That would just be utterly boring, having zero character. But I Don’t really believe anyone is actually there.
In fact, …
People aren’t that easily categorized in my experience. I myself for instance tend to roller coaster back and forth on both scales of that cartesian plane I described, sometimes from moment to moment, and certainly from month to month and year to year. =)
Where does Jean Valjean fall on the plane? Or Javert? Or … Boromir? See. Nobody’s that simple.
Comment by: Helen
24 08/29/08 4:54 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
I see what you’re saying - can you specify some character differences? When I think of character, it seems to me that atheists, Christians and people in-between largely agree.
Comment by: Helen
25 08/29/08 5:02 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin wrote:
I agree - if it was up to me ‘faith’ would be a non-issue.
Me too.
To some extent I agree with the commenters who’ve said that some sort of ‘faith’ underlies kindness - maybe this could go under the general umbrella of faith that ‘it’s worth being kind’. However, I think experience is significant too - people who find that being kind feels good to them will continue to do it. Maybe that’s a selfish reason but I’d rather think of it as a win-win, because just because you feel good doesn’t detract from the other person appreciating the kindness too.
I agree about the variation but I I think people vary within their own ranges and the ranges are different from person to person. Some people are habitually kind, some are habitually condescending. As you get to know someone you get a sense of what their basic orientation is and you know whether the way they are on a given day is typical or unusual for them.
Comment by: Bob
26 08/29/08 10:52 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin Ady wrote:
Isn’t that the truth. Maybe you’re all much better people than myself — but on my worst day things look a whole lot different than on my best. I can be self absorbed on one day and in tune with the needs of others the next. Nobody is a 10 on the character scale all the time.
Helen — The main difference, I think, would be that one is more pliable and established by the concurrence of man. The other is established by God. That of course assumes a belief in God, which has no relevence to an atheist, which might reply, “your god is not real so your character standard is in fact the same as mine” So it largely depends on if you think there is anything bigger and better than us.
In terms of a specific line items — I think gratitude and submission to God would be two elements of Godly character that might not be found in the commonality of good behavior. Again not relevant to an atheist, but for those that believe there is a creator that is greater than ourselves, to deny that creator proper credit would be in poor character. If our lives are indeed intentional and not incidental then we might be grateful to the one who put us here intentionally. If there is nothing, we’re beholden to nothing.
Aside from this type of thing, I think their may be a great many similarities, especially when it comes to codes of moral conduct.
Comment by: Helen
27 08/29/08 3:26 PM | Comment Link |Bob thanks for your response.
In a comment to you on the Dawkins post I talked about the difference between gratitude and appreciation. I think they can look a lot a like but the latter doesn’t require God.
It seems that way to me. Except where Christian codes of conduct lead Christian to behave in ways that don’t make sense to people who aren’t Christians. Which I guess you already gave an example of.
Comment by: Pops
28 08/30/08 6:10 AM | Comment Link |Okay, so been thinking a bit;
If a person of good character has no “higher code” then how long would that character last?
(and yes, I understand that there are people who live their entire lives as good people blah blah….)
How many times do we hear “But he was such a good person! I never dreamed he would do that”
So, without a ‘faith’ to underpin them, how much would mere good character help?
We read often of people who just ’snap’.
So someone who has a base which can be referred to, although they may not have character, can be worked on (hopefully) to get their character in line with what their faith teaches.
The person who has no ‘faith’ if they should stray from their previous good character, has no framework with which you could assist them to get back.
? is this making sense?
Comment by: Helen
29 08/30/08 7:41 AM | Comment Link |Pops what you said about people just snapping or “I never dreamed he would do that” applies to Christians as much as people who aren’t Christians.
People who aren’t Christians have a ‘base’ just like Christians do. If Christians can return to their base other people can too.
All you have to do is find out what their framework is. Which isn’t that hard. If you listen to what people who aren’t Christians say is important to them then you’ll quickly be able to find out which of those matters to the particular person you’re interacting with.
