Associative Reality
/
Presenting ourselves to others will always be an intrinsic instinct of human nature. Even as young children, whatever the cause and origin may be, we have some idea of how we wish others to view us. This is true of all relationships.
The idea is often presented that we should be primarily concerned with what God thinks of us, and rightfully so. I do not intend to undertake so noble a feat in this email. We shall discuss presentation of ourselves as perceived by other men.
Associating Behavior with Stigmas
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
- Proverbs 26:4-5
It is extremely natural for us to associate behavior with according attributes. A man who is neatly dressed but dirty is thought to be responsible, a hard worker; while a man who may be dressed in a slouchy manner, but is clean and pristine, is thought to be lazy or possibly even delinquent by some. In one subculture, dressing like a thug may get you respected - in another, ostracized. The same is true for dressing well.
Language plays an enormous role in this equation. For example, words such as dogma, cult, terrific, terrible, exorcise, and many others have drastically differing connotations and associations across various social contexts. One can give countless examples of many great men in history who said things which they were unable to "live down". Certain words and phrases invoke emotions and thoughts in one culture that they do not necessarily in another.
Depending on your subculture (and more relevant to this article, your ecclesiastical circle) anticipation of public or social perception may greatly affect your decision making. It was told of the late Rev. Billy Graham that he refused to enter an elevator with only his daughter and no third party, asserting that bystanders may imagine inappropriate thoughts, not knowing that the two were father and daughter. Another minister (who no longer walks this earth) refused to converse with another female, even in public venues, without his wife or some accountable third party present in the conversation. Men will often go to great lengths to ensure acceptance within their close group.
Guilt By Association
"Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not."
- Proverbs 29:24
Personal contact is probably one of the most effective means of associative presumption. One is always perceived to have certain character traits because of their group. Police officers and soldiers are cocky and vulgar. Firemen are lazy, obese adrenaline junkies. Someone who wears a flannel shirt in warm weather must be a hipster.
Unless you appear dramatically out of place, your presence with a crowd or group of individuals will immediately associate you with them in the eyes of the beholder. If you are present in a crowd being dispersed by police, no amount of shouting "Hey! I'm not with them! Don't shoot tear gas towards the crowd I'm in!" will alter the reality that you are a cell in the mass. The same is true for our friends and associates. So often we make judgements of political candidates based on who they associate with rather than their platform or who they appoint to office. We do the same with our acquaintances and close contacts.
Guilt by association is often seen in the form of social puritanism. Something isn't necessarily bad or negative within a social group, but a person will stringently purge themselves of any associative property for fear of social stigma. A current example of this is the new hip fad of destroying or surrendering firearms in response to sensationalized violence. Individuals may be turned down for hiring positions because of stigmas associated with their clothing or specific tattoos. I witnessed with my own eyes a young, black toddler being chastised for accepting a sticker badge from a police officer, and being told, "They ain't your friend, ain't never gonna be." And another black toddler, when he waved at a passing patrol car, was snatched by the arm and told, "Don't you wave at them, they kill you! They gonna wait til you're older and then they gonna kill you. You understand? Don't you be waiving at them."
The same is true in the church. Some groups forbid attending certain venues, such as fairs, bards and theaters, for fear of guilt by association. "When I grew up, the bowling alley was where people went and got drunk and smoked weed," one might say. However an orderly, family bowling center presents an image not at all reminiscent of the one above. Very commonly people will forbid the possession or display an image of Christ in crucifixion because they think it will associate them with Catholicism and things with which they are not in solidarity. Orthodox iconic paintings of Christ and church fathers are ridiculed in some groups for their Greek writing and the cultural connotations which they invoke.
Does it Matter?
The answer to this question is largely circumstantial. A Latino police officer showing up to work with an image Jesus Mal Verde (the Mexican patron icon of drug dealers) tattooed on one arm and "Nortenos" tattooed on the other (while not assigned to a gang unit or undercover work, of course) would certainly evoke some disconcerting fears and pertinent questions, as would a white CEO with a shaved head showing up for work with a swastika arm band over his Brooks Brothers blazer sleeve. Discretion must be used, and subjection to subculture and close group must be considered.
But what about in the realm of the church?
