Often we hear Christian leaders encourage their adherents not to marry “unbelievers”, referencing II Cor. 6:14, which reads:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
Perhaps the leader intends to imply that you’re not going to be a better Christian if you marry a non-Christian. The author of this verse, Paul, however, takes it a step further here by regarding the Christian as righteous over the unrighteous unbeliever.
It’s less likely we’ll hear Christian leaders these days speak as bluntly here as Paul did. Whether they regard their followers as light and some of their spouses as darkness is not for me to say. But here, I’ll run with the sentiments Paul explicitly expressed.
Christianity’s neutral effect on the West
Generally, my feeling is that Christianity hasn’t made western society better or worse over these past two millennia. The positives and the negatives cancel each other. Unbelievers may fantasize what the West would have been like without centuries of state-mandated religion. But it’s likely something else would have been in place had Constantine never “converted”.
Many Christians today would have us believe they’re profoundly impacted by their faith. That may be true to a certain extent, but they refuse to acknowledging an existing compartmentalization of faith along with everything else included in the human experience. The importance of faith varies at certain levels throughout the Christian population.
As far as conversion being a substantially transformative — and overnight — experience, I often fail to see the evidence in that. That level of transformation, if it were to exist, would require a lifespan rather than a momentary response to an altar call amidst crowd enthusiasm.
Same motive, no moral progress
But if one were to agree with Paul that the Christian is “righteous” while the other is “unrighteous”, then it’s fair to inquire into the motivation behind conversion. What is that motivation, and why is it important to know?
It’s one thing to convert for the sake of goodness itself. It’s another to convert in hopes of receiving a reward and avoiding punishment.
It’s fair to ask the following:
- If conversion did not bring reward and deter punishment, then how many would convert merely for the sake of doing good and avoiding evil? In other words, if people convert to Christianity simply to seek reward and avoid punishment, then what makes them different from any other human being? All humans live by this rule, even the lower animals.
The motivation to gain Heaven and avoid Hell doesn’t make one human righteous. That’s because the basic animal desire to gain reward and avoid punishment is the foundation for conversion. Not only does this “conversion” not distinguish the “righteous” from the “unrighteous”, but it also fails to distinguish the “righteous” from the mere beast.
We all seek reward and avoid punishment. The difference here is some ascribe to the view that they’ll either be rewarded eternally or damned eternally. Others don’t accept that as reality. Essentially, we don’t know whether that is a reality. We are only left to believe one way or the other.
Doing good for the sake of the good is a far better demonstration of moral progress. Our motive to seek reward and avoid punishment is the basic motive other animals have as they lack the capacity to make moral judgements. But as humans we can dial it up a notch. We have the capacity to do good for the sake of goodness no matter the outcome, whether that be reward or punishment.
Ultimately, conversion motivated by seeking reward and avoiding punishment doesn’t differ much from driving the speed limit to avoid a speeding ticket.