WARNING: The following post contains profanity, sarcasm, innuendo, and not-so-subtle digs; it may be unsuitable for those who eschew Absolutes (other than their own) but have, nevertheless, cultivated a refined sense of moral superiority and self-righteous indignation.
* * *
How better to demonstrate your evolved morality and uber compassion than by hating conservative Christians?
Don’t try to l
ogically grasp the dissonance of that objective. You see, even though they decry hatred, bigotry, judgmentalism, and mean-spiritedness, religious progressives feel they are justified in loathing evangelicals.
Take for instance John Shore who, in his HuffPo piece A Progressive Christian Asks, ‘How Do I Not Hate Most Christians?‘, blithely refers to conservative Christians as
- “stupid”
- “morons”
- “idiots”
- “dipshits”
- “assholes”
- who believe “horrendously toxic bullshit.”
Apparently, demeaning other believers and calling them “dipshits” and “assholes” isn’t one of the 10 Ways (We) Christians Fail to Be Christians.
At least this Unitarian Universalist minister tries to be more nuanced about her intolerance for evangelicals:
All religious traditions are not equal. Some beliefs foster freedom, growth and a deepening of compassion. Others are rigid and exclusive, warning of eternal punishment for those who don’t believe in the one true path to salvation, as they see it, or for those who love someone of the same sex.
…But for the damage that conservative Christianity does to people and for its perpetuation of prejudice and hate, I must reject this tradition.
Which is fascinating coming from someone who believes “There is truth in every religious tradition.” Apparently, conservative Christians have become the one exception to that inept mantra.
Contemplating the utter hypocrisy of these positions will, again, get you nowhere. In the progressive’s philosophical fog bank, it’s okay to be intolerant, snide, foul-mouthed, condemning and judgmental… provided your objective is to belittle evangelicals. Everyone else can share a kumbaya moment. It’s us evil conservative Christians who are shunned from the circle.
So it’s no wonder that this sensitive, deeply loving, community of activists and emobloggers would give rise to the Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine — an entire movement bent on cataloging, ridiculing, scoffing at, lampooning, and mocking evangelical culture.
Here’s a sampling of the Hate Machine at work:
Stuff Christian Culture Likes — The Webmaster explains, “This is a scientific approach to highlight and explain stuff Christian culture likes. They are pretty predictable… Christian culture is funny because it doesn’t have much (if anything) to do with Christ himself.” In that spirit, SCCL “scientifically” mocks worship conferences, mocks conservative politicians, and mocks evangelical terminology. Justifying hatred of evangelicals never seemed so… “scientific.”
Stuff Fundies Like — Which lists “Fundy Rules” like:
1. I am right and you are wrong. Always.
3. The less certain something is, the more certain you must appear to be about it.
6. The less fun it is the godlier it must be.
7. Women’s primary purpose is to serve as a temptation to men. They are also somewhat useful for housework.
9. If it is new it is bad. If it is old it is good.
10. There is no situation that a good dose of ministerial yelling can’t fix.
Of course, this unintentionally reveals Rule Number One of the Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine:
1.) Do what you must to make conservative Christians look as stupid as possible.
Jesus Needs New PR — Matthew Paul Turner aggregates wacky Jesus pictures, and run-of-the-mill evangelical items like Pet Baby Jesus Rocks, Jesus Popsicles, and A Jesus Mini-skirt. You can also sponsor a child in Sri Lanka or get magazine discounts while perusing these evangelical inanities. Wondering if Turner now considers himself Jesus’ “new” PR guy?
The Christian Taliban — Describes their evil evangelical adversary thus:
…the “Christian Taliban” is diligently working toward an America where we will be forced to worship their concept of God or face the consequences of their tactics of terror. We will live in a nation where Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu children will be forced to pray to a vengeful and hard-hearted God who will proclaim that they will burn in the fires of hell because a loveless and cruel concept of Jesus is not their personal savior. We will live in a nation where genuine Christians who are the true believers who know that both God and Jesus are the purest form of love will be forced to deny a loving Christ and worship a false ‘Jesus’ who represents oppression, punishment, revenge, hate, and bigotry.
Homosexuals, human rights activists, environmentalists, women’s rights advocates, and others will be persecuted, jailed, and perhaps eventually executed because they will refuse to believe that God is cold-hearted and filled with hate instead of love.
BEWARE THE COMING EMPOWERMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN!!!
And here I thought only evangelicals were fear-mongers.
Christian Nightmares — Aggregates the worst in evangelical lunacy, while wearing a silver mask.
The Christian Left on Facebook — Who recently pointed out, “Conservatives aren’t going to stop doing stupid things. We’ll be around for a long time to point it out when they do.” Praise God that someone is policing the Right! My only question: Does the Left ever do “stupid things”?
If you’re looking for evidence of the love, compassion, civility, and peace that religious progressives profess to espouse, you won’t find it on these sites. The Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine has one mission: To paint the worst of all 
possible pictures. Making conservative Christians look like “morons,” “idiots,” “dipshits,” and “assholes,” who believe “horrendously toxic bullshit” is the Machine’s aim. The final product on their assembly line is a plastic caricature compiled from nutters, extremists, trivialities, parities, and fanatics. Their motto: The only good evangelical is an ex-evangelical. They accomplish this by framing the term “good evangelical” as an oxymoron.
I won’t say this is the most effective mode of attack. Especially by those who love to tout their trips to Haiti, humanitarian efforts, sympathy for the down-trodden, and unusual compassion for anything LGBT.
Tactically speaking, the Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine is strangely similar to the New Atheists. The primary method of apologetic for both groups is… ridicule. Many atheist sites are more ANTI-Christian than PRO-Atheist; rather than articulating evidence for atheism, they spend most of their time deriding theists, IDers, and creationists. Religious progressives fall into the same trap. Rather than articulating an apologetic for Religious Leftism, they poke fun at, deride, and curate what they consider Evangelical extremes.
Which reveals a potential bankruptcy of ideas and does NOTHING to further their position.
(Maybe this is why it’s been suggested that atheists should make alliances with religious progressives. If they haven’t already.)
Nietzsche warned, “Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.” Sadly, in their attempt to identify the “Christian Taliban,” curate its atrocities, and prop themselves up as Jesus’ new PR guys, they are in danger of becoming the monsters they fight, mirror images of the Westboro Baptist loons. But instead of “Jesus Hates Fags” it’s “Jesus Hates Fundies.”
Both creeds amount to “horrendously toxic bullshit.”
Listen, I do my share of criticizing the American Church and laughing at stupid Christian stuff. Make no mistake about it, in any big family there will be fools and folly. Frederick Buechner marveled that God recruited so many “lamebrains and misfits and nitpickers and holier-than-thou’s and stuffed shirts and odd ducks and egomaniacs and milquetoasts and closet sensualists.” I’ve been around the Church long enough to know there’s nutters on both sides of the aisle. Religious progressives have their share of “morons,” “idiots,” “dipshits,” and “assholes.”
And to pretend otherwise is, indeed, worthy of mockery.
A good tree produces good fruit. A bad tree produces bad fruit.
This is why I loathe sweeping generalizations about groups/denominations/genres, etc. There are extremists (and moderates) in every case. I also don’t associate myself with any one group for this reason. I love Nietzsche’s warning, because each of us has the potential to fall into thinking we’re better than others. Instead we should remember: there by the grace of God go I.
**NUTTER COMMENT ALERT**
The tolerance for everything but a Jesus who claims to be the one and only way (and those who believe in Him) is the perfect environment for a “loving” anti-Christ to rise up and fool the nations into believing he/she wishes to bring peace to the world.
His truth is a sword. It divides. There are only two sides. Choose wisely.
Update: I’ve been following Stuff Fundies Like and I think it was misrepresented in this post. I’ve been doing some more research into the matter, and I think I get it. I apologize to any SFL followers I may have offended in this comment thread…or who may read my comments in the future and become offended… I can’t speak for the other sites. Haven’t looked into them.
It’s good that someone has finally commented on this. I too am know for my negative attitude towards most Fundamentalist beliefs, therefore it carries over into my thoughts about how they behave in general. I went to a Conservative Christian school for two years and that was more than enough for me. But good article Mike.
This piece speaks in the same strident “see how much they suck” child’s voice that it decries. What you don’t really even touch on is just how pervasive the conservative movement has become in American culture, and how much of a minority progressive christians typically are. The unfortunate synergy between public christian conservative talking heads like Pat Robertson and secular conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter coarsens the debate with all kinds of inane political/religious rhetoric. Is there any question why the Rachel Maddows and Keith Olbermanns of the world have stepped in to meet the noise from the left? So too some of these online sources you cite in the religious sphere.
So do you allow for more than one position on hotbutton issues like gay marriage and abortion? Or do you accept the typical conservative positions on these issues as the only acceptable ones (as they are so often argued). Maybe you wouldn’t carry the sign yourself, but do you silently agree with the sentiments of the Westboro Baptist Church… “God hates fags!” Because if you feel these issues have somehow been settled beyond all doubt, you haven’t really been paying attention. Both on the left or the right, it is easier to simply dismiss those who disagree, as opposed to the more difficult and adult work of figuring out how to coexist.
Don’t stay stuck in the sandbox if you feel you can step up and talk to the other adults.
Britt, I’m not sure if this question is directed at me. And I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. I don’t silently, or openly, agree with Westboro Baptist Church. I attend a church with Democrats and Republicans, all of whom wrestle with “hotbutton issues” and arrive at different conclusions. If you peruse my site you’ll find I have a lot of conservative positions but like to think I don’t fall neatly into any one box. Anything else?
So your condescending “adult” voice is better than Mike’s supposedly “childish” voice?
I’ve heard this argument before–“You’re not a grownup (read: you are publicly disagreeing with us)–get out of OUR sandbox.”
Heh, I circulated through that mindset and have worked my way right back to being a fundie. I just can’t get around the solid fact that Christians are so dang NICE. Nobody else on any of the places I’ve been are as all-around nice as Christians.
Ive yet to encounter a ” nice ” fundie , they are half crazed and mean as snakes
And you’d know, David, being one of them.
THANK YOU, MIKE! This is what someone needed to say, and I’m glad to finally see it.
There’s also the bumper crop of Progressive Christian feminists, like Rachel Held Evans and Dianna Anderson, who paint evangelicals like they are little more than stooges enslaved by misogyny and homophobia, incapable of showing true compassion or understanding to rape victims or gay people, and unable to treat men and women as equals.
I don’t hate them. It’s simply frustrating beyond belief interacting with such people; since I’m a white straight male who disagrees with them, I must be the enemy and am not worthy of rational, polite discussion. (I’d love to see a post about this wave of hypersensitive Christian feminism in the future ;)) Thank God there are other kinds of feminists in the body of Christ, ones who are worth the time of day.
Again, well said. We know there’s a problem in the church when one side of it claims another side is the worst enemy to God’s Kingdom, the antithesis of Jesus Christ, unable to bring social justice or fully love their neighbors, etc. Whatever happened to being reconciled in love? To enduring all things?
While Evans certainly drifts in this direction, I wouldn’t peg her in quite the same circle as those Mike mentioned above. She’s more nuanced (in my opinion) but I will add she can sometimes make too much of the complementarian/egalitarian debate (like most people who even involve themselves in that debate).
I think we know there is something wrong with the Church when both sides of the schism are leveling the exact complaints/accusations.
“Whatever happened to being reconciled in love? To enduring all things?”
Indeed. Interestingly, William Lane Craig points out that the concept of “tolerance” and “intolerance” has gotten warped in the process of cultural dialogue. (I was just watching him on YouTube the other day, and now this discussion…)
In the politically correct milieu, he says, “tolerance” means “I dare not disagree with what you say,” but in fact, if we tolerate a thing, that inherently implies disagreement. Otherwise we would simply agree with it.
So I think, then, that tolerance is reconciliation in love and enduring all things…not necessarily agreeing, but not forcing people to toe a line, and not vilifying differing opinions either. Like Mike, I get tired of villains complaining about villainy. We *all* have a sin problem. Hence the need for Christ.
The WLC vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzbVCV6XhvQ
So right about the connection between New Atheists and progressives. Trying to prove a negative is impossible. progressives seem more worried about slamming conservative religious types than painting a positive picture of an alternative.
I posted not long ago on Progressives and the “God” Problem and made a similar point about why progressives have such a uniquely difficult time making positive statements on who God is.
I’m an atheist who doesn’t comply with the New Atheist position, and I agree with you. It’s pretty fruitless to just shut down others’ ideas all the time instead of proposing some picture of what love and compassion actually look like. I appreciate your comment.
THANK YOU for this refreshing post, Mike. I’ve debated with some of these ex-fundies and to “debate,” they constantly resort to name-calling, straw-man, bandwagon, and every other argumentative fallacy you’ve ever imagined.
Try bringing the debate back to the BIBLE and see how far it gets you with these “Christians”–some of them might truly be Christians, but I believe most are NOT.
And if they are, they’re doing nothing to build up/edify the body of Christ. You will know them by their fruit, and in most cases the fruit is rotten to the core.
An excellent point, Heather. Most of them certainly pay lip service to Christ, but I wonder how willing they are to forgive others if they’ve committed a more evangelical error. How patient they are with evangelicals. It’s like they have to have a death grip on who’s REALLY serving Jesus while being “accessible” to the modern culture. Largely a form of idolatry, and little more than that.
As a progressive Christian it is because of the comments I see and quotes I read that suggest the Christian right is not as Christlike as I believe we should all try to be. Thguilyye disgust I witness regarding helping the poor ot homeless or assisting the sick to live a healthier life is where I form my opinions. I understand that not all conservative Christians are as blind to the teachings of Christ as those who raise their voice the loudest as opposed to helping the least of these. But by standing with them and defending them others are considered guilty by association.
I take exception to your claim that critics of fundamentalism usually aren’t real Christians.
Oh wait does that make me…. hateful? Oh noes!
Loving you more with every post! Keep up the good work.
I read the article by the UU minister … she was so politely intolerant, wasn’t she?
Keep posting, Mike.
I’ll keep reading.
Mike, this post hit me in the gut. I love Jesus and His Church so much … and to see this tears my soul to shreds. Lord Jesus, forgive us. Makes me desperate all the more to be a son wrapped up in my Father’s glory—not shooting spit wads at my brothers and sisters. Thank you, Brother.
Following Jesus Without Leaving the Church (Harvest House, 2013)
I dunno, Mike. It seems like your point here is to say “…if you don’t let me be a fountain of intolerance, then you are intolerant (of me) and that makes you a hypocrite.”
This seems like a circular argument and self-serving reasoning. Must a tolerant (Progressive Christian) person accept an intolerant “Fundie”? It seems like the author of the HuffPo piece has had enough.
“Must a tolerant (Progressive Christian) person accept an intolerant “Fundie”?”
Of course not. Then again, who’s to say what an “intolerant ‘Fundie'” is? Perhaps they are right to be intolerant about something. Which would mean the progressive’s tolerance could be wrong. Remember, it’s progressives who have framed themselves as the kumbaya crowd.
Hi, Jim. You make a good point. Isn’t there some point where we are to establish an authoritative right and wrong? But that’s precisely what the progressive Christians Mike is discussing say–progressives can, but those conservative Christians who draw lines, shouldn’t.
Yet in so saying, they themselves show they are just as rigid and exclusive. Their rigid lines, however, are drawn according to their own ideas of right and wrong, not what the Bible says, and their exclusion is of the very people who say God’s free gift, available to all, is the one thing we need to enjoy Him forever. They base their exclusion, apparently, on a reversal of what Jesus says about being the Way, Truth, Life.
Their authority, then, for their own rigidity and exclusiveness is what they think is right not what God says is true.
Becky
Becky, I think I understand your (and Mike’s) ultimate point. It is clear that the HuffPo writer was evidencing much of the same aggressive hostility that he supposedly despises. I have to say, however, that it might be that he was simply using hyperbolic terminology to make a point, much as Mike does often in this space. A well timed impolite word can wake the reader up. His point, (or maybe mine) however, is that many Fundamentalist Christian groups use their religion as a weapon against gays, minorities, soldiers, teachers, scientists. He feels that they are twisting the Word to suit their own prejudices. Is it ok to include seriously aggressive tactics when discussing the role of Jesus’s teachings in our society? Does that fit? Can I say “I’m a Christian, therefore hurting people (or attacking the President’s ancestry) is part of God’s plan..”?
Jim, it’s very possible that the author was trying to prod rather than provoke, but I doubt it. I don’t get the sense he’s going for subtle wordplay so much as scathing sarcasm. My favorite part is how he admits he’s essentially a jerk and this somehow gives him permission to continue being a jerk.
Also, a lot of this comes down to “Who’s definition is it, anyway?” If a Christian says to a gay friend, “I don’t feel being gay is what God intends for you” some will say it’s the most hateful thing while another says it’s the most loving. This is the primary schism between Evangelicals (some would use the term “fundamentalist,” but I stay away from it since I’ve never met a single person in my life who claims to be a fundamentalist) and progressives. And it’ll only get wider, not because people aren’t willing to love, but because people’s minds and hearts are changing.