Comment by: Jason Horton
30 08/31/08 4:56 AM | Comment Link |Well said Helen. I’d also like to add that we create our own moral framework as we grow and experience life’s ups and downs. We take what works and reject what doesn’t and I’m including the bible in this. Something that many Christians forget is that atheists reject a belief in God they do not necessarily reject those moral lessons in the Bible (and elsewhere) that are of value. Just because we don’t belief that Jesus was the son of God doesn’t automatically mean that his words don’t have value.
Comment by: benjamin ady
31 09/1/08 11:25 PM | Comment Link |Helen, Jason, Pops,
you three address a fascinating question. You really made me think. I used to strongly believe that people who espoused so called “moral relativism” were bound to have seriously screwed up lives. Absolute right and wrong, one right way, one truth, and so forth, and people who said there were no such things were just morally lost, in my opinion.
I remember Frank Peretti telling the story about the man who was standing by a piano in a pitch black warehouse. The man used the piano as a point of reference, so he could explore a bit, and find his way back to the piano. Frank asked “What happens if, while the man is away from the piano, I come and move it over to a different place?” He was, rightfully, in my opinion, saying that we as humans rather prefer to have, or even need, points of reference in our lives. But he was overgeneralizing from/overextending the metaphor in saying that this precludes a certain level of moral relativism, or that those who don’t adhere to the Christian faith or to any theistic faith or to any faith at all are therefore without points of reference.
Peretti accused those who think of moral relativism as a reasonable sometimes useful thing of living in two worlds: a kind of theoretical world where there is no absolute right and wrong, and much more concrete world where when they arrive home from work and find their house burgled, they are enraged and feel it is truly very wrong that they have been victimized.
Or as somewhat compelling Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias says to those who prefer a both/and rather than an either/or: Even in the east, you look both ways before crossing the street, because it’s either you *or* the approaching bus, not both.
Such thinking makes sense as far as it goes. But … the world has grown much more nuanced for me since the days when I looked up to Peretti and Zacharias. The problems being that my ongoing experience is that the piano *does* get moved, constantly. That yes, I feel very angry that someone burgled my house, but … the truth is, perhaps, that my army invaded her homeland. Or my government enslaved her ancestors for hundreds of years. Or killed 90% of them. And so forth. Or … my government shipped her father back to Cambodia, even though he grew up here and doesn’t speak a word of Cambodian, for some relatively smallish crime he committed.
It doesn’t make it right that she burgled my house. But it does place the discussion of right and wrong into a context.
I mean it’s fascinating because part of my regular employment involves an ongoing position of enormous trust which I could very easily abuse without really hurting anyone that much with enormous benefit to myself. And I’m not a Christian anymore, so I don’t really think about it in terms of sin, or pleasing God, or what have you. I mean to say that to some extent the moral framework with which I grew up is gone. And yet I continue to choose not to abuse the trust, because as Helen spoke about, it’s part of what’s important to me, part of, in a sense, who I am–that trust is extremely important to me, as is relationship. It’s just part of my bottom line composition as a person–part of my story. As it turns out, I have character quite apart from my faith.
Comment by: Amy
32 09/2/08 8:44 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, Helen. I guess I am a bit confused by the term “prefer” - sorry if I am being obtuse! I am going to take “prefer” to mean, which person would Jesus take into his kingdom, or in the parlance of Christianity, which person will be saved. If that is NOT what you mean, then please correct my understanding! :)
Like no offense’s original comment, there is a bit of a false dichotomy here. The indication of the entirety of Scripture taken together is that God/Jesus wants us to be people of faith AND character. You have Paul explaining that it is by faith alone that we are saved, lest any of us should boast about saving ourselves with being so good. But you also have James explaining that faith without good works is dead, is no faith at all. Rather than being an indication that the Scripture contradicts itself, I think both passages are illuminating each other - we don’t do good works to get saved, but rather we are saved TO DO good works (Ephesians 2:10).
To clarify the point that I made in my last comment - the reason it is possible is that people without faith are able to do good things and display good character is because of natural law - God has written his law on our hearts, and whether we come to believe in Jesus or not, we ALL have consciences that at times urge us to do good. That is the universal grace of being human.