Everyone's favorite response on this topic seems to come from Romans 14:16: Let not then your good be evil spoken of. Directly after that usually comes "Give not place to the devil." This line of thinking is not at all new, and is certainly evident in the Old Testament and Jewish culture and values. Read II Samuel 12:14 et al. This premise was not, however, talking about riding the elevator with immediate family members, but about David who had recently committed ADULTERY with the wife of one of his soldiers and then orchestrated the arbitrary MURDER of the soldier to conceal his deeds. Proverbs 29:25-26 says, "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe. Many seek the ruler's favour; but every man's judgement cometh from the LORD."
If we examine the early church, we see a very different attitude toward the world and greater society than we do in the modern church. The modern church seems mostly intent on being appealing and pleasing to the outside world. The early church defended themselves when given the opportunity, but made no extraordinary effort to abandon tradition, righteous living or plain common sense in order to satisfy society's complaints.
Early Christians were accused of being cannibals, necromancers, demon worshipers and other terrific criminals by the greater society in which they lived. They did not abandon any of their practices, they did not alter the names or terminology of their sacraments, and they did not concern themselves with becoming more palatable to the hostile public. Caecelius the Pagan publicly charged Christians with killing their own and others' children, consuming their flesh and drinking their blood, that they held clandestine meetings before sunrise to conduct incestuous orgies, and seducing and taking advantage of the ignorant and elderly. There were a few apologists who refuted these claims, but we see no motivation or movement within the ecclesiastical collective to transmorph into an image which would be acceptable in the eyes of greater society. What we do see is a reaffirmation of genuine and original Christian conduct by the Apostles and church fathers, despite what judgement the public passed.
This is truly a lost concept in the church (again, collectively speaking) in North America. While the early church made every effort to draw sharp, dividing lines between themselves and heathen society, the American church makes just as much effort in the opposing campaign. Evangelism is no longer centered around converting sinners to Christ, but editing Christ until his image is converted to the standards set forth by greater society.
This anomaly (turned consensus) is self evident in the emasculated version of Christ that is portrayed by the American church culture by and large. Christ is no longer the Champion of Our Salvation, nor the King of Kings. He is portrayed as our heavenly big bro, jolly and full of laughter and feminine charm; a sweet, polite, caring man who has a blushing, fuzzy face and wants to have an emotion-centered, personal and intimate relationship with you and only you because "he's crazy about you". As society has emasculated the role of Christian manhood, a conformist church has followed suit in effacing and eviscerating the role of Christ as the example to Christian men. If anything is unacceptable in the eyes of greater society, the American church is swift to consider whether they should change suit to avoid confrontation. Kirk R. MacGregor in his article, Nonviolence in the Ancient Church and Christian Obedience, confirms, "[T]olerating society through nonresistance is a far cry from Jesus' mandate to change society through nonviolent resistance."
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
- I John 2:15
Nonetheless, we must not altogether cast off our self presentation. We are commanded in Colossians 4:5 to "walk in wisdom toward them that are without". St. Ignatius of Antioch said of Christian conduct toward the world in his letter to the ephesians, "Permit them to be instructed by your works, if in no other way. Be meek in response to their wrath, humble in opposition to their boasting; to their blasphemies return your prayers; in contrast to their error, be steadfast in the faith; and for their cruelty, display your gentleness. While we take care not to imitate their conduct, let us be found their brothers in all true kindness."
Finally, in order to address our conduct and appearance to other brothers and sisters in Christ, please read the following portions of scripture before continuing:
I Corinthians 9-11
Acts 17:10-12
I Peter 2:9-3:9 (Special emphasis on ch3v9)
I will wear overalls and a cowboy hat to the state capital even though people will balk and assume that I am some ignorant bumpkin. Their opinion does not matter. I will not, however, wear overalls to work instead of my uniform. The opinion of those who would notice does matter. We must discriminate between what and who matter and what and who do not. So it is with the world and the church. Walk in wisdom before outsiders, but do not let the opinions of a sinful society affect our High Calling. Make every effort to preserve unity, honor and good reputation with the brethren. God's word is full of how we should act toward the world, but says nothing of what they should be thinking of us. Once we have fulfilled our duty to God, we have fulfilled our duty to man. The reception (or perception) is out of our hands. Maintain your integrity among the Household of Faith, do the right thing, and let the world roll on.
Blue Shepard