Bobby B, I don’t think anyone can call “I don’t feel that being gay is what God intends for you” hate speech. I think what Shore was deriding is telling your gay friend “God hates fags, so I know he hates YOU.” Evangelicals used to tell me that Mormons were cultists. What happened to that? White supremacists often use Christian arguments to defend their racism. It is these people that Shore is railing (in a juvenile fashion) against. Mike is completely correct to call our attention to the irony of using hate to fight hate. But let’s not close our eyes to the foundation of the argument. I hate the Westboro “cult”. What does that say about me?
Jim, that may be how you feel, but I can guarantee you those words would very, very easily be labeled hate speech in some circles, even Christian ones. That’s why groups like Exodus are back-pedaling. The pressure’s building. I don’t doubt for a second that Evangelicals have said goofy things. Wrong things. Stupid things. There’s a quote: “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but live different lifestyles…” (I’m paraphrasing). And it’s true. So in a sense, yes, we’re the foundation of the problem, but what of Christians who are more interested in turning their guns on their own?
“…it might be that he was simply using hyperbolic terminology to make a point, much as Mike does often in this space.”
I don’t think I’ve ever called someone an “asshole” or a “dipshit” or said they believed ““horrendously toxic bullshit” just to be hyperbolic. C’mon, Jim. Methinks he meant to be crude and inflammatory.
“…many Fundamentalist Christian groups use their religion as a weapon against gays, minorities, soldiers, teachers, scientists.”
Disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle, political position, belief about the Universe, moral choices, or dress code does not mean someone uses their religion “like a weapon.” This is the Leftist language that all religious opposition to anything is hateful.
Mike, in regards to what you do here: No no no. Of course not. What I meant was that you will use strong language from time to time. I theorized that it is to “wake” the reader. Or to show that this is an adult thinkers blog. Or whatever. I thought maybe Shore was trying for that, but got caught up reveling in his profane snarkiness.
On the subject of fundamentalism, I am not sure I can agree. My experience is that some groups certainly do rely on their religious superiority to add weight to their desire to ostracize and degrade people. I gave examples. Mormons = Cult.
My sister is a converted Mormon, and my evangelical Christian friends (especially one’s Dad who upbraided me in the checkout line at K Mart one day when I was 13 years old) were clear to tell me that she would now burn in Hell for joining the cultists. Another took pleasure in telling me that since my sister was married in the “temple” it meant that she had actually taken satanic vows. He was completely serious. This is hate speech. It should be rejected by reasonable people.
I don’t think complaining “the left thinks everything is hate speech” means that there is no such thing as hate speech. It really exists. It really damages good people.
Jim, I think we are skirting the key issue. We all take a stand for what we think is right and wrong–progressives against evangelicals, evangelicals against cultists, and atheists against us all. The issue ought to be, what governs your decision to say this or that is right or wrong?
If we make up something because it’s what people around us are saying, it’s no better than a mob mentality. If enough people say we’re being hateful, does that prove we are?
One of my college roommates converted to Mormonism, was married in the temple, then realized (along with her husband) that she was in fact in a group that believed things opposed to the Bible. They left Mormonism and are outspoken evangelicals today.
I say this to point out that the story is still being written. But it’s not hateful to warn people that destruction awaits a particular path of behavior.
It’s like saying someone hates sex because they tell others the only sure way to prevent HIV/AIDS is monogamy or celibacy. Declaring them hateful is an erroneous conclusion based on a simple statement that certain behavior has a prescribed end.
The person who warns is not the hateful person. He isn’t causing the prescribed end–just stating it. Is a parent being hateful for telling a toddler that fire will burn him? Actually, no. He’s being loving.
But progressives, atheists don’t want to hear that Jesus is the Way, Truth, Life. They don’t like … what? The offer of life? The way of salvation? Assurance of truth?
Or is it that they don’t like the authority of God through His Word over their lives?
Becky
Mormonism, just as a side note, is an anti-Christian cult.
“Disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle, political position, belief about the Universe, moral choices, or dress code does not mean someone uses their religion “like a weapon.” This is the Leftist language that all religious opposition to anything is hateful.”—No, it isn’t. Perhaps it’s unintentional, but your claim leaves out a vital fact: entirely too many people do use their beliefs as a weapon when on the offensive, then trivialize it as a mere difference of opinion when called on it. That doesn’t even *imply* that every disagreement is of that type.
Or perhaps it is just a difference if opinion and you guys just don’t want to admit it. This also ignores the fact that anti-evangelicals, atheists, etc do this frequently yet only evangelical Christians are blamed for this.
Thanks for this, Mike.
And yet, there is love in Christ’s heart for these hateful, ugly people (people like me).
Most of the definition of “intolerance” by either progressives or fundies (or those of us in between) lies in their own preferences, especially the “hot button” issues.
At some point, we are all intolerant to a certain degree. So is God, the most longsuffering and tolerant of all.
Preaching to the choir here, Mike. Although you have articulated many thoughts I’ve had as a jumbled mess. You’re absolutely right. The rallying cry of progressives is their frustration (or open hatred) of Evangelicals. It honestly (in my mind) comes down to the reality that America has finally shaken off a Christian worldview. Christians are now being forced to choose. Whereas once you could fudge it, or hide it, or go along with it, or simply disappear in a sea of SOP Christians, now Jesus is separating the wheat from the chaff. The fire is getting hotter and we’re being asked if we’ll stand firm or jump out.
I’ve had to stop going to MPT’s website because what he does just infuriates me. Every once in a while he makes a good point, but his constant belittling of Evangelicals and his attitude in the comment sections of his blog entries (he dismisses those who disagree with him, along with the legion of commenters who agree with him) gets really old. Today, he put up a re-telling of the Christmas Story in manga style advertisement. I’m pretty sure it was put up so others could join him in mocking it.
Bobby, I’ve felt the same thing about MPT’s approach. It didn’t help that one time he blew in on my Facebook thread (we’d never corresponded before then, as I remember), stirred up disagreement, and just disappeared. Odd.
Yip. One entry of his featured a church sign (he often posts those). Several commented that perhaps the church sign wasn’t that big of a deal and didn’t deserve the ridicule I have a feeling he was hoping it would receive. Instead of offering any form of retraction or even discussion, he commented that people needed to be able to take a joke.
At least he isn’t as brutally sarcastic and snide as Tony Jones.
I see your point, Mike, and have observed some of the same things. But hey, that’s the way of the world. Jesus warned his disciples about it, and no sooner were the words out of his mouth than events proved him right. (What a surprise!)
So what do we do about it? We love them as he did and let them bury themselves in their own error. We’re not likely to change their minds by pointing out their inconsistencies, but we might change the minds of onlookers by responding to our attackers’ vitriol with love.
Well said, Yvonne. I admire your attitude a great deal. May a loving response characterize all our actions and thoughts.
With apologies to Jim, he’s not correct: many don’t use this as hyperbole, but actually feel this way about evangelicals. This is because they are often a completely separate culture and class from them, to the point of only interacting with them in comment boxes on the internet if that. This can also apply to atheists, and in reverse: many evangelicals easily can hold caricatures of unbelievers due to the fact that they have sheltered themselves from the wider culture to an alarming degree.
The rise of different cultures and camps adds an edge to this which makes me concerned. Especially when the Progressive Christian camp at times seems more an adjunct of a greater, secularist camp than an actual Christian tradition. In order for them to distinguish themselves, social justice and sort of a pietistic outlook on faith isn’t enough. Increasingly they seem to embrace secular norms as a self-definition, in order to fit into the culture where many of them primarily exist. To the point where as in Mike’s older blog post, they have problems saying positive things about their own faith.
It’s a rough thing. They are more worried about evangelicals when they should be worried about their absorption by the larger culture into a certain cultural camp. A question I think we should all ask ourselves is, if we became atheists, what would change about our views? I worry for many progressives that very little if nothing would.
This sounds like you’ve never actually spoken to a Christian progressive.
I’ve spoken to many of them, actually. Went to a college that could be considered it (was old evangelical mainline, Tony Campolo taught there,) and I live in the Northeast, progressive central. Seen and read plenty of their works on the net. Believe me, class issues play more of a part than you think.
G.K. Chesterton had a description of them before the fact in his book Manalive:
“On the top of all this comes Hawkins. If he had cursed all the Hoxton men,
excommunicated them, and told them they were going to hell, I should
have rather admired him. If he had ordered them all to be burned
in the market-place, I should still have had that patience that all
good Christians have with the wrongs inflicted on other people.
But there is no priestcraft about Hawkins–nor any other kind of craft.
He is as perfectly incapable of being a priest as he is of being a carpenter
or a cabman or a gardener or a plasterer. He is a perfect gentleman;
that is his complaint. He does not impose his creed, but simply his class.
He never said a word of religion in the whole of his damnable address.
He simply said all the things his brother, the major, would have said.
A voice from heaven assures me that he has a brother, and that this
brother is a major.”
G.K. being his usual over-the-top self, but look at all the replies here, and see how many fit into the latter part of that quote.
Great piece Sir. I have long wondered how it is that the most close-minded folks in the world get away with lecturing others on open-mindedness. In answer to the gentleman’s comment, if it was a Christian conservative using such “hyprbole”, the Left would use them as an example of Christians that must be feared or controlled.
The fact is that someone’s sense of morality will ALWAYS be the determiner for how they view things. The difference between conservative Christians and atheists/Progressive Christians, is that conservative Christians base their absolutes on a standard that we by faith believe to be God’s word, and that we want to reach folks through persuasion and showing the love of Christ for sinners; while the atheists/Progressive Christians base their absolutes on emotion/hate for standards and ridicule or in some cases call for regulation of Christianity and religion as in some European countries and parts of Canada.
I’d really prefer of everyone stopped Othering people.
We are all individuals. We will agree on some things but not on others.
I have Christians I agree with and Christians I disagree with.
The Othering is a device of Satan to keep us separated into squabbling factions.
The more progressives can push and widen society’s view of the “gray areas” the more they can call conservative Christians intolerant and other choice words.
The problem, of course, is that people are basically idiots. Sometimes they’re capable of rational arguments, and occasionally, genius ideas, but certainly not when in reactionary mode. This idiocy applies to all people, fundies and their naysayers included. It especially applies to people who believe in a rigid set of black and white truths, which, of course, they have exactly correct, either through “proper” biblical interpretation or scientific interpretation or whatever, while those other people out there just get it wrong. When one group questions the rigidity of the other group’s truth system because their own rigid truth system comes to different conclusions, reactionary fighting occurs. That’s tribalism at work, as well as a basic defense against cognitive dissonance.
You know, I see this exact same attitude as described from both the extreme right and extreme left of the Church. (Only the conservatives tend not to use as strong of language as it’s not allowed) I don’t see why we have to pick on one side or the other. =P
This is an example of the same dynamic that happens in the political sphere. Take the most extreme and radical members of a group, and attempt to paint the whole demographic as believing and acting with those values. Some on our side do it to them, and they do it to us. When the reality is the bell curve for evangelicals, progressive Christians, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or (insert your favorite group) is miles away from those fringe beliefs.
The big problem when someone does this to the other side, they by default align themselves with the most radical groups in their own “camp.” Because it tends to be the more radical of members that demonstrate this type of irrational hate of the other side, and believe any difference of opinion or interpretation is hate.
In effect, it is easy pickin’s to belittle and bedevil a caricature of any group. Much harder work to get to know them, understand their perspective, and come to appreciate whatever value they offer, so as to have a more well-rounded and informed understanding of your own values.
And people don’t understand what tolerance really means, as Jesus practiced it. Tolerance isn’t agreeing with everyone. It is tolerating people who don’t agree with you. IOW, it is tolerating people, not positions/beliefs. And loving them for who they are in the hopes of enabling them to become more of who they are meant to be.
My goodness, this is an excellent, excellent comment! Your last two paragraphs should be required reading for every theologian, Christian, etc.
All this talk of tolerance reminds me of that Dorothy Sayers quote:
“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
Kessie, I love this quote. If you can’t die for something, you don’t really believe in it.
This seems like a false dichotomy. I certainly can tolerate something while believing something else–the two are not mutually exclusive.
In other words, I might truly believe that Jesus is the way, truth, and life while still tolerating someone else’s choice to be, say, a Muslim or a Hindu. I might really, really, really hate brussels sprouts but tolerate my husband’s desire to eat them every supper. Does me tolerating other people’s valid life choices mean that I am believing nothing, caring for nothing, etc? In my mind, it means quite the opposite: my tolerance shows that I believe that the other person (the person I am tolerating) is created in the image of God and I should give them the benefit of the doubt as a fellow human that they are making the best choices they can.
This is the one thing I know…John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Christ has called us to love others the way HE has loved us. Not love the way WE feel comfortable to love. In my opinion, when we shun those who make us feel uncomfortable, it’s usually not because we have such hate for the sin. Often times it’s because we recognize a brokenness in ourselves that we can’t fix the other person. Since, in essence we have no answer to their “problem” or “sin” we give them “sin”. We mask our own insecurities with hate, discrimination, and such acts of “righteousness”. If we, as Christians, would focus more on the person (the real essence of who that person is) and love them the way Christ loved us in our own mess….then I think those that find Christians to be “assholes”, “dipshits”, and those who believe “horrendously toxic bullshit.”, would really see who Christ is.
I had no idea I was a progressive. My progressive friends will be so pleased to hear it. (They usually think I’m a crazy conservative.)
Honored to have made this list.
You MOCK TERMINOLOGY. May Jesus spit on your grave, Drury!
Thanks for including me on this list, Mike. You might not get what or why do what we do, but just like you, those of us on this list serve a very important role in God’s kingdom. And while you might discount that role, others find great value in what we do. Perhaps my blog isn’t for you. And that’s okay! You’re blog is probably not for me either. Again. Thank you for including me on the list. Peace to you and yours. Matthew Paul Turner
Yes. There’s lots of value in making fun of Evangelicals, Matthew. Especially their church signs.
If you are so shallow that all you can see is mocking and you can’t see the healing, then his is simply not the community for you. That’s fine. Stay with your Evangelicals and enjoy.
Please, show me the healing involved in making fun of other churches, especially when those churches probably have no idea they’re being made fun of?
Show me the healing involved in commenters being allowed to throw curse words at other commenters.
a very gracious reply from the supposed ‘hater’. 🙂
This post is hilariously ironic! Hahaha!
The Pharisees were oblivious to Jesus’ mocking and outright scathing criticisms. It may be wise to question if the reason a person, a group/denomination or religious movement is under attack is because fundamental beliefs are being rejected, or because like the Pharisees, the Truth of the gospel is hidden behind the man-made rules and standards.
Hmmm, feeling defensive? Upset that progressive Christians aren’t just sitting back and being demonized, and are fighting back (and sometimes using naughty words)?
Every progressive Christian, at least once in their life, has been told unequivocally that they cannot be progressive/liberal and a Christian. Conservatives have tried to claim that God is one of their own, when much of what they espouse runs counter to what the Bible teaches, such as compassion for the weak and outcast among us, and concern for the poor.
Here is an example of what we progressive Christians have to deal with on a regular basis from conservative Christians when we try to have reasoned conversations: this is how a conservative Christian friend responded to something I posted on his FB post: “Thanks for continuing to vomit all over my posts with your self-righteous, elitist, pseudo-intellectual psycho babble. I’m really sorry you don’t have anything better to do with your time that regurgitate leftist propaganda found online.”
You see? There are plenty of nasties on the Right; in fact, I would be willing to bet there are 10 nasties on the Right for every one on the Left, for the simple reason that conservative Christians think that they are right in everything. You are critical of people for reacting; why not rather stop giving them something to react to? It’s no good to slap someone and then complain that they are getting angry instead of exhibiting the Christian virtue of turning the other cheek. “Why aren’t they turning the other cheek when we slap them??? See, more proof that they aren’t as good Christians as we are!”
Enough. Most non-Christians I know are turned off to Christianity because of the vile things conservative Christians are teaching as coming from Christ. Those of us progressive Christians are having to work hard to undo the damage you’ve done. So please forgive us if we are occasionally angry.
“Upset that progressive Christians aren’t just sitting back and being demonized, and are fighting back (and sometimes using naughty words)?”
Not really. Just pointing out how claiming to be loving and compassionate and tolerant while berating others in the Body of Christ is hypocritical.
“Conservatives have tried to claim that God is one of their own…”
But aren’t you trying to do the same thing?
“There are plenty of nasties on the Right.”
Absolutely.
“I would be willing to bet there are 10 nasties on the Right for every one on the Left.”
Depends on how you define “nasties.”
“Most non-Christians I know are turned off to Christianity because of the vile things conservative Christians are teaching as coming from Christ.”
Jesus turned off quite a few folks, if I remember correctly.