Despite my assertion that your original question cannot really be answered perfectly because of a false dichotomy, I do think there is sort of an answer. I think Jesus would “prefer” the person of faith, and by faith I mean a true, repentant faith, not just mental assent to knowledge. The best example I can point to in defense of my answer, though there are others, is what Jesus said to the criminal next to him on the Cross. That man was in the process of being punished for criminal acts. But because of his display of faith in Jesus, not because of any good acts he had done, in an instant all his bad character was redeemed, and Jesus said “this day you will be with me in paradise.” Of course, if the two of them had had more time, Jesus would have urged the man not to sin anymore and to reform his life. But the whole point of Jesus sacrificing himself and going to the Cross was because he loved people even though their acts were sinful and their characters were bad. He came as a doctor to cure the sick, not for the (supposedly) well.
(Sorry for such a long post, and sorry if I repeated what others have said, I didn’t read all the comments before responding to you!)
Comment by: Helen
33 09/2/08 5:56 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin thanks for your thoughtful comments.
It’s fascinating to discover that isn’t it? Who knew? :)
Comment by: Helen
34 09/2/08 6:09 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your response Amy. I didn’t define ‘prefer’ so that left it open for you to decide what it meant :)
Good point about the criminal on the cross although we don’t really know what his character was like. Maybe he was a decent person who made some bad choices. Maybe it was partly because of his character that he was respectful of Jesus instead of insulting him like the other guy.
Comment by: Pops
35 09/3/08 9:00 AM | Comment Link |Thank you for your effort here Benjamin, much appreciated!
Okay, unfortunately ‘Christianity’ has not set a good example over the years.
So, let’s imagine a perfect world where todays Christians were exactly like those in the book of Acts.
If that were so, then what would the answer be?
Because essentially, IMO, what we are not getting is that our answers are based on what we perceive as the faith despite the fact that it is well tainted today and does not really represent what Jesus was all about.
I do not say that people with no faith have no character and I understand that you have character apart from faith.
But then of course, how much of your previous upbringing has a continuing influence on your current life style - stories untold methinks, in a lot of people.
This is also true of society as a whole - how much has been influenced by various ‘faiths’ but is accepted as our norms for moral behaviour regardess of whether we acknowledge that ‘faith’ or not?
Oh, just to stir the pot a wee bit:
Regarding humans general moral behaviour; the name of the tribe in Papua New Guinea escapes me, but their sense of morality is very different to ours in the western world and one is thought to be of excellent moral fibre if one is able to succesfully betray others.
So, they would be very kind and loving toward you but with an agenda of ultimately betraying you.
To them, that is excellent character which would land us westerners in hot water - quite literally because they still practiced cannibalisn until just recently!
Lots of love!
Pops
Comment by: Amy
36 09/8/08 10:34 AM | Comment Link |Helen said:
Whatever this man’s past was like (all we have to go on is that he is a criminal who admits to deserving his punishment, so it seems safe to assert that he had at least done something pretty bad), the text makes it clear that Jesus’ offer of entrance into heaven is a direct response to the criminal’s statement of faith: “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Such a statement displays more than just respect for Jesus, it displays that the criminal has faith in Jesus as Lord.
Thanks for this discussion, Helen!
Comment by: benjamin ady
37 09/8/08 2:10 PM | Comment Link |Pops,
You would be referring to the story told by Don Richardson in Peace Child. Don has *lots* of interesting things to say, although I was greatly saddened by his completely offputting take in his more recent book “Secrets of the Koran”.
Don seems to fall into a trap with his latest book which he himself has identified as a trap in his own earlier writings (an all too human thing to do).
There are two problems, it seems to me. First of all there’s the assumption that our culture’s understanding of “good character” is … somehow objectively superior to other cultures’ understandings of “good character.
Secondly, it’s just not true that we don’t value betrayal in western culture. I’m sure if you thought for just a moment both through our literature and through our … national and international dealings with “the other”, you can come up with multiple examples of this.