Thread by @marcusolang

I find christianity today rather problematic.

Binyavanga passed on. The reaction was immediate and brutal. Somehow, there was this idea that he deserved to die - in fact, being on Twitter that day would leave you with the distinct impression that the man was a cruel and vile human deserving of only the worst of fates.

The #Repeal162 ruling is also a thing that happened. The reaction again swift & vicious. To the point where a video of a human being brutalised did the rounds both online & on WhatsApp, accompanied by captions celebrating "justice" and this strong rejection of the "unchristian".

"Unchristian." That word is wonderfully selective in how it's used and applied, isn't it?

Which brings me to where I'm often left quite baffled: That this very open venom is somehow accepted as christian. Well, as long as it's directed towards the people that "deserve" it.

That somehow, beating, kicking and stoning someone is acceptably christian - as long as the person is gay. That somehow, visceral hate directed towards a man and his loved ones is acceptably christian - as long as the person is gay.

And this schism between what's acceptably christian and what's not doesn't end there. A divorced person will be cast away because... I suppose the spirit of divorce is spread by touch.

The child of a single mom is denied baptism or the chance to join a school of their choice because... I suppose the child carries the spirit of separation and broken families with them wherever they go.

A single mom is actively avoided and shunned because... I don't even know how to complete this one.

And these examples? These are not things I'm making up. These are things that happen a little more regularly than they should.

If you're unaware of them, just ask around and pay attention. You'll get more real-life examples than you can count. And barely limited to the few frames I've described here.

All this within a version of christianity that actively invites pharisaical politicians to the pulpit, as long as they come with a sack of cash that can go towards "the work of the church".

All this within a version of christianity that heaps praise upon and fervently exalts a mighty prophet over the Jesus they supposedly serve, over the God that would be the one to allow said power.

It's a very baffling version of christianity.

Yet the Jesus we claim to serve is one that practised a version of christianity diametrically opposed to what we cling to today. A christianity of compassion and empathy. A christianity that paused to reflect on self before hurling rocks.

A christianity that served first, rather than revel in being served. A christianity that embodied love especially towards the rejected.

This version of christianity? This version in which we're intolerant of anyone who lives a life different from what we approve of? This version in which we liberally batter and bash both physically and verbally, and even cheer it on?

This version of christianity that rushes to condemn rather and villify than empathise and embrace? This version is the very one that the Jesus it claims to serve would have actively rejected. And reject it he did.

Substitute every mention of Pharisees and Sadducees in the words of Jesus, and he's describing the vast majority of the church as it stands today. The very rejection that got him killed.

Or, as @Ngartia Ngartia framed it: "Christians would be the first to crucify Jesus."

He's quite right. We would have been the very ones shouting for and walking him to his death.