“Those of us progressive Christians are having to work hard to undo the damage you’ve done.”
Why, that’s kind of you.
“Jesus turned off quite a few folks, if I remember correctly.”
There’s that Jesus ‘n his sword bit again. All the fight over who is being more like Jesus is nauseating from the outside.
“I’m more like Jesus! See? Look how accepting and merciful I am!” “No, I’m more like Jesus! See? Look how dedicated I am to wielding the Truth!”
Meanwhile, the atheist rolls her eyes at both.
This from the movement who is currently infighting with itself over the whole skepchick debacle, and atheist vs atheist plus? Sometimes you have little choice to deal with inter-belief issues, regardless of how it looks to outsiders.
Gee, somebody’s feelings are hurt. So.. does anybody else think this article exaggerates a wee bit, protesteth too much? Jesus himself called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, and worse. I guess that’s the way it is when you’ve put up with hatred and judgmentalness till you’re up to your eyeballs sick of it. Fundies have driven untold numbers of people AWAY from the church. So you’ll have to forgive the Christian progressives for over-correcting at times after putting up with 30 or 40 years of batshit craziness, being told that progressives are not even Christians, being told our Christian president is a Muslim, and now you’re trying to buy and steal your way into the highest office in the land. Yeah, you guys are real cupcakes.
I haven’t said, nor do I believe, that progressives can’t be Christians. I’m also not a Fundamentalist.
Eh, I really think you’ve pegged some of these groups you’ve listed wrong, especially SFL. Darrel doesn’t equivocate whenever he strictly refers to Independent Fundamental Baptists, who quite frankly deserve every bit of derision they receive. It may be a generalization, but it’s damn near accurate for the IFB world. And that’s just one of your faulty premises.
Wow, Independent Fundamental Baptists DESERVE every bit of derision they receive? Not very loving, or very merciful.
Hate to break it to you, but you’re talking about a movement that consistently treats every member of your sex like dirt, every other Evangelical movement as inherently misguided and led by the devil, and every Catholic as he/she were the devil himself. I truly believe that immersion in the IFB world is akin to taking a time machine back 70 years, ethically speaking (or even further). Understandably, as someone who has a dog in this fight, you will probably never agree with me, but you have to at least ask yourself whether a movement who has glorified people like Jack Schaap, Tony Hutson, Chuck Phelps, and Steve Anderson as well as institutions like BJU and PCC is really on sane ground.
Let me put it to you this way: looking at the world, isn’t it reasonable to say that most people aren’t anywhere close to even moderate IFBers? If that disagreement is so stark and universal, what does that tell you?
Again, you’re overgeneralizing. I have no dog in this fight–I don’t goto an IFB church. But I would, if I found a good one. And there ARE good ones.
Interesting that you blacklist BJU and PCC, in particular. In my mind, they’re some of the only colleges who are still willing to take stands on things. Not that I agree w/every stand they take. However, the Christians I admire are the ones willing to take stands on things. Stands they can back up Biblically. And throwing out an entire denomination by accusing them of CONSISTENTLY treating females like dirt (not true) or by hating on their refusal to accept all things “mainstream” sounds very hateful and non-Biblical to me.
And come to think of it, I do have a dog in this fight. I’m a BJU grad. And I still support the school, regardless of what good/bad memories I have of it. There’s a lot of kindling for this Anti-Evangelical fire from peeps who went there and now have personal axes to grind with the school…25 years later.
Oh, and I should base the church I go to on how NON-starkly different it is from the world? That’s just NOT Biblical.
I’d certainly like to challenge you to prove how I’m overgeneralizing. Granted, it’s your experience against mine; and I’m curious as to whether you would just consider me as simply someone with an ax to grind. But the fact remains that IFB consistently and doggedly remains to the far right of even the far right; that’s their goal, whether “liberal” to “moderate” IFB people see it that way.
As for your last statement, you misinterpreted the logic of what I wrote. I never stated that it’s necessary for a church to “not be starkly different” in order for someone to justifiably attend. Again, you did this probably to ignore the point I was really making: how does one judge the claims of a group on the basis of reality?
I’ll give you a fairly innocuous example. IFBs are notorious for their dismissal of any music that’s syncopated. Trouble is, they have no basis in reality for that assertion. There’s no accurate definition for what they mean and no biblical support for their beliefs. I only figured this out in hindsight after being exposed to Frank Garlock and a healthy dose of actual music theory. None of what they believe in this regard makes sense, at least not the arguments they’ve used, a fact which is odd considering they could just as easily say that they don’t like the lifestyles or connections of rock music and/or any “modern” genre of music. What’s more is that no rational person who knows anything about music comes to this conclusion outside of this group. Anyone who knows anything about actual music theory and history knows the long list of very Christian composers who implemented syncopation, as well as tonal structures very different from our own (listen to some medieval chant if you disagree). Syncopation is used in a variety of styles, from negro spirituals to masses to jazz to symphonies to rock n’ roll in an immense number of ways.
BJU and PCC may “take a stand,” but the stands they take defy logic. PCC went so far in attempting to stifle criticism that it banned the internet for the entire school when a former student created a unfavorable website about the institution. It’s not enough to say that some people who are IFB are nice: I very well am aware of that. That’s not the issue, though. We’re talking about a group whose fundamental viewpoint has been to foster ignorance about people and the world, and I stand by that assessment. It’s tremendously backward to say that a woman can’t teach a man past the age of 18, or that the young girl whom Jack Schaap engaged in statutory rape with somehow brought that upon herself.
This is the short response, and I wasn’t able to address everything you said.
Hey there Chris, I’d say this is an over-generalization: “you’re talking about a movement that consistently treats every member of your sex like dirt, every other Evangelical movement as inherently misguided and led by the devil, and every Catholic as he/she were the devil himself.” But you’re right, it’s my experience against yours. I wonder which of us has been steeped in the IFB more…
Regardless, it’s common sense not to have women teaching men (at least w/out their husbands around). Men have been known to HIT ON women from time to time, even in churches, and even when they’re married.
We could get all nitty-gritty with music, clothing, hair, drinking, and a variety of other Christian liberty issues. I agree that the IFB often goes too far in regulating things like that. But in the case of an institution, rules prevent chaos and protect those attending. And those rules are well-known before signing on the dotted line that you want to attend.
Same thing w/churches–there are plenty of Baptist churches now that sing praise songs, have bands, and allow jeans. Still, singing hymns and wearing skirts isn’t the worst that could happen to you.
(and OOPS–I mean, wearing dress pants for GUYS…skirts might be a bad thing in IFB for men…or anywhere.)
I had a huge response typed up and ready to go, but then I decided to scrap it. Honestly, I think we’re on two totally different worlds of presupposition. I find your reasoning on women teaching men very faulty; it seems to assume that men are these unrestrained sexual actors that women have to be protected from by not being allowed certain positions of authority. And it’s that reasoning that’s tipped me off to how differently you and I think. Also, it’s not really the rules but the spirit behind the rules. There’s an ever-present fear that chaos will prevail on the basis of the most nonsensical things. It’s like waking up every morning and tying weights to yourself before you go to work or school, and even that metaphor fails to capture what I mean.
I get what you’re saying here and I agree we’re on different pages.
But honestly, outside common sense, I base my reasoning for women not teaching men on the Bible. And I know you’re going to break down the verses and say they don’t say what they say, so we’ll just leave it at this:
We don’t agree on this: that the IFB is a massive machine, ready to grind women into the dirt.
We do agree that there is Christian liberty. I don’t have to tie weights and chains on myself each morning–I’m free in Christ.
BUT if I go to a Christian institution that’s had certain rules in place since its inception, I’m not going to throw a fit because I’m expected to keep them.
So, the first two sites are humor sites. Perhaps the author is unaware of the site called Stuff White People Like. That site is funny to me, and I’m caucasian. But yes, the wit us acerbic. The Christian Left was founded precisely because a group that self-identifies as the Christian Right so frequently espouses completely un-Christian ideals. By which I mean condemnation of others, a refusal to take responsibility for stewardship of the environment, and particularly the “I got mine” mentality. Now, if the right’s own words are posted and examined and found lacking by the left, I’d have to say that isn’t the left making the right look bad. It is the right making itself look bad. It may not be true of the other sites listed, but TCL condemns not the sinners but the sins. Gosh, where have I heard that before? Just remember, if the question being posed is WWJD, pitching a fit and calling out the bankers is a perfectly viable option.
“The Christian Left was founded precisely because a group that self-identifies as the Christian Right so frequently espouses completely un-Christian ideals.”
So who are the ones who determines “Christian ideals” — the Christian Left?
The Bible might have something to do with it. Just saying.
Karen — The Bible should be how we determine Christian ideals. Which is why biblical deconstruction, the Jesus Seminar, postmodern hermeneutics — all products of the Left — are so troublesome. It potentially downgrades Scripture to conveniently eliminate verses we disagree w/ or that don’t fit our interpretation.
I really wish I could “like” this comment.
Yeah — the base SHOULD be the Bible, not what “we” want, whoever “we” are. Anything that takes the Bible or any part of it and says, “Yeah, well, that’s not original, based on my opinion” is tearing apart God’s Word. We have so much evidence, particularly of the New Testament, that we really can get back to the originals 99.9% of the time.
I’ll start by saying that I am a progressive Christian who up until about 10 years ago was a conservative Christian.
I believe that God gave all of us (Christians and non-Christians) free will to make our choices and be punished or rewarded for those choices. I believe that God does not influence the choices that people make unless we ask Him to and even then He will only give guidance … not take responsibility for the actual choice Himself.
The bible may be God breathed, but it was written by men. And men are subject to the influences of Satan. Why do some Christians not comprehend that the scores and scores and scores of men who have worked on writing, translating and interpreting the bible throughout THOUSANDS of years were subject to the same Satanic influences and therefore it is not only possible, but LIKELY that the words in the bible have been twisted for whatever reasons, such as profit or power? Why do they think that God would break his promise to us to not interfere in the world in the instance of the Bible? And if He did, don’t you think then that the scriptures would be much more concise and FAR LESS open to interpretation? Just today I was reading all the different interpretations that Christians come up with for Luke 19:27. That’s just ONE line.
Not to mention the little problem of some Christians using SOME of the old testament to make their points. Realistically, as Christians we should either ONLY use the new testament for reference on how to live our lives, or the entire Bible lock, stock and barrel. That means stoning adulterers, rapists marrying their victims, no more bacon, no beard cutting. You get my drift.
Christ came to earth to pay the ultimate price for our sins and to give us a personal relationship with God. As Christians we are encouraged to NOT live in the secular world, but at the same time encouraged to use a book written by MAN to guide them instead of encouraging people to go directly to the source…God. I should clarify that I believe there are many wonderful words in the bible for us to live by, but we should find those passages with thoughtful prayer and guidance from God.
Erin, I have a hard time understanding how you can believe in Christ and not believe the Bible is God-breathed. Unless you believe Christ isn’t God.
I think you’re being blasphemous when you say Bible writers could’ve been used by Satan. But then again, you might not believe the verses about how Jesus IS the Word. How can the Word NOT be perfect? And what about the verses in Rev. about adding/taking away? Seems like that’s exactly what you’re doing if you throw out whichever parts of the Bible don’t fit your limited view of the world (and we’re ALL limited, no matter how intellectually astounding we are. God is still bigger).
Do you have any use for the Bible at all? I see a lot of “I believe” statements above. That’s a lot of belief in YOUR opinions vs God’s clear declarations in the Bible.
We can’t go directly “to the source”–God–without going to the Bible. The two are intertwined.
“Unless you don’t believe that Christ is God”
ummm did you miss where I said that Christ came to earth to pay the ultimate price for our sins and to give us a personal relationship with God? I think that should’ve been a clue
——————————————————————————–
“I think you’re being blasphemous when you say Bible writers could’ve been used by Satan”
I’m really not going to get into defending myself from blasphemy accusations. That is the type of behaviour that drives people away from Christ Heather.
——————————————————————————
“And what about the verses in Rev. about adding/taking away? ”
Yes Heather. What about it? You, not I, are the one who believes the entire bible is God’s word untouched by man’s sin. So? What will it be? Follow Jesus and the NT or the ENTIRE OT? I’m not cherry picking anything. I plan on following JESUS
——————————————————————————-
“We can’t go directly “to the source”–God–without going to the Bible”
You’re joking right? So those who have no access to bibles have no access to God? And which one of the hundreds of versions of the bible should be used? Which one’s the real one?
Saying that the bible is NOT influenced by man because the bible says so isn’t a convincing argument. You might as well tell me it’s true because you said so.
“Saying the Bible is NOT influenced by man b/c the bible says so isn’t a convincing argument. You might as well tell me it’s true because you said so.”
That’s what you’re doing, Erin. You’re choosing which parts are true because YOU SAY SO. I’m telling you it’s true because GOD said so.
If you’re driven away from Christ because someone tells you you’re being blasphemous, how close to Christ are you in the first place, really?
This line says it all, the difference between you and me: “You, not I, are the one who believes the entire bible is God’s word untouched by man’s sin.”
Yes, I do. I capitalize the Bible, just like I capitalize Jesus. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.
As far as which version is the best, you could probably find some good books on that. My husband’s done quite a bit of research into it and he recommends the NASB, which seems closest to original sources.
I’m sorry you’ve been so hurt by the church that you’ve thrown away the Bible. I don’t know what you base your faith on without it.
I’d just like to start this post by telling you that I am enjoying this debate and would like you to know that I do it with prayer in my heart. Yes, I’ve had my issues with religion and the current mixture of politics and religion has really hit home with me. I still have extremely conservative family and friends whom I love dearly and I’m not certainly not on a hate mission. I earnestly am always looking for answers. I am where I am based on prayer, lots of questions and a gut feeling since I was a little girl that something wasn’t right. Although that gut feeling was hidden deep down underneath my conservative upbringing. I am open to being convinced otherwise at all times because ultimately I want to be with Jesus one day, but I don’t go easily. Up until now, all the answers I ever get for the tough questions are blanket “God’s Will” catchalls or replies that may not mean to be fear-inspired, but they are, such as “I think you’re being blasphemous when you say Bible writers could’ve been used by Satan”. If I’m honestly mislead, how can I be being blasphemous? God knows our hearts does he not? Don’t scare me into submission. That’s where you lose the people who are hanging on by a thread (I’m not one of those). If I’m wrong, EDUCATE me. You indicate it’s blasphemous to say that the WRITERS of the bible were influenced by Satan … I will pray about that Heather because you may be right, but what of the thousands of interpreters and translators throughout the millenia? Or the ones who chose which books made it into the bible? Or the ones who kept the books for thousands of years until they were compiled (like throughout the OT)?
And now for the nitty gritty 🙂
As you pointed out, I, unlike you, do not believe that the entire bible is God’s word untouched by man. The bible is His works for sure, but it’s not the same book that it was in the BEGINNING. Just like our beautiful planet. God’s unbelievably gorgeous, intricate, awe inspiring planet is one of His greatest works. In fact when asked how to know if there really is a God, don’t a lot of people throw their arms in the air and say “Just look around you” indicating the skies or mountains or forests or oceans? nobody ever says “read the bible”. And now the planet is not the same beautiful thing that it was in the beginning either and that is because of man and his choices. Why wouldn’t God protect the planet if He wanted to protect something? After all, it’s something shared with all of humanity EVERYWHERE, throughout the ages – unlike the bible. How is it that people now and throughout the ages have been denied access to the bible and it’s teachings for whatever reason? That’s a pretty significant number of people not having access to God’s word which, by your previous comment, means that they wouldn’t have access to God.
Why is the bible so open to interpretation? If what you say is true, that the Bible is God’s word, in it’s entirety, and He has intervened in man’s choices enough to protect it, why in Heaven’s name would it be subject to so much speculation? Such as:
1. Why are sins not laid out a lot more precisely and literally. Like the 10 commandments, but ALL of them.
2. What are “rules” regarding OT vs NT? That’s kind of important ESPECIALLY when it comes to certain social issues no? Although if we got question 1 answered then this question would be moot
3. How is it that certain denominations of Christianity think there are lost books? I mean even amongst CHRISTIANS, we can’t agree on that? Speaking of denominations …
4. How is it that religious groups that mainstream Christians consider cults, are able to take God’s word and use it for their own? That’s a pretty major insult on His word don’t you think?
The problem is I don’t think you will be able to answer any of these questions. So what am I left with? Heather, you said that without the bible one would not have direct access to God. Well I’d like to say that I respectfully, but wholeheartedly disagree with you. There is but ONE way to the Father and it is NOT through the bible. And THAT is what I am left with. Jesus <3
That being said I hope you understand why I believe that PARTS of the bible are God's word and parts are man's. That in regards to the writing, translating, interpreting of the bible whether good or bad, God has NOT interfered in man's choices, unless that man's choice involved God AND it was God's will. And because of this, the bible is certainly a guide on how to live a godly life, but only with reflection from God.
And for the record, I did NOT say I had thrown away the bible 🙂
"there are many wonderful words in the bible for us to live by, but we should find those passages with thoughtful prayer and guidance from God"
Have a great night. God bless
Erin, thanks for expounding on this. Can I just say that I sense that you have a heart to learn the truth about God? I’m praying for you to find answers to those questions. I know I’ve wrestled with these things, as well (and I grew up in a conservative, IFB church). One book I’d strongly recommend is “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller. I think that gets to the heart of many of these issues you’re wondering about, without too much technical (boring) jargon.
I can’t answer all your questions in this post–I surely don’t have all the answers, anyway. But I hope you keep searching these things out with a truly open mind–not discounting an entire group of Christians and their values.
All the best to you in this search. God says seek and you will find. I believe you will.
Hi, Erin,
Lots of good questions. I’ll see if I can tackle a few.
God did lay out sin for Israel, and they proved that they couldn’t keep His law. That’s why He sent Jesus. Keeping a list of do’s and don’ts does not, cannot work, in part because of what Jesus disclosed in the Sermon on the Mount–sin starts with what’s in our hearts.
Bottom line: there’s nothing any of us can do to please God. We are saved by His grace–His willingness to put the punishment for our sins on Jesus–through faith. As people redeemed by the blood Jesus shed, we have the opportunity to live to please God. In other words, we respond to Him because we love Him, not because we have a list in front of us we need to check off.
As to the OT (your question 2), the section of laws (most of it is history, poetry, or prophecy) were for the nation of Israel. While they can reveal some things about God’s holiness, there are lots of things that remain clouded (like why they were not to boil goat meat in the milk of its mother–sounds gross, but why would God make that a law for them to obey?) That’s OK because we aren’t expected to keep the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law. Paul refers to the Law as a tutor, showing us our sinfulness and how impossible it was for us to keep the list of do’s and don’ts, so that’s why it’s important.
About the “lost books,” you might be interested in a little church history. I found a good site that explains a lot about how the Bible came into being. Here’s the intro to the pertinent section:
Finally (for now 😉 ) the issue about cults using the Bible. There have been false teachers since Christianity came into being. The book of Jude addresses the matter, Paul brings it up in a number of his letters, and so does Peter in chapter 2 of his second letter:
Peter goes on to say these false teachers are bringing down judgment on their heads, so you’re right to think this is a very serious matter.
Becky
Why do they think that God would break his promise to us to not interfere in the world in the instance of the Bible?
Huh? When did God make that promise?
Erin, the “God-breathed” part means those men were filled with His Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21 spells this out). In saying that it was likely that Scripture was twisted by fallible men, you’re basically saying God’s self-revelation was ruined by man’s sin. In essence that’s claiming God isn’t strong enough to get the job done that He wanted to do.
Sally, in her question, rightly inferred that God never made a promise “to not interfere in the world in the instance of the Bible.” God “interferes” all the time in the world. Every time He answers prayer, He’s interfering. Every time Jesus healed a blind person or someone with leprosy, God was interfering in the world. Why would He change the rules for the Bible? He can move miraculously in the world to bring water from a rock, change water to wine, feed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread, but He can’t protect His self-revelation from the carelessness or sinfulness of men? Erin, it’s a weak view of God.
Not to mention all the copies of Scripture down through the ages that show an incredible lack of error. This position lacks supportive evidence and is inconsistent with the character of God. But then, I’m assuming that you, like Hyhybt believe God to be omnipotent. Maybe I’m wrong about that.
Becky
Hi Becky.
I assumed that my sentence about God not interfering would be understood as “interfering without invitation” since what I inferred in the first paragraph was that I didn’t believe that God would interfere without being asked. Because if he did, that would take away our God given right to choose would it not? And if He does interfere without invitation, then why are children still dying? Why is there murder? Why is there sorrow?
I know that God intervenes in the world. I’ve personally seen it. But He doesn’t intervene without us asking him to, He doesn’t intervene every time we ask him to and when He does, He certainly does not always intervene the way we want him to.
I never said that God COULDN’T protect the bible, just that he wouldn’t if it meant taking away our right to choose. God’s word in the bible may be untouched, but there is a lot of stuff in there that are the words of godly men (not sure if godly should be capitalized;) NOT the words of God. The men/women who wrote/interpreted/translated the bible throughout the years were all given the same right to choice as you and I. If they chose to twist the scriptures to suit something other than God’s will then they will pay for that, but it doesn’t make God weak for not stopping them. It makes him fair.
Additionally, I fail to understand how a Christian could be told they’re wrong for wanting to go directly to the Father for answers. If I do and God wants me to know that the bible is a-ok and that I should follow it word for word, why wouldn’t he? I suppose you’ll say that He is and that I’m either not listening or don’t want to …
PS: What’s Hyhybt?
Erin, out of curiosity, why do you choose the Bible versus the Koran, or Bhagavad-Gita, or the Book of Mormon, or any other religious text?
because that is the book associated with Christianity and i consider myself a Christian. I was a raised conservative Christian and was discouraged from filling my mind with “ungodly things”. My single mother was a brand spanking new born again! It never occurred to me to read any of the books you’ve mentioned, although I have to admit I’ve increasingly become interested in reading the Torah …
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I’ve been reading your other comments with interest. I’ll start my response with this:
‘At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’ Matthew 18:1-4
I understand your desire to make sense of it all, to ask questions, to work things out in your own mind (I’ve been there, believe me…hop over to my blog, read some of my old poetry…I’ll be publishing more in the weeks and months to come); however, I think you are over-thinking it.
I’m not saying not to ask questions mind you, or to wonder why God seems so ruthless in the Old Testament (for instance), but for me, at the end of the day it comes down to this: “Your will not mine. God I don’t understand why you did this, and this, and this but you are God and I am not. Where was I when you formed the world?”
That being said, why do I ultimately trust the Bible as God’s inerrant word?
1. Jesus transforms when no one or nothing else can. I’ve seen it. Because of this, I choose to Him.
2. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were written within Jesus’ generation and newer versions of the texts have been proven to be incredibly accurate when lined up against older versions. Because of this, I choose to trust the gospels as historically accurate. This does take a leap of faith, I realize, but you will never reason your way out of taking that leap. You either choose to take it, or you don’t.
3. Jesus refers to the Old Testament time and again. It was his holy book. He studied from it, preached from it, thus giving it His seal of approval.
Now, granted, I don’t like everything the OT says. I don’t like everything the NT says, for that matter. But I trust Jesus. He has proven Himself to me time and again; therefore, I also trust the book that he preached from. When I read through the Bible and I think “Why God, why?” I allow myself to ask the question, knowing it will one day be answered in God’s timing, and then I simply allow it to go unanswered trusting God’s wisdom over my own.
Hi, Erin,
I do think God intervenes without our asking. In fact, Scripture says we love God because He first loved us. Jesus came without anyone inviting Him. He died without anyone saying, I need a redemptive sacrifice; God please supply one. In the same way, we need to know who God is, so He gave us His written word, on top of the prophets He sent, and the physical manifestation He gave to the nation of Israel. He also stamped His character on nature. The only way we would know about Him is if He tells us about Himself. Does an ant know about your existence? God is just as transcendent in relationship to us–more so–as we are to the ant. If we are to know Him, we need Him to reveal Himself, and He has.
Why doesn’t He therefore intervene in ALL human affairs and wipe out the consequences of man’s sin against man? There are two reasons, I think, that Scripture gives. 1) Our sin separates us from God, essentially putting a wall between us and Him. Listen to what some of the new atheists say, and you’ll see that wall in place. 2) God said from the beginning that sin would bring death. Some people think it is monstrous of God to create such a system. I happen to think it was loving of Him to tell us about it before hand and warn us to avoid sin so we wouldn’t suffer the consequences.
I was a school teacher for years, and one of the things one of my principals stressed was our giving notice to our students of the consequences of disobedience. No surprises, then, when a student did something he knew would result in x, y, or z consequence.
There really should not be surprise, then, when death, in any form and at the hands of whomever, is the rule, not the exception. God told Adam this and has repeated it throughout history.
But back to the discussion of the Bible. It is simply your assumption that the people who wrote, copied, translated Scripture changed it. You say God could protect His revelation from sinful man’s abuses, but chose not to. Why would He give it in the first place if He wasn’t going to see that it reached us? And why is your idea more credible than what the Bible says about itself?
Erin, it’s not wrong to go directly to the Father for answers. I do all the time. The difference is, I have some way of measuring if I’m hearing from God, my own wishful thinking, or a spirit in opposition to God. If I prayed about someone who hurt me, and received the thought that I should say something mean or snarky about them to get even [note: I am NOT saying this is what you’ve done], I’d know unqualifiedly that it was not God who told me because it clashes with the sure and authoritative word of God. Same with any other things I might bring to God.
Hope that makes sense.
Oh, Hyhybt is another commenter with whom I’ve been interacting about the Bible. That thread is somewhere among all these other comments. 😉
Becky
Oh this is super!
See, because exposing how evangelical culture does not represent Jesus must be a bad thing. I mean, why should we not worship at the alter of the elephants who tell you how to schedule sex dates, and give your man a blow job, but don’t say vagina in a book or we will pull it from the shelves, or lets make idiots spend tons of money to learn how to put butts in the seats by dressing your worship leaders up in girl pants, or…
Your problem here, Duran Duran, is you are attempting to defend the indefensible. When people get fed up with Evangelical Christian Culture looking nothing like Jesus, they can, and will stand up and call a spade a spade. If for whatever reason, you find yourself puckering up on that concept, then you have to reexamine your understandings.
Jesus is not standing in line to get tickets to see Driscoll and Furtick swing their manhood at each other.
But progressive christian culture looks even less like Jesus. Mike linked to a post where Tony Brown couldn’t even get other progressives to talk about God, and that isn’t a one-off thing. Many progressives seem to create a culture that’s little more than secular ideas with a small gloss of Christianity on them. To the point where even basic ideas like Biblical inerrancy and the nature of who Christ is tend to get thrown under the bus. I’ve been on the other side of these arguments many times, and it quickly becomes apparent that beyond things like SSM, or universal healthcare, many really don’t seem to think on the faith itself as opposed to popular political expressions of activity. To the point where you can stymie them just by asking them to describe things like salvation, repentance, or what sin is.
Evangelicals screw up. They have a lot of problems, and are at risk from worldly attacks. A big one for example is how Roissy-style Game ideas and evolutionary biology is starting to corrupt the idea of complementarism. But despite all their failures, at least they keep trying to look at Jesus and believe the Bible. Progressives these days aren’t like that; like the old social gospel that held fast to Jesus, but cared about removing temporal barriers to salvation like poverty or drink. They really are in danger of getting absorbed wholesale by the world, and that’s what makes that Huffpo post so worrying.
Tony Jones. And I was one of the progressives who responded to his call and posted a blog about God. 🙂
My bad, my memory failed me there.
Here’s the thing. Jesus is Jesus. He is who He is no matter how any human being happens to misinterpret Him. He doesn’t need anyone, progressive or evangelical alike, to go to bat for him and “right the wrongs” of other Christians. He alone knows who is true followers are. He alone has the ability to penetrate darkness via the Holy Spirit.
I don’t read the other blogs you mention, but I’m a regular on SFL and have been for a couple years. I find it ironic that you take issue with SFL for supposedly attacking evangelicalism, not realizing that the type of fundamentalism we at SFL grew up with regularly attacked evangelicalism, only from a conservative position not a “progressive” one.
Nearly all of us at SFL grew up in fundamental independent Baptist churches where we were taught that evangelicals were back-slidden compromisers. We regularly heard sermons warning us of the evils of Billy Graham, Liberty University, Stephen Curtis Chapman, (ALL Christian contemporary music for that matter), and C. S. Lewis. Many of us were not allowed to read ANY version of the Bible except the King James; we were told that other versions were “perversions.” We weren’t allowed to support Samaritan’s Purse or Wycliffe Bible Translators or New Tribes Missions because they were not “separated” enough from the “world.”
Maybe to evangelicals these type of people seem like the “crazy fringe,” but it doesn’t seem fringe to those of us who grew up surrounded by it, in churches, Christian schools, summer camps, and colleges that taught us to separate from all other believers except those who believed exactly like us. There are thousands of us. While the IFB is small compared to all of American Christianity, it loomed large to us because it was all we were allowed to know. Many of us at SFL have only recently discovered grace; some of us have dared to become “evangelical” and been scorned, criticized, and even alienated from our former friends, colleagues, and family members. To us, it’s very valid to discuss the warped teachings we were given under the title of the Gospel.
You wrote, “If you’re looking for evidence of the love, compassion, civility, and peace that religious progressives profess to espouse, you won’t find it on these sites.” I’d like to say that this is utterly untrue of SFL. There is love, truth, and compassion there, attested to by reader after reader. There is also plenty of snark, and some of the commenters are no longer believers (to my sadness), but most of the incivility comes from random fundamentalists who are outraged that we dare criticize the IFB.
I’d invite you to actually read SFL for a while. If you did, I’d think you’d realize how untrue your criticism is. However, many evangelicals cannot comprehend what life is like in the type of fundamental Baptist churches that we at SFL grew up in and even spent much of our adulthood in. Most people who didn’t grow up in it can’t believe it’s real and think we’re exaggerating or lying when they hear our stories.
Anyway, Darrell doesn’t need me to come to his defense, but I just felt compelled to clarify what a healing, truth-filled, therapeutic place many have found it to be.
I DID grow up in Independent, Fundamental Baptist churches, and the fact that people talk like they’re all a bunch of loons tells me SOME people are indeed lying/exaggerating. Yes, I know bad things have been done in the name of Christ in the IFB churches. It also happens in ANY church, even whatever church you go to now. Humans are sinful. Bottom line. Please quit beating up an entire group of people, some of whom are the most godly people I know. The sad thing is, I know this isn’t going to stop–the movement is only getting stronger.
I also grew up in an IFBC. I still attend an IFBC. SFL has caused me to question everything I’ve been taught, and to search out the Scriptures to see what God says. That is not encouraged in the IFB. The pastor thumps his big KJB, tells you what it says, and any questioning is rebellion. Thankfully, our pastor tells us as members it is our responsibility to question as the Bereans, to keep him accountable and to not let others add to the Gospel – to not add legalistic standards that are not in Scripture, but have been created by men who wish to control their congregants.
I appreciate this Mercy. I haven’t read the site in depth, so I will. But I must say, if the Fundy Rules are any evidence, I can’t see anything “healing, truth-filled, [or] therapeutic” about that. And to be clear, I’m not a Fundamentalist and have lots of problems with them. I just don’t see how the Left’s brand of snark, mockery, and meanness does anything to distance themselves from the very things they seemingly decry. I appreciate your tone and will look more in depth at the site. If I feel a retraction is in order, I’ll definitely give it.
Mike,
Darrell’s “Fundy Rules” are satire. They are exaggerated to make a point. You realize that, right? How is that on any level synonymous with being a “hate machine”? I know Darrell personally. He’s hilarious and humble and has a huge heart.
You admitted that you haven’t read his site in depth. Have you read any of these sites in depth? Or did you just do a Google search?
I think most of this post could be retracted, honestly. But I know you won’t do that. But you should at least apologize to Darrell for completely misrepresenting what he does and the audience that he helps on a daily basis. You keep writing “I’m not a fundamentalist”. Prove that. Acknowledge the fact that you assumed more about Darrell’s site than you should have and that you got it wrong.
Poe’s Law, man. It’s often hard to tell what is a satire and what is a held position on the internet without large use of smileys, and even then I kind of wonder how many of the commentors on that site wouldn’t agree with them as literal truths as well as satire.
Agreed. If you’re not going to make it apparent that it’s satire, don’t be surprised when people misinterpret it.
I love satire myself and I can be harsh in my writing. I try to go back and temper it when I realize my motives aren’t entirely pure, but I no doubt fail at times. Satire can be a veiled attack, i.e. passive aggressiveness. In that case, the anger is misguided, and the expression of it unhelpful. My Dad used to say when something makes you mad, give yourself 10 minutes to be angry, then move on. Otherwise, you’re wallowing in it and going nowhere. (10 minutes being relative to the offense that led to the anger.)
Not having grown up in the church myself, I feel grateful that I don’t have to wade through fundamental baggage. I have New Age baggage, so it pains me to see injured Christians knee-jerking in that direction. This entire comment thread highlights how damaging it is spiritually when we veer too far left or right.
If we had to put a satire disclaimer on everything we said life would get rather complicated. And that’s just on the internet. You either get comedy or you don’t.
The vocabulary in that article hardly seems like it belongs to a huge-hearted man. Especially to those who have not had the experience of meeting him.
Don’t accuse Mike of being too stuck-up to retract what he said. It’s just a way of closing yourself off from criticism and declaring right away that anyone who disagrees with you is just wrong and too proud to admit it. And that’s neither charitable nor civilized.
“It’s just a way of closing yourself off from criticism and declaring right away that anyone who disagrees with you is just wrong and too proud to admit it.”
Hey look, MPT, it’s ANOTHER guy who doesn’t read your site!
He’s the “Churched” guy, and I think I remember reading him about the guy in Mars Hill who was counselled poorly or something. I don’t really read stuff like that because generally satire is reliant on what denomination you grew up in to be funny, and as a Northeastern ex-charismatic, I had a different set of problems than guys like him. The church didn’t repress me, it sheltered me, and we don’t have the omnipresent southern public Christianity here to rebel against. It’s a lot different when you grow up as one of four Christians in your high school class.
Matthew — Thanks for telling me that the “Fundy Rules” were satire. I completely missed that! (Not really. But your suggestion does further the notion that I might be thick-headed, which, I’m thinking, was your intent.) Do you NOT think that satire can be hateful? Because I used a lot of it in this post. And to reiterate, I used the word “hate” in my title specifically because progressives are so fond of describing social conservatives as “hateful” (often following that w/ nasty, profanity laced diatribes against said conservatives).
Yes, I have followed all the sites I noted here (including yours) for a while. As I promised Mercy, I went back and looked more thoroughly at SFL. It didn’t change my original perception at all. Sorry. I don’t doubt Darrell is a great guy w/ a big heart. Nor do I doubt that about you, MPT! Nevertheless, the approach of SFL (and others in this “movement”) is the exact thing I’m challenging here. The primary apologetic appears to be to demean and ridicule all things conservative. It just seems SO counter to a movement that prides itself on love and compassion and tolerance. Which is why I compared this tactically to the New Atheists: it founds your gospel on a negative (conservative religion: BAD), rather than a positive (liberal religion: GOOD).
Yes, Mike, before you decide to warn people about how horrible a man’s blog is, and how wrong and unfair he is, particularly a man who also professes Christ, you really may want to read his site in depth so that, you know, you are accurate in what you are talking about. You would then also assure that you are actually being fair and just to the man you accuse of unfairness and injustice You see, if you don’t pay him the respect of taking the time to comprehend what he is writing about, you end up looking even more shallow, petty, and mean-spirited than he could ever depict. The irony of your post about SFL is shouting from the stones themselves.
Jeri, as I wrote to Matthew above, I’d followed SFL and the other sites for a while. Don’t visit it every day. I’m not on its Forum. I don’t know Darrell. I feel I had enough of a sense of the site’s intent to include it in this list. (Not sure how much I need to read it before you consider my assessment “fair.”) Perusing it again this morning, I still feel the same and am rather befuddled as to why you think I’m so misguided in my overall observation. SFL aggregates Fundamentalist extremes. To what end, if not to denigrate? And as I said to MPT, I’m employing as much satire and sarcasm with my list as the “Fundy Rules.” So I would expect the same “respect” as you feel I should give Darrell.
Frankly, these are the discussions I love to have. I would genuinely like to know how SFL is different than The Christian Taliban or Christian Nightmares. To me, they seem cut from the same cloth.
Nonsense. You were not being satirical, just angry. Throw in writing skills and personal integrity on the things you need to improve.
Jeri, have you read any of Mike’s books? I dare you to find a grammatical error in THE TELLING. I was personally blown away by his wordly craftsmanship.
“…you end up looking even more shallow, petty, and mean-spirited than he could ever depict. The irony of your post about is shouting from the stones themselves.”
I’d submit the same thing to you, Jeri, based on what you just said.
And there’s the pot calling the kettle black. Jeri Massi has absolutely no room to criticize anyone for posting “angry” rants. She had one article that was neutral about pornography and child molesters and at the end of the article put her own spin on it to give the appearance the article summed up all the IFB churches. If Jeri could prove it (or perhaps even if she couldn’t, give it time) she would blame the economy, the middle-east crisis, and greasy fries on the IFB.
And wow, did I call it right on the “spell-checker onlyism” or what? Not everyone that is merely trying to quickly get a thought out runs there comments through a notepad, then a spell checker, sends it to Webster for review and editing and then posts their comment.
And something Jeri Massi can throw in for herself is perhaps take a class or 20 on hermeneutics and perhaps one day she will learn how to interpret the Bible without the assistance of astrology or Buddha.
And Jeri Massi accusing someone of being accurate in what they’re talking about? This is coming from a woman who accuses Governor Mike Huckabee and Charles Stanley of covering up sex crimes on her blog! LOL
Mike, do you walk into group therapy sessions of abuse victims, hear the pain-fueled vitriol as they cry out their deeper feelings, and then tell them they are wrong to express themselves in that way? Do you walk into funerals and tell people they are weeping too loudly? Do you go to ICUs to monitor how much people throw up from the sight of blood?
I’d suppose not (few people would). Feature this: SFL is a group therapy site. Is every IFB church abusive? That argument can be had somewhere else (like, perhaps, on the SFL forum, and you are fully welcome there). The pain people share on that site from specific abuses is real and must be processed. Condemning them for their “hateful” speech is not gracious and does not further their healing.
The vast majority of the contributors on that site are evangelical, not attacking evangelicals. They compare notes on and, yes, sometimes attack a particular brand of Christianity that left their souls (and in some cases, bodies) bruised, battered, and broken.
You are entitled to your opinions, of course. But remember that Jesus is a big boy – he can take care of himself and his reputation. For yourself, since you are also a wounded soul who needs healing in some way, remember to be gracious to those in pain.
Funny, I’ve tried for about 5 minutes now to find somewhere on the SFL site that it is a “group therapy” site. Perhaps it’s in the forum section “Non-Christian Religion: Discussion of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism”. Or perhaps the section called, “Non-Believer Safe Space: A safe space for atheists and agnostics to talk about their beliefs”.
That must be very “therapeutic”, you get to pick and choose one half of the forum to get your therapy by blaming it on fundamentalism, or the other half by blaming it on
God.
So, what, you thought every victim of IFB abuse would write with G-rated language, have theology so polished you can see your face in it, and spout Bible verses with great joy? You expect abuse victims to show the perpetrators of their abuse more mercy than you have shown the victims?
I don’t know why you have chosen to act as God’s last line of defense. But God is gently whispering to you, “Don’t drive them away. I will gently lead them back when the time is right.” He is big enough to contain their pain, their suffering, and yes, the sins they commit because of it – Jesus died for all that too.
And I’m glad you’re able to figure out in five minutes why each individual person is on that blog or the associated forum. Maybe you should take five minutes and think about brings so eclectic a group of people together. If you decide it’s all evil, well, you do have a right to be wrong.
Pardon my French but that explanation about the SFL forums is such a load of crap. You have a handful of disgruntled ex IFB members and the other half are atheists, homosexuals, lesbians and skeptics. That site was rightly included and rightly categorized. Just because you claim to limit your critiques against one denomination doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be categorized with other groups that criticize other denominations. You think that because you are right about all of the IFB churches that you must be exempt from critique and thus divinely permitted to attack all IFB churches.
There are plenty of threads on that site (SFL) that are antagonistic about God period, let alone churches. So to attempt to clean up the bad things said about the SFL forums because you want to be categorized as a group that limits it to attacks on IFB is a load of horse manure.
Homosexuals AND lesbians?
Your ire toward the site would have nothing to do with being banned, would it?
Oh yes, that MUST be it. Getting banned from a heathen website so destroyed my self esteem that after I called my mommy and cried about it for an hour, I then wrote the United Nations and asked if they could hold a global hearing on reinstating my posting rights because it meant so much to me. Then I came here and posted about eh SFL and other heathen forums because I was so befuddled about getting banned. I even considered shaving my head and changing my name because I was so humiliated.
Gimme a break.
The SFL junkies are so enamored by their own rantings they believe they are the sole arbiters of truth. They have the same cult-like mentality that they accuse other churches of having:
*believe us no matter what
*do not question what we say
*everything we say is the truth and there is no possible way that are public opinions are in error
*if you do question us we will result to ad hominem attacks and avoid debating the issues
*if we do try and debate the issues, we will misquote you and raise issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs of the person they are arguing with, in fact, your beliefs will be provided for you free of charge.
Hope that answers your quesiton.
Be careful when making generalizations. They make for interesting copy, but they don’t hold up, whether you’re “left” or “right”. Both sides demonize each other, which is very sad and very un-Christian. If we could have an honest discussion, with civility and the respect and love that Christ would have us show one another, perhaps we would not come across to the non-Christian world as being such hypocrites.
I must say – there are so few loving conservative Christians, that they’re more rare than the rarest endangered species. Most conservative Christians use the 5% of the Bible that backs up their selfish superiority and forget the other 95%. I’ll never comprehend the whole “you can’t take my money for taxes” when that’s how the poor receive help in this country. American Christians donate 1.7% of their income – what a tithe!. And this doesn’t include the required sabbath for the poor and foreigner every 7th year, the extra giving every 3 years for the poor, the sacrifices that had to be made, etc. To those who say these are OT – no, the NT is MORE strict, MORE unforgiving than the OT. Would the early church EVER say keep more of your income when they told Paul that the most important thing was to NOT forget the poor?
And they use the whole “abortion is killing babies” argument. So if it is (and the Bible doesn’t even support that to begin with), then don’t you want to do the things that WILL bring it down, instead of things that will not only have no effect on the abortion rate, but also take ANOTHER life in the process? Outlawing abortion will NOT bring the abortion rate down – helping to lift women out of their poverty will, giving them the opportunity to take responsibility for themselves will. Yet they are against those very things. That is the definition of stupid.
Regarding the whole hate thing – which is generally referring to gay marriage. Think about something: a man can be convicted of killing his first two wives and the church doesn’t care about him getting a third. The church yet is so distraught about gay marriage, when NOT ONE gay person has ever said, “I can’t get married, so I’ll just not engage in ANY gay behavior.” How is that not hate? That makes the gay marriage law interference by the church not a sin issue – laws for sin issues are to PREVENT sin – but a respect issue. Especially when you consider that the church doesn’t have to recognize it.
To say that the conservatives are spewing toxic trash and especially with the abortion thing, stupid is completely accurate. They also fail to desire to be enlightened. You show them evidence for things and they just ignore it. And consider these people REPRESENT Christ by virtue of their declaration of belief when they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
However, saying someone is an asshole or dipshit doesn’t need to be done to be accurate. Stupid, misrepresenting Christ, ignorant, etc. are all accurate. There is no need to go beyond it and say they’re idiots, morons or anything of the sort when the other terms will suffice.
“there are so few loving conservative Christians, that they’re more rare than the rarest endangered species.”
Thankfully, we have the Christian Left (ya know, the ones who reject conservative tradition, think we are “assholes” who believe “toxic bullshit,” compare us to the Taliban, and spend exorbitant amounts of time curating our nonsense), to right the ship. Do some extra loving for me, will you Karen. I’m off to destroy people lives.
” American Christians donate 1.7% of their income – what a tithe!” — where did you get that? I have heard that number before, but I’ve also heard others. It’s true that American Christians as a church don’t give 10% from everything I’ve heard, but I’ve ALSO heard that that percentage varies WIDELY per involvement in church as well as how conservative a church is —
For instance, I don’t consider my taxes as anything other than supporting the government. I don’t count that toward supporting the poor. Instead, I volunteer at a pregnancy clinic and am taking classes so I can help with counseling those who suffer post abortion syndrome. My church runs a food pantry and gives quite a bit for the poor there. We’re definitely on the conservative end!
“Would the early church EVER say keep more of your income when they told Paul that the most important thing was to NOT forget the poor?” — what’s the reference for this? Yes, the NT makes a point about supporting the poor. However, where does it ever say that that’s the most important thing? See, the most important thing is Jesus. Not supporting earthly needs, but spiritual needs. And when we do support the spiritual needs, the support of physical needs follows.
I commend your commitment to the “least of these”, Jon, but respectfully submit that the problem of homelessness and poverty is bigger than the church alone can deal with, at least at the level of involvement that the church has had to date.
The church can provide food and some programs to help lift people out of poverty (and I, too, have been involved in many of these things and would be the last person to end them!). However, only the government can create a situation throughout the country where injustice and poverty are dealt with on a basic level. Not saying that legislation can change peoples’ hearts, but, as the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 demonstrated, creating a situation where justice is enshrined can gradually change a society.
There’s a fundamental dissonance in saying that our beliefs need to inform our politics, but not having that same perspective extend to helping the poor. That makes no sense to me.
I guess my response would be: Where in the Bible does it command government to help the poor? Anytime it does command to help “the least of these,” it is talking specifically to Christians.
It’s not that I’m against the government providing, as you say, a situation where justice is enshrined. It’s just that I don’t see that as how I, as a Christian, can share Jesus’s love. In fact, the government shouldn’t be sharing Jesus’s love — that’s not the government’s job. That’s my job as a Christian. (Yes, separation of church and state is a good thing!)
I agree with you about separating church and state…but be careful! That’s where much of the conservative religious ideology has some issues! What about same-sex marriage…why should the church have anything to say about what the state does there? The government is to promote the general welfare of all the people, not just Christians.
The Bible does not command governments to do anything. It commands us to love. If your faith does not inform your politics, then that’s one perspective. But, as I assume, you believe your faith should inform your politics, it should be your whole faith…not just a handful of cherry-picked “moral” issues.
In light of your first paragraph, I’m left to conclude that we, indeed, have a state religion based off biblical law. I’m just clarifying this because it was something I was previously unaware of. We will have to make some BIG changes in order to implement all the Mosaic laws. It’s going to get messy.
” Tithing levels, which could include both church and other charitable giving, were highest among evangelicals (24% of whom give at least 10%), non-mainline Protestants (13%), churchgoers (11%), and non-evangelical born again Christians (10%). ”
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/341-the-economys-impact-part-3-of-3-donors-reduce-giving-brace-for-the-long-haul
Oh and BTW – if Christ Hates anyone, it’s those who distort his message and yet claim superiority, the way the Christian fundamentalists do. Without love we are but a clanging cymbal, not a worker of Christ. Those who have sin issues but are not distorting His name, are not in the same category.
Oh, get off the cross already. We need the wood.
The problem with religious liberals is that for far too long we’ve tolerated bullying and bigotry from the likes of you people because we adopted a “turn the other cheek” approach. Well, we’re done with that, and we’re reclaiming Christianity. You’ve turned it into something monstrous, hurtful, and oppressive, and yet you’re whining that we’re persecuting you.
Why are you so afraid of us? If you’re so secure in your own faith, why should you care about our criticisms? Or have we hit a nerve? Have we pointed out your hypocrisy, your smug, self-satisfied complacency, your misogyny and homophobia in ways that make you incredibly uncomfortable? Are your feelings hurt because we’ve pointed out the ways in which you’ve traded spiritual experience for spectacle and pandered to the lowest common denominator, promising people that yes, Jesus meant for you to be rich and selfish, because…predestination?
The fact is that bloggers like Stephanie Drury and Matthew Paul Turner have put your sort under a microscope and found you…wanting. They aren’t just out for some cheap lulz. Your sort hurt, manipulate, and abuse people into believing that they are less than human, that God hates them because He created them to be particularly sinful and deviant–for liking sex, for liking sex with the wrong kind of people, for daring to ask the most sensible of questions whose answer would bring your entire house of cards tumbling down, for wanting a better world for everyone, not merely those who parrot your particular catechism to the letter.
It doesn’t mean we don’t respect you as human beings. But we can’t respect your bigotry, your vanity, your justification of the unjustifiable, your lack of genuine compassion, and, yes, your unwillingness to use your God-given intelligence to grasp that the Universe is far, far more than a child’s “just-so story” found on a mouldering parchment.
Christ boiled Christianity down to two commandments. The rest is outdated window dressing.
Christ said a lot of things, and we can’t isolate his message to what we like. He convicts the evangelicals of things like desiring wealth, but he also talks to progressives when He says it’s better than you lose an eye if it causes you to lust, rather than the whole body in hell. Paul also said that certain behaviors are prohibited, and James convicts evangelicals of how faith is not just faith, but also works. It’s one thing to argue about how a political fight on SSM affects the body of Christ, or how defending things too fiercely can lose the real battle-witnessing for Christ-over a proxy battle to push forwards a secular Christianity-lite focused on public performance of morality.
But a lot of times, when I do talk to progressives, they just seem to repeat secular ideas on morality. It would be like if you talked to an evangelical in the 1980s, and he didn’t even care what Jesus, Paul, or others in the Bible said about wealth to the point of ignoring any real attempt to justify his avarice. You can’t even get him to look at the Scriptures about them, and all he says is “Greed is good,” or goes on forever about the free market.
She isn’t isolating His message to what she likes. Christ Himself did that when He said all the law and the prophets hang on two commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor. You don’t get to pick your neighbor, and you don’t get to decide what love is. Christ tells us what to do, and our job is to do it.
Yeah, but he also tells us to believe and do other things. No one here would say, “Oh, sex before marriage is quite okay, because Jesus called us to love one another and loving means not being judgmental.” The last part is really a modern idea, that loving means affirming things a person does, and in that specific thing, it disobeys biblical commandments. There’s a tension between love, and obedience to God’s commands that I don’t see in replies similar to this, and that Jesus seems to act as a rubberstamp. I see it in my own side too, but our own dangers are different.
Thank you for proving Mike’s point.
“…you’re whining that we’re persecuting you.”
Um, I don’t feel persecuted at all.
“Why are you so afraid of us?”
I’m not. Which I why I publicly posted this, links included.
“Have we pointed out your hypocrisy, your smug, self-satisfied complacency, your misogyny and homophobia in ways that make you incredibly uncomfortable?”
Yes. And I’m trying to return the favor.
“Your sort hurt, manipulate, and abuse people into believing that they are less than human, that God hates them because He created them to be particularly sinful and deviant–for liking sex, for liking sex with the wrong kind of people, for daring to ask the most sensible of questions whose answer would bring your entire house of cards tumbling down, for wanting a better world for everyone, not merely those who parrot your particular catechism to the letter.”
You’re obviously a seer of some sort. Can you tell me if the Lakers will be NBA champs this year, while you’re at it?
“Christ boiled Christianity down to two commandments. The rest is outdated window dressing.”
John 14:6… “window dressing.”
“Well, we’re done with that, and we’re reclaiming Christianity.”
Christianity is not “claimable”.
It strikes me as incredibly revealing that comments from the liberal, progressive Christians on this post are some of the most strident and belittling comments I’ve read. Revealing, indeed, and certainly not coming from any sort of love or tolerance.
You may need to go back and read the posts again without bias.
Oh, I don’t think I need to. They speak for themselves.
” Why are you so afraid of us? If you’re so secure in your own faith, why should you care about our criticisms? Or have we hit a nerve? Have we pointed out your hypocrisy, your smug, self-satisfied complacency, your misogyny and homophobia in ways that make you incredibly uncomfortable? ”
Yes, delineating proper Biblical roles and lawful sexual practices is misogynistic and homophobic.
” Christ boiled Christianity down to two commandments. The rest is outdated window dressing. ”
Then, as most progs believe, Scripture is irrelevant and the Holy Spirit wasted a lot of time having it written.
I spent 25 years in the fundamentalist camp. I also will, unfortunatly, spend the rest of my life undoing the damage that was done, grieving what was completely lost, and wondering where God was during the whole thing. While I believe that there is grace for all-to sit and listen to that again without saying anything to it is impossible for me. It is impossible to love as God loves-so I have quit trying.
If people wish to stay in that system, ok. I am still going to hold up signs that say you are being used and you should get out.
As one of our greatest presidents once said, “I feel your pain!” I was raised in the same environment and it has taken me 25 years to find my voice. Speak the truth in love is my guiding principle.
“I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them
1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.”
— John Wesley, October 6, 1774
Drew, once again, I believe Fundamentalism can and does damage people. But I also believe that Christian liberalism also damages people. I’m not sure that healing from either extreme is accomplished through mockery of the other.
I’m glad I was busy today and didn’t have time to enter this fray. But I did want to tell you I loved this post.
Not sure why I am doing so myself, to be honest Sally. I’ve done this so many times on other blogs, and I like Mike’s because I can relax with you guys as brothers and sisters in Christ, and as people who care about writing. I wish at times I met you all sooner, because Mike’s writing and everyone’s comments have lifted me up more than I can say at times.
Let’s stop being so easily offended. 🙂
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://mikeduran.com/2010/03/lets-stop-being-so-easily-offended/
a — I love that article! Also, I’m not offended in the least.
I am a Progressive Christian who is dedicated to bridging the gap between conservative and liberal Christians ( as well as other denominations and religious traditions). The anger, contempt and judging on both sides goes directly against Christ’s teachings, belittling the very beliefs both positions claim to be championing. This afternoon I read a post on a Liberal Christian Facebook page and appealed to the moderator that we can champion our beliefs without demeaning those who don’t share them, only to be told that that was the only way they saw to do anything about it. After hearing that, I decided to blog about this issue myself, about how easy it is to become that which we are decrying. When we are able to ignore the very heart of our Jesus’s teachings, to love everyone, especially one’s enemies, we have come to a point where devotion to a viewpoint has overtaken our devotion to Christ. It’s easy to get angry when someone invokes God in a way that challenges your understanding of Him, I understand that. And I applaud the passion for God evident in both sides. But let us remember that the way to eternal life is to both “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'” Luke 10:27. Blessings, Samantha
Well said, Samantha. The anger Christians show toward others who oppose their views (regardless of what they are) is very un-Christian, flying in the face of Luke 10:27.
Good word, Samantha! Thanks for commenting.
But let us remember that the way to eternal life is to both “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
**NUTTER COMMENT ALERT**
There is only one way to eternal life and it’s through Jesus. We cannot get there via loving works no matter how hard and how sincerely we try.
Divison of God’s people … Satan’s greatest accomplishment IMO
Worked for Jesus 🙂
Looks like this attracted a swarm of aggressive progressives.
To all of the progressives hotly contesting Mike’s post, I’d like to offer my heartiest thanks for proving his point. He makes the observation that there is an attitude of vitriolic hate, and progressive Christians by the bucket load spill in to strut and display their contempt for the very existence of this essay.
Since the term “hypocrite” has been flung once or twice, I want to know: how would you respond if there was a popular conservative website showing signs in front of progressive churches and holding them up for ridicule? How about relentless daily mockery of progressive Christians’ art or method of dress (“Haha, look at them wearing those stupid hipster hats!”)? And would you really buy the defense that it’s just satire in good fun? Would you react well to someone telling you to get a sense of humor?
Is Mike’s post above criticism? Obviously not. They are the words of a fallible man, open to correction. But there should be a recognizable difference between loving-but-truthful criticism, and having such a visceral, hyperdefensive emotional response as the kind you have ignited here.
Read all of my posts, John. Do you see any hate? I was raised in a conservative evangelical church, and I still have many, many friends who hold that perspective. I don’t hate them…I love them and value them as they can sometimes call me on my own BS. Of course, I reserve the right to do the same (in love).
Sorry, but calling progressives hateful and aggressive is the pot calling the kettle black. There’s plenty of hatred on both sides, but also people of good conscience on both sides. Only a weak mind feels the need to demonize people who dare to disagree with them.
Actually I wasn’t talking to you, Occupy. I was addressing the ones who wrote with an angry tone. Please accept my apologies for the confusion.
Got it, John. Thanks for clarifying. I guess I took your comment as a more general swipe (like Mike’s post) against progressive/liberal Christians.
The only difference between evangelicals and branches of the christian tree are what to another faith would be the small things, transmutation, the bible as absoloute truth vs the bible as truth as best translated through the writings of someone from a time when humanity didn’t have a ghlimmer of understanding of the physical laws of God’s universe. The message of Christ the reedem is a truth all share.
I think the left wing christian group misses the mark as far as the right wing evangelical group. Both seek to use Christ to justify their own beliefs about a secular goverment. If either extrme’s Christ was the Christ of the bible the book would go into detail about the Roman state at the time. It doesnt it’s mesage is not how to establish a christian earthly state but instead a focus on salvation and becoming part of the Kingdom of Heaven. every time Christians forget that and have tried to create christian states on earth they have without fail created some of the most inhumane goverments of the last 2000 years. a glimpse at Europe from the 11th century throught the 17th century is fileld with religous wars, religous persecutions, genocidal actions against non believers and staes that placed little premium on the teachings of Christ and sought to enforce a uniform dogma as to the nature of Christ, Gnostics, , Monophysites, Arians in the pre moslem worls were put t the death and hounded by the state supported orthodoy and we see it all over again eith the Protesan reformation with the difference being Protestant states defended their own canons and persecuted catholics and other Protestants….. History does not giveus a single eample of a Christian state that govermed based on the actual teachings of christ.Every single state became focused on things like the holy ghost or the fdula nature of Christ or whether the host was asymbol or the transmuted body and blood. Anyway it’s worth remembering that when someone says that the USA which was in fact founded on the principles of the enlightenment and ideas about the universal rights of man and liberty and the goverment being created and maintained as a servant to the people was founded as a christian nation. The ideas of the enlightment arent considered hiostile to Christianity today but 220 years ago christian belief was cented on the divine right of kings and to not hae an established state religon anethema. The truth is this country was settled by people fleeing the religous wars , persecutions and strife in Europe which came to a head inthe 17th century. It ewasnt an accident the constitution didnt mention God. Religon was meant to be a private matter. if we had in fact been founded as the mythical christian nation as so many who would have he state enact laws based on their sect then Thomas efferson who di remove all the miracles from the bible and publish the book with the stated reason that it was perfect when you removbed the magic wouldn’t of beern elected President. Neither party mentioned God itheir olitical platforms till 1912 and it wasnt till 1980 that we saw a move to today’s landscape and the imo flase referneces to God and religous values which were in fact just convenien justifications for politcal belief. There wass no religous test today Jefferson could get elcted dog cather
So, when left or right wing christians try to use theirreligon to ustify their politcs I say they are creating God intheir own image not the other way around. After all where are Christ’s teachings on low taes or access to higher education?
After all didn’t Christ and the apostles share all? W erent the fish and loaves an eample of spread the wealth? Where does the idea a rich man would have a hard time getting into the Kingdom of heaven or the elevation of the poor fit in our politics? So, yeah I think mthe left wing Christians arewrongandIthinkthe right wing christians are wrongand wish both groups would stop trying to use beliefs not based in his teachings but based on their own world view…. low tavs are no more a tenet of christianity than abortion and both have an underlying current of sefishness to them
I am persuaded that this is neither a traditionalist nor progressive problem, but a human problem. Yes, there are progressive Christians who say toxically rude things about their traditionalist brothers and sisters. But there are also traditionalist Christians who say toxically rude things about their progressive brothers and sisters. The traditionalists get called fundamentalists and homophobes, while the progressives get called compromisers and unbiblical. Both sides claim to be the “true” Christians, while painting the other side to be the destroyers of the faith.
As Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Christians are never going to agree on everything. The Bible is too complicated and people are too stubborn for that to happen. Insteadttys believers to learn how to unify with fellow believers over our shared faith in Christ, while affirming diversity in areas where we disagree.
Amanda, that’s why I ended this post by quoting Frederick Buechner and saying, “I’ve been around the Church long enough to know there’s nutters on both sides of the aisle.” I’m an ordained minister who pastored a church for 11 years. I’ve seen the excesses on both sides, but far more from the conservative side. So I agree, this is “a human problem.” Thanks for commenting!
Mike, as someone who spent time on and who has been hurt by the right, I appreciate your acknowledgment that the conservative side has been more guilty of excess. But that’s part of the reason why this post is important. I think a lot of people move to a left after being hurt by the right, but then proceed to hurl the same hateful rhetoric that turned them off to conservative Christianity in the first place. In the end, the root problem is the same: we all think that we’re right, everyone else is wrong, and that everything would be better if everyone became just like us.
I’m actually writing a series of posts about how this attitude is contrary to Paul’s depiction of the church as the body of Christ. According to Paul’s body analogy, it’s good that the whole body is not an ear, or an eye, because it needs to be able to both smell and see. In a similar way, traditionalist and progressive Christians both perform needful functions in the body of Christ. Christians with different views won’t have to combat each other if we can learn instead to complement each other.
Amanda, just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that “the conservative side has been more guilty of excess” than the Left. My religious upbringing is in more conservative churches. So that’s where I draw my experiences from. I didn’t experience religious progressivism until much later in my life. I have retained some things from my conservative background, and rejected others. Which is why I find the wholesale mockery of the Christian Right so interesting.
I see what you meant now. Sorry for misinterpretting your intention. I also have more background in conservative churches, which I why think I tend to be more sensitive to the abuses done there. It’s good to be able to step back and realize that neither side of the aisle has a monopoly on grace.
I’d also like to retract and apologize for my statement perpetuating notion that conservatives are more guilty than progressives. It was made in haste, and I don’t believe it actually reflects reality.
I think this is a group of people who’ve been “done wrong” by fundamentalism in some way, and they can’t move past it. It’s like COLD COMFORT FARM, where the Grandma sequesters herself in her room, refusing to come out, repeating that when she was a child, “I saw something NASTY in the woodshed!”
Yes, the IFB has hurt people. So has every religious group on earth. EVEN HOME CHURCHES. All the sarcasm and name-calling comes from a place of hatred, not love and healing.
I agree that sarcasm and name-calling has no place in the church. Again, I apologize if anything I said implies that it is an acceptable way of handling our differences. It becomes a cycle of abuse, where people who have bee hurt respond by hurting other people. The only way to heal this cycle is to take the Savior’s advice, and instead of demanding an eye for an eye, turn the other cheek.
I totally agree w/you here, Amanda. I see you have a heart for resolving differences in the body of Christ, and you’re going about it in a Christ-like way. God bless you for your sweet attitude.
I think it all depends on individual experience in, what I call, Fundyland, that cause’s one’s own responses.
Remember, if a person’s been deeply hurt by anything or anyone, one of the coping mechanisms is anger. They need to express it, so that they can hopefully reconcile it and move on.
Unless we’ve stepped into the shoes of each individual commenter (or blog owner), we can’t truly criticize one’s responses and approach.
Because we simply don’t truly understand.
I think one of the key weaknesses of the progressive movement is that it is a reactionary movement. Like Scot McKnight has said about the Emergents, they’re very good at pointing out problems, but they offer few solutions other than “go on a mission trip and serve food to the homeless.” The problem is those are short-term solutions. You don’t catch a fish for a man to eat, you teach the man how to fish himself. That’s love. Missionaries go out with acts of love that are only the precursor to the main event, which is salvation. Why? Because the Holy Spirit changes on a more permanent scale.
I don’t doubt for a second many progressives have been hurt by Evangelicalism (traditionalism, fundamentalism, whatever you want to call it). But we’ve all been hurt by other Christians. And if we’re being really honest, we’ve hurt other Christians. You have to move beyond that at some point. And that’s the crux: progressives are the teenage children to Evangelicalism’s parents. They bemoan, ridicule and criticize their outdated parents who just don’t get it. But they lack perspective. Most children grow older and have their own children, and with that comes understanding. They still may not agree with their parents, but they have a better grasp of the bigger picture. That’s what’s frustrating about so many progressive blogs/websites. There’s no empathy, no attempt to understand. Only rocks thrown carelessly, fueled by bitterness from past wounds. The father in the story welcomed the prodigal son home, but he also sought out the legalistic older brother.
Hi Bobby,
I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with your take on Progressivism, whether political or religious. It’s not simply reactionary, it has a different vision of what should be in this world. Your characterization of Progressives offering only short-term “give a man a fish” solutions is an inaccurate caricature. That’s the same dog-whistle that political conservatives hurl at Progressives…that they only want to hand out help, not create long-term solutions.
Having been involved in homeless ministry for many years, I know first-hand that Progressives are just as interested in giving people a sustainable future as good-hearted conservatives, if not more so.
And, although many Progressives came to that view after being hurt by evangelicalism, I’m not one of them – and I know many others who weren’t either. I was raised in a conservative evangelical household, but came to a Progressive perspective because, after much prayer and thought, I came to see that the priorities of my faith were more in line with that view.
Alas, your characterization of Progressives as “the teenage children to Evangelicalism’s parents” is not only inaccurate, but belittling. It’s just that kind of commentary that we, in Christ’s love, need to avoid. I don’t know which “progressive blogs/websites” you’re reading, but you’re obviously not reading the ones I do, as I’ve seen countless examples of empathy and efforts to understand the motives of conservative Christians.
All of this to say, neither side has a corner on the human tendency to belittle those who disagree. But Christ would have us do better.
If it’s just matters of social justice, there’s a lot less pushback on that than you think. Scratch an evangelical, and you might find someone involved in prison ministry. Scratch a traditional Catholic and you might find he is a Distributist. Increasingly though, Christian progressives are going beyond that to recommend an overhaul of the faith in line with interest group politics. Most people’s encounter with progressives is often seeing them sanction gay marriage in their churches, talk from the pulpit about trendy issues like Palestinian problems or Obamacare, or just slam fundamentalists in general. They talk from their class, and that’s what the modern, knowledge-economy, city-dwelling liberal believes.
That’s what gets a lot of us conservatives. Yeah, evangelicals do have issues with being co-opted by the republican party, but your average christian progressive is lockstep with progressive politics to the point of being willing to throw out biblical authority and teaching in favor of their ideals. A lot of conservatives and fundamentalists realize that in the long run, this is fatal, and see it in the inability for those same progressive churches to retain people or act as a force in themselves. Or even the individual pundits to retain their faith.
You guys need to keep to the old social gospel, but avoid being devoured by modern social liberalism, and it’s not going to be easy for you. It’s not something a lot of us conservatives are gleeful about, any more than the theological liberalism that forced the birth of fundamentalism as a movement to begin with.
You’ve made my point for me…let’s not generalize. I have many evangelical friends (I sometimes even still call myself one!), and they are involved in social justice for the cause of the Lord.
However, your characterization of Christian progressives is overly general! I’m not lin lockstep with any political party, and never will be. I’d rather use the brain God gave me to think rather than rely on politicians for my religious opinions or pastors for my political opinions.
Believe me, I know all about the Social Gospel (I’m a historian in real life), and yes, we all have our contradictions and cognitive dissonances to deal with. Lord knows there are plenty on both sides. That’s precisely why I value the friendships I have with those who disagree with me!
This is simply going to become a discussion of “the people I’ve seen” versus “the people you’ve seen.” Admittedly, that’s what half these comments boil down to anyway. In perhaps a pointless attempt to clarify the missions/homeless comment, I refer mostly to those who advocate (or lean, or hint, or favor, or whatever) the idea of simply serving others while not stressing the spiritual nature of things. That last bit is often (again, from “the people I’ve seen”) viewed as imperialistic and superior-minded Americans or Christians pushing their belief/worldviews on others.
I don’t doubt for a second there are progressives who are empathetic. One of my two favorite bloggers is a progressive who has boatloads more empathy than the conservative fools who hate on her. As you’ve said, the point is never to suggest that one side has the one-up on being better/more righteous/holier, etc. That doesn’t change the fact that what I’ve seen from many progressives does not fit with your description.
“Christ would have us do better?” You do know Jesus called people vipers, hypocrites and white-washed tombs. Those are very strong terms and he said those to their faces. I have come up with an illustration to explain my opinion, and it is open to debate, as you have taken the time to do.
Sure…and that’s the point. Sweeping generalizaitons get us nowhere. But yes, Christ would have us do better, exactly because people are vipers and hypocrites! He calls us not to be that.
Warning: Generalities abound…
It appears there are many on the left who feel compelled to point out some of the wackiness and inconsistency of those on the right. Predictably, some on the right then want to point out the harsh and seemingly unfair lumping together of all conservative believers into one wacky, inconsistent glob. That’s all fine…until it devolves into name-calling and everyone trying to prove how right they are. That rarely ends well.
I’m convinced most any objective, non-believing observer would decide we’re all nuts.
Generally speaking, the more right-leaning folks seem to value being correct, consistent, and above moral reproach. Left-leaners place a premium on being smart, entertaining, hip, and cool. These (admittedly oversimplified) distinctions help perpetuate the whole progressive/regressive dichotomy. And there’s a pretty good chance it’s a complete waste of time and energy.
Unfortunately, the Internet aids and abets both sides in their attempt to “curate” the aforementioned wackiness and/or inconsistencies. To me, however, curating irony, satire, and snarkiness eventually becomes an exercise in polishing turds. Taking potshots and unmasking ignorance is not terribly difficult. It can be entertaining, I suppose, but always at someone else’s expense. And eventually, what goes around….
Somewhere out there in that nebulous, fabled middle ground is an actual solid rock upon which we should all aspire to stand. But instead of sending up flairs and helping fellow believers swim to shore, we seem to be content to put theological rocks in each other’s pockets.
And for the record, I’m as guilty as everybody else.
Peace (seriously…)
Oops…those would be “flares,” not colorful boas or boistrous wrestlers named Rick.
I know you warned about generalities in your post, but “Left-leaners place a premium on being smart, entertaining, hip, and cool”??? Really??? This is not a generality, but a belittling mischaracterization. I submit that you really do not know what motivates “Left-leaners”.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for what motivates me. Christ’s love, justice, and mercy. I couldn’t care less about being “entertaining, hip, and cool”. My views are certainly not seen that way by many of my friends who lean to the Right. Pray and do as God guides your conscience. If we all did that, this thread would be unnecessary.
“Pray and do as God guides your conscience.” Spot on, very solid advice.
My characterizations of both right/left leaners were meant to be viewed through the eyes of the fictional non-believing observer I mentioned. Neither of those portrayals are necessarily fair nor accurate, and certainly not complete! Notice I didn’t say that Occupy Christianity (or any other specific comment-makers) are consumed with being entertaining, hip, or cool! So no offense intended, seriously.
But that’s the problem with this type of discourse, all the stereotyping and pigeon-holing and name-calling. The gist of my comment was essentially a warning against those kinds of things.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for clarifying…it looks like I didn’t read closely enough, and for that I apologize! I’m not above rushing to judgment or painting folks with a broad brush either! As Paul said, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” Don’t we all…
No worries. And certainly no need to apologize!
These discussions remind me of growing up in Virginia. Every time I ventured south, I was accused of being a Northerner. And when I headed north, I was then accused of being a Southerner. I was just trying to survive 3rd grade.
As well, when people ask if we refer to our brown-skinned son as “African American” or “black,” I like to smile and tell them, “We usually call him Isaac.”
Most of the commentors here are children of God. Unfortunately, we sometimes fight like children.
The fact that Mr. Duran doesn’t appreciate Stuff Christian Culture Likes tells me I’m doing something right.
I honestly do not understand why you are so worried about what Mike thinks of your activities.
Maybe you don’t understand because I’m glad and not worried?
Sniping with petty little comments that don’t engage or respond, but just say you’re glad someone was worried enough to publicly call you out on something, because it means you’re “doing something right.”
No, that doesn’t smack of childishness at all.
I don’t see why you think I’m childish just because I only eat mac and cheese and willfully pee when I don’t get my way.
I used to be a Fundy. And the problem is, most of the citations in your blog post – are RIGHT!
I know it hurts… but it’s the truth. Since the shoe fits, go ahead, put it on, wear it!
Wow.
It’s taken me all morning in between patients to catch up with all of this. It seems to me that Mike was trying to give some folks a taste of their own medicine, and without a spoonful of sugar it didn’t go down all that well.
As entertaining as it was at times, ultimately the whole thing boils down to being discouraging. There were good points by both sides, but an excess of snark on both sides really dampened any positive. I’ll give a shout out to Amanda Colbik and her exchange with Mike as a great example of clarifying and getting to a good place in their conversation.
So we can all agree that Fundies have hurt people and Progressives can give the hurt right back? Good. That’s called being human.
What does the Bible call us? His children. How should we act? Even though Jesus’s proclamation to love God and love our neighbor sums up the gospel, it is a short, pithy statement that is easily learned and repeated but is still a summation. It is a glorious statement, but it is still limited because it is summing up. The Bible has a lot more to go on.
Last year I did an in-depth study of the pastoral letters. I was struck by two things – the emphasis Paul put on the importance of right doctrine and the need to discuss it in love and grace. Doctrine and belief is important! It drives what we do, and Paul tells us to hold fast to right doctrine. Yes, we have a ton of debate on particulars, but we are told to wrestle with doctrine and try to get it right – even if that idea isn’t popular in some circles right now.
Yet in the same letters Paul says to avoid quarrelsome speech. It is a repeated idea, and under the guidance of good hermaneutic principles, a repeated idea is important and needs further investigation. I decided that it is important to try and find right doctrine, but we need to speak and discuss with the grace that our brothers and sisters deserve.
I’m closer to Mike in belief. I’d consider myself conservative and evangelical, but I’ve been hurt by evangelicalism and have dealt with toxic issues there. Still, I hold to the fundamentals of the faith because I believe God gave us His word for a reason and all Scripture is valuable for teaching, correcting, and building up. I also recognize the need for mercy and justice that the evangelical church has often overlooked for a long time (and is starting to really wake up to if people are noticing).
I’ve had the chance to hang out with Mike and I know he is full of grace. But he’s also interested in truth and wrestling with that, and he’s not afraid to play the provocateur. I’m by nature a peace maker, so I hope my comments can help bring a measure of that to this intriguing but at times disheartening exchange.
Thank you for taking the time to write the comment we all needed to hear, Jason. This is truth. This is grace. This is love.
Jesus, you are our everything—and we worship you.
What a terrific comment, Jason. You summed it beautifully.
Whoa. Bit of a dust-up. Figured it would be – no way to waltz through this minefield.
After reading the N.T., I’d say Jesus was pretty intolerant. Funny how non-believers pick up on that before believers are willing admit to it.
As much as Christianity falls down, it’s Jesus we have to answer to.
People aren’t going to Hell because they reject me, my group-think, some denomination’s theology, or they’ve committed a particular socially unacceptable act.
Each of us answers to our Creator alone. Our motives, secrets, lies, alibis, courage and compassion will all be revealed. The issue will be how to answer for our sins once we’re there.
With excuses? Victim mentality? Try to balance them with good deeds, rituals, good intentions?
The line between good and evil is drawn through everyone’s heart, and it’s not an equation where variables cancel each other out. What’s done, good or bad, can’t be undone.
My understanding is that God in Jesus allowed Himself to be executed to pay for all our sins, and grants forgiveness if we agree to turn away from them and turn back to Him. To guarantee that offer, He came back to life after three days.
Call that exclusive, narrow-minded, intolerant… whatever. I think it’s completely unique. And uniquely complete.
I encountered Jesus twenty-seven years ago and decided to trust Him. To put my faith in His offer. Strangely enough, it works after all these years. Ignorant, intrusive, dip shit, asshole that I am.
so funny that a blog calling out people about hating has incited so much…hate. from both sides.
Guys, Mike’s a good guy who is trying to make a point about how sometimes we don’t think about what we say, and how we say it. He points out that it’s rare for the usage of name calling and derision to create a space for encouraging rebuke. Sure some of that same derision seems to be in his own post. When drawing a line we can’t help but make it painfully obvious which side we’re on. And some of his frustrations with certain sites or quotes are things that don’t bother me at all. But the heart of his post is true. The internet makes it far too easy to not consider how we’re saying something.
So that’s what I’m gonna take from it, even if I disagree with some of the points.
Fair enough. Can we all agree that calling each other names and other hateful acts aren’t what Christ had in mind? I can be and am friends with many fundies, and value those friendships even when I don’t agree with them. Unfortunately, most fundies I’ve come across aren’t so reciprocating, and don’t want an open exchange of thought. I know, I know…many progressives are the same way. So, let’s just cease all of the hate and agree to disagree, OK?
He’s so transparent it’s not even funny. This is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, much much worse. To see what really goes on in the “hearts” of some of these people watch “Koch Brothers Exposed.” Watch “When Mitt romney came to Town” Watch “The Inside Job.” There are so many more. But no, they’re not going to educate themselves are they, because they don’t even realize they need it. They’ve propagandized themselves into complete oblivion.
Gee, somebody’s feelings are hurt. So.. does anybody else think this article exaggerates a wee bit, protesteth too much? Jesus himself called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, and worse. I guess that’s the way it is when you’ve put up with hatred and judgmentalness till you’re up to your eyeballs sick of it. Fundies have driven untold numbers of people AWAY from the church. So you’ll have to forgive the Christian progressives for over-correcting at times after putting up with 30 or 40 years of batshit craziness, being told that progressives are not even Christians, being told our Christian president is a Muslim, and now you’re trying to buy and steal your way into the highest office in the land. Yeah, you guys are real cupcakes
Could someone please clarify for me how any of this is furthering the cause of Grace?
Iron sharpens iron? 😉
The irony is that otherwise we’d ignore each other. There’s no grace when we are in different camps that never come together, and ironically challenging or defending a belief can force people to look at each other. I know that there is a big tendency for Christians to try and peacemake to avoid conflict, but many times that conflict is what forces us to grow.
This. A thousand times this.
I associate with all sides all the time. Your hypothesis about “we only talk when we fight” doesn’t hold true with me. I think we can grow in politeness and dialogue without keeping record of wrongs–real or perceived.
As do I, and I’m sure as do most who’ve commented so far. But invariably disagreement occurs. The closest of spouses and friends know this. I agree that consideration and compassion need to rule the roost, but sometimes working out a disagreement in all its bloody, gory honesty, is the only way to progress.
I see what both you and DM are trying to say, and neither of you is wrong. Sometimes, though, simply bemoaning the existence of conflict in Christianity and wishing for a peaceful utopia in which no one ever disagrees is wishful thinking at best and painfully naive at worst. I speak generally here, not to anyone in particular.
I think it’s making me grumpy, but I can’t seem to stop rubbernecking.
There is an old expression: the devil lurks behind the cross. And Christ warned that many would come in his name falsely: wolves in sheepskin. Christ is good, as were his actions on earth. The wicked rulers you empower with your vote do NO good; their works are evil. George Bush and Mitt Romney are two conservatives who are NOT even Christian, among many others, so why would you show your love for your neighbor by choosing them to rule over us? Bush waged war for profit, deregulated the oil industry so that they could trash God’s pristine Gulf of Mexico (Revelation 11:18), they championed the rich and oppressed the poor, stole widow’s homes and on and on and on. Would you care to list the good things conservative politicians have done over the years? There are NONE. They are wicked. How can you love Christ then vote for Pilate, Caiaphus and Herod to rule over yourselves and your neighbors? I read the Scriptures every day, and informed by the word find those polarities to be irreconcilable.
Here is the definition of liberal from an online dictionary. Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample
Jesus Christ is liberal, so how can you despise liberals and claim to love Christ?
Oh boo-hoo. You “do what I say or you’re going to HELL!” types have been dishing it out centuries. Now that there’s some push-back, we find that you can’t take it. It makes me so very, very sad.
Just a quick nod to Mike. Post appreciated! As a person who has been hurt by some of the posts on sites (and books) like Stuff Christians Like (i.e. a diagram mocking the way Christians raise their hands while singing in church) I appreciated someone else echoing my own discomfort with mission-derision strategies. I remember walking away from the one post I mentioned above thinking, multiple times, why would a fellow Christian want to make a joke about the one moment when my inhibitions drop and I actually forget myself while appreciating the love of God? How does this joke change the world for the better? Or, the same author’s post jabbing at “side-hugs.” While I think those are kind of funny when they happen, I completely understand the “why” and I have never attempted to make a guy give me a full frontal hug in church when he’s obviously struggling with something. So again, my question was how picking on something like that (intended to help a person out who’s struggling with something) constructive? I wasn’t hurt by that one, just baffled. As for the lifted hands diagram thingy….
I’m hardly fragile, so I still raise my hands, but I did feel concerned that other Christians – especially those brand new to the faith and already struggling with derision from family and friends that don’t share that faith – could see that particular post, and walk away self-conscious and discouraged about expressing their love of God in a Fellowship of friends. How is that constructive? Isn’t that the same as making a person feel uncomfortable in church because their clothes aren’t good enough? or their hair is too long? Isn’t it kinda worse to actually make fun of a person expressing their love of God?
It reminded me of the day my five-year old little girl wore her favorite t-shirt to school only to hear “Girls can’t wear Spiderman. Girls wearing Spiderman are stupid.” No matter how much I tried to heal that wound, I couldn’t. She never wore it again.
I’m personally not fond of satire. It has made me laugh from time to time, but I’ve never been able to shake the conviction that all satire is laughter at someone else’s expense.
It reminds me of something Donald Miller wrote about in Blue Like Jazz. He was so happy that there was a kid in school nerdier than he was, because the bullies never noticed him when that kid was around. He actually was thankful for the kid’s existence because he was the one that got beat up and picked on and Miller somehow knew that if that kid wasn’t there, he’d be the preferred course.
Sometimes, I wonder if the jabs Christians throw at one another aren’t something similar. If we are laughing at the other kid, the bullies will forget to pick on us and do the same. It’s like we’re so afraid that the culture will notice us, we’ll do anything to make ourselves at least look cooler and more valuable than that Christian standing next to us. Problem is, we ourselves become the bully on the playground.
Whatever happened to “my pastor, or dad, or crazy uncle, or church lady isn’t perfect but God has given me more grace than I deserve so I’m going to do the same?” What happened to the lesson gave us from the cross as he looked down on the very people who put them there and asked God to forgive them because they just didn’t know what they were doing?
Interesting you should mention the hand-raising thing. I’d never seen that done until this past Sunday, and it took a moment to realize what people were doing. Had I not read about it elsewhere, I’d have had to ask… and, other than a break of a few years when I was working Sunday mornings, I’ve been in a variety of churches since nursery age. I still don’t understand that particular reaction; it just seems bizarre. That doesn’t mean there’s anything *wrong* with it, but it would be interesting to know where the custom comes from. (It’s not *just* forgetting yourself or totally spontaneous, or everyone would express that differently instead of being so consistent.)
One thing that really grates on my nerves, though, and I’m not picking on you but just finding a convenient place to mention it, is people saying “Christians do this” when it’s not anything near a universal thing among Christians, or say “the Christian view” as if there were only one view *real* Christians have on the matter, that sort of thing.
Hey, and I totally get the reaction “that’s bizarre, why do you do that?” That’s totally natural. My fear is that a person who already is seeing some of the new things Christians around them do (in any place of fellowship) is that Christians poking fun of those things in a very public forum will confuse them. I don’t expect all Christians to raise their hands, but the practice goes back as far as the old testament. It is mentioned in the Psalms. Heck, David danced half-naked before God in a public place – so crazy and naked in fact that one of his own wives made fun of him for it.
But it’s not the sort of freedom one steps into automatically – or at least, most don’t. In some countries where there is less inhibition, it’s almost an automatic response.
I’m not here to convince people to raise their hands when they’re praying or singing, just wondering why someone would make a joke of people who do. It’s not the kind of thing I could ever imagine Jesus doing.
As for people getting pain off their chest, I think that’s very important. It needs to happen. How that happens requires wisdom. I would hesitate to mention every bad thing a church has ever done to me in a room full of people that have never experienced Jesus’ love. I say I would, but me I do hesitate. I have suffered much at the hands of Christians, just like all of us do. They’re people after all and they aren’t perfect – they’re just as selfish and in need of change as the rest of us. However, I think the focus of the Gospel message – which is good news – becomes blurry when we take our therapy session to the city square. Admitting we’re all sinners and have fallen short of Jesus perfection is part of the road to salvation. Talking about each other sins and complaining about them is less fruitful. I think we will continue to wander around the desert until we get past that funk.
The gospel message is this – I AM NOT JESUS!!! And arent’ you GLAD??? Because I SUCK! But since you know that I SUCK and Jesus still loves me and forgives me and even wants to find a melody in me somewhere, there’s hope for all of us. Because if He can use ME He can use ANYONE!! I mean He even loves that guy over there, my crazy neighbor. Isn’t that AMAZING?? Only God has that much LOVE!
If we stick to that, how can we go wrong? We can overcome all the crap of the world by the word of our testimony – the living Word of God dwelling in this madeover ark of a body that is now just a bus stop between two worlds.
I love Christians. I’m going to spend eternity with them. And they’re the only ones in the world who, in spite of having a million differences from me, can talk about the one thing I love most – Jesus. They are capable of saying “you too?” more than anyone else on the planet. Perhaps if I lifted my glass more to them and said “God bless us, everyone” and spent less time nitpicking at their faults, I could draw out the good fruit that I know we all have the potential of bearing.
I so need to proofread.
Well, we *can* stick to the love of God, but at some point you have to get into details, even though that brings in trouble.
I do know at least one benefit of making certain disagreements public: those on the outside see them anyway. At least, they see one side which is unpalatable and, unless those Christians who disagree are vocal about it, think that’s the only kind of real Christian there is, especially when, as is too often the case, Christians on that side say the same thing.
For example, say someone could accept the Gospels as essentially true in the literal sense, but who thinks taking Genesis as literal would require denying too much plain evidence from too many fields. Which scenario is likely to let more such people come to Christ?
1) They see open disagreement among Christians, with some believing in a literal Adam, Eve, Noah, etc., and others finding the notion as silly as they do themselves, or
2) They are left with the impression that it’s all or none, and they therefore cannot be saved without denying everything they know about astronomy, geology, biology, etc.?
Why do we think that Christians are the only ones who have differences? The world is much less surprised by this than by how Christians respond to these differences. In fact, one of the primary complaints I hear about the church isn’t that it dares to believe (any part of) the Bible, but how Christians talk about one another.
I have rarely met an individual who opened his heart to the invitation of the Holy Spirit only after every theological difficulty he’s struggled with is reconciled. The Holy Spirit is more powerful than any human reasoning at resolving reluctance. It has been my experience that prior to a man’s conversion, although he may excited his interest through reason, He places more effort into wooing his heart. Then, as newly birthed Christians, we move into that deeper theological realm of working out our salvation with fear and trembling and we are now, infilled with the Spirit, incalculably more prepared for it.
I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis’ perspective – written from the character of Screwtape – that even this theological questioning poses far less a threat to the newly converted skeptic than that particular, hell-born mentality which attempts to disenchant him with the church itself. Not the theology of the church, but the people themselves. He (Screwtape) would point out the uneducated grocer sitting one seat over who clearly doesn’t understand the liturgy, puts too much oil in his hair, and sings off key. He would then be sure the new convert recognizes every person in the room with whom he has avoided association, highlighting their flaws – making them ridiculous.
Humility is a far greater struggle for the Christian than theology. Even at the root of most theological debates, humility is the last stronghold. We don’t want to be seen with that guy over there because he’s such a jerk – or because he’s kinda out there. He’s embarrasing. Not to God – to us. We don’t want to admit that crazy Eddie is part of our Christian family. Instead of loving our neighbor as ourselves, we become the kid who wants to be dropped off a block from church so we aren’t seen with our neighbor. Even if we talk to him in public, it will be in a condescending way so that no one would ever suspect that we enjoy or love being with them.
Screwtape, or Hell, loves to cultivate in us a sense of superiority. As Katherine Coble pointed out in an earlier post, Hell would have us “othering” each other all day – Hell would have us say anything but “we.” It will convince us that we are righteous in our eye-for-an-eye criticisms – make us hate and call it true love. It would pervert every good thing that the church is supposed to be – and it often does. Even Paul had to write to the church and tell them to cut the I am of Paul and I am of Apollos crap, reminding them that a rose by another name smells the same.
While I don’t think God’s love is the only thing Christians should ever talk about (you are right about that) it is certainly the motivation which should be behind every thing we say to one another. There is simply no room for arrogance when we talk to other people. We’re supposed to wash their feet. And we’re supposed to do that without talking about how bad their feet smell.
By the way, I have totally been guilty of every single arrogant thing I mentioned above!
This: “It has been my experience that prior to a man’s conversion, although he may excited his interest through reason, He places more effort into wooing his heart.”
is supposed to say: “It has been my experience that prior to a man’s conversion, although the Holy Spirit may excite his interest through reason, He places more effort into wooing his heart. ”
And it did. But I think my laptop ate some of it, because I know I typed it.
Gosh, Melissa, I loved reading your perspective on all this. You said it very well.
Thank you so much Melissa. It is rather interesting that those who employ satire and paint caricatures of evangelicals and Fundies say they do it as a means of healing for victims. Apparently, they don’t care that such an approach may be offensive or hurtful to others. Anyway, I appreciate your perspective.
I suppose the Bible is the real dividing line between “progressives” and evangelicals. The conversation has focused primarily on being hurt by other Christians, and it seems clear that people on both sides have experienced sinful treatment at the hands of those claiming a relationship with Christ.
But how each side views the Bible is different. “Progressives,” it would seem, see the Bible as “moldering parchment” or as outdated and contradictory to a number of fields of study. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God in which He revealed His person, plan, and work in the world.
The first position puts individuals in a position to decide, based on what evidence they have, what is true; the second trusts God to reveal what is true.
The thing that strikes me is this false dichotomy–that a person must either believe the Bible or evidence from other fields of study, as if there are no geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, mathematicians, physicists, philosophers who are students of and believers in the Bible. If some great minds have resolved these issues–and they have–might that not be an indication that a resolution is possible? And if it is possible, doesn’t that undermine the idea that the Bible can’t be trusted in its entirety?
What I am left wondering is how many people who dismiss the Bible have read the Bible. Not parts of it, but the Bible in its entirety. The Old and New Testaments are so intricately woven together, and Jesus Himself quoted so often from the Law and the Prophets, even took the time after His resurrection to explain to His followers how He fulfilled all that was there, that it seems nearly impossible to believe the one without believing the other.
Becky
And here we have it. Falsely claiming that progressives “dismiss” the Bible, see it as “moldering parchment,” etc. That’s exactly why it’s important for those of us who don’t do any such thing, who see no reason that the Bible can’t be God’s Word in a more vital sense without insisting all of it be an accurate tome on prehistory and science as well, have to speak up publicly.
And of course resolution is possible. It’s just that not everyone resolves the apparent conflict the way you do. Which is right? In a sense, it doesn’t matter… but then, I see not only people turned away for not believing in the “right” way, but also people using their beliefs about how the world was made and, perhaps more relevantly, how soon they believe it will end as an excuse to do all manner of environmental harm.
I also despise the abuse the word “evangelical” gets these days. By rights, it ought to include *all* Christians who believe in spreading the Gospel (and which don’t, exactly?) Instead, it seems to be reserved for a subset with a mainly fundamentalist (or at least leaning that way) and attached to a particular political slant. How did that come to be?
Hyhybt, to be clear, I wasn’t saying you consider the Bible “moldering parchment.” I was quoting from another commenter. Here’s the pertinent part of the comment:
Also “dismiss” is your word, not mine. I believe you, as many of my family, consider the Bible to contain truth. It’s just not authoritative. In essence, you reserve the right to decide what parts to believe and what parts to ignore. That creates a difference between “progressives” and “evangelicals.” (I’m with you–I never understood how that label became attached to those of us who believe the Bible is, in total, God’s word. It seems quite far afield from the issues.)
Becky
Actually, “dismiss” *is* your word, from the sentence “What I am left wondering is how many people who dismiss the Bible have read the Bible.”
“In essence, you reserve the right to decide what parts to believe and what parts to ignore.”—“Believe” and “ignore” are not even close to adequate. That’s the same problem over again; that what is not taken as not only valuable in some way, but also historically and scientifically accurate, is ignored or discarded as worthless. That’s not truth: it’s a misrepresentation, and one which I believe does a lot of harm not only between Christians who disagree, but to those who aren’t yet.
For example: I emphatically do not ignore or discard the story of Adam and Eve. It’s important. It shows a part of the essential nature of the relationship between God and creation, especially us, in a way that gets the point across, whereas an account of the nitty gritty of the universe coalescing into stars and planets over billions of years and then life developing on this planet would at best obscure that. I think that if the past were a recording we could rewind and see, the generally accepted scientific account (not “creation science”) would be what we would see… and, therefore, if that were all we had, we’d miss out on deeper truth.
It is incredibly frustrating to have that waved off as merely ignoring parts of the Bible I don’t happen to like.
I stand corrected, Hyhybt.
I meant the part addressed to you to be “outdated and contradictory to a number of fields of study.” It’s apparent from the quote above that some do dismiss the Bible and those are the ones I wonder whether or not they’ve read it.
I’m also aware that some people, you perhaps, don’t ignore parts of the Bible as much as subjugate them to the authority of human resources. All I’m saying is, this divides us, whether someone dismisses, ignores, or subjugates, the Bible is not the authority. For others of us, it is.
This is not a mindless decision, either. We have the same questions you have. But the difference is, we say, God is omniscient, sees the end from the beginning, and knows what we don’t know. Hence, all our findings are suspect and His revelation is not. That I don’t understand or have all my questions answered, doesn’t mean God’s word is wrong or that I won’t have my questions answered as I grow in my understanding.
Becky
Ah, but “subjugate” isn’t right either, and as for “We have the same questions you have. But the difference is, we say, God is omniscient, sees the end from the beginning, and knows what we don’t know,” it is flat out false that that is a point on which we differ.
The disagreement, instead, in that area is over what God’s revelation is intended to reveal and how, and perhaps also in whether the all too human hands it’s passed through have tinted that, including those who wrote it down in the first place or, in some cases, their oral predecessors.
Pick your own word, then, Hyhybt. It’s obvious we don’t look at the Bible in the same way. I’m not trying to be offensive. I’m simply stating that this is actually the great divide.
You say that you believe God is omniscient, knows the end from the beginning, and knows what we don’t know. Do you also believe that He is all powerful and can do what we cannot?
Why, then, is it a stretch to believe that Scriptures are God-breathed as they say they are? Why would it not be possible for His Holy Spirit to superintend the writing, copying, and translation of the Scriptures? If God wants to reveal Himself, is He not strong enough to protect that revelation?
Those of us who believe the Bible is authoritative say, yes, He is strong enough. We have good evidence to believe He did so.
As to what He revealed, He makes that clear through the interweaving of the Old and New Testaments–start to finish. I used the short hand version earlier: the Bible reveals God’s person, plan, and work in the world.
Becky
We do see it differently. To the extent that you mean seeing it differently is a divide, yes, you’re absolutely right.
However, you vastly mischaracterize the side you don’t happen to be on. “Why would it not be possible for His Holy Spirit to superintend the writing, copying, and translation of the Scriptures?” Who said that wouldn’t have been possible? Not I, certainly. Nor anyone I know of who believes in God at all. We disagree that God did in fact choose to do it that way, not *at all* in whether He is powerful enough to have done that if He’d wanted to. Do you, please, see the difference there?
We do see it differently. To the extent that you mean seeing it differently is a divide, yes, you’re absolutely right.
However, you vastly mischaracterize the side you don’t happen to be on. “Why would it not be possible for His Holy Spirit to superintend the writing, copying, and translation of the Scriptures?” Who said that wouldn’t have been possible? Not I, certainly. Nor anyone I know of who believes in God at all. We disagree that God did in fact choose to do it that way, not *at all* in whether He is powerful enough to have done that if He’d wanted to. Do you, please, see the difference there, and why it’s a distinction that matters?
I do see that there’s a difference and I think the difference does matter, but I don’t think it reflects favorably on those who agree with your position, Hyhybt. Essentially you’re saying, God knows all, He is powerful enough. But when He’s said He has revealed Himself, His work, His plan in Scripture, you apparently don’t think He has. You reserve the right to decide what part is from God and what part isn’t. You, therefore, are the authority, not God.
Do you see that distinction?
Becky
I see the distinction you wish to make, but it’s still in the wrong place. “But when He’s said He has revealed Himself, His work, His plans in Scripture, you apparently don’t think He has” is, again, a mischaracterization of my position. That’s not it at all.
I reserve the right to decide what to believe, because we all do that, whether we use a combination of sources for that purpose, take the Bible (or, more accurately, an interpretation of it based on whatever ingoing premises a person has, even for literalists who often deny they do any such thing), or any other method of deciding what to believe. That does not, despite consistent efforts among more conservative Christians to paint it as such, mean placing myself above God as an authority. It means, instead, a difference in what we believe God has said and what He wants of us.
Hyhybt, as I see it, you’re essentially reserving the right to believe what God said or not. For example, in your comment that first brought my attention to your ideas about the Bible, you said in part
But the “silly notion” of Adam and Noah’s existence is reinforced in the Gospel of Luke when both are listed in Jesus’s genealogy. In fact, Jesus Himself used Noah and his times as a point of comparison for His own return:
The point is simple. If Jesus believed Noah, the ark, the flood to be real, why would anyone else discount them?
You seem quite exercised, Hyhybt, every time I’ve mischaracterized your beliefs (and I’m sorry for those–not intentional). You want the truth of what you believe to be known. You’ve been patient in explaining your position. How would you feel if I answered you by saying something like, you might say you believe God is omniscient, but I know you don’t really.
Based on what? you would rightly answer. Based on my reasoning, my belief that your actual words were lost in cyberspace. After all, we know the Internet isn’t perfect. People hack in all the time. In fact, one of your comments had a duplicate, with just a few words added. That’s evidence someone is tampering with your comments. So I know, regardless of what you say, that you don’t believe God is omniscient.
In the same way, God has told us what He wants us to know, and we can either believe it or sift through and pick, choose, and interpret into mischaracterization what He has said.
I don’t expect this little role-playing to sway you, but I believe God has been very clear in His Word, if we take it as a whole and don’t divide it up piecemeal. There is some interpretation on our part because we are fallen, sinful people who can’t see our hands in front of our eyes at times. But for the most part, those of us who believe the Bible is God’s revelation of His person, plan, and work (not a list of do’s and don’ts, not a bunch of fairytales) have more points of agreement than disagreement. We recognize the same authority and rely on the same Holy Spirit who Scripture tells us will lead us into all truth.
Does God love us enough to tell us what we need to know about His person, plan, and work? Is He powerful enough? Then why wouldn’t we believe He did so when He said that’s what He did?
Becky
Moving upthread a step because there’s no “reply” button below…
First, thank you for your patience. I do hope, though, you understand how frustrating it is to be repeatedly told your beliefs are other than what you’ve repeatedly explained them to be. Take that a step further and it should be no wonder some people on this side lash out now and then, which is what the OP is complaining about.
“Hyhybt, as I see it, you’re essentially reserving the right to believe what God said or not.”—Not quite. That would involve agreeing with you on what God has said, and yet not believing it. I reserve the right to disagree with you or any other person about what God’s message *is* within any communication he has sent, and reject the notions that he only speaks through the Bible (as opposed to also speaking through his creation itself and the abilities he gave us to observe, experiment, etc.) and that he necessarily intended every part of the Bible, which after all is an anthology and not a single work, to be taken in the same manner. That is not the same thing as 1) rejecting God’s authority; 2) rejecting his omniscience and/0r omnipotence; 3) rejecting the notion that the Bible is “God’s revelation of His person, plan, and work,” (or, at least, a partial revelation; I don’t think we could take a full one, and certainly God cannot be fully contained within printed pages); or 4) anything else anyone may choose to add to that list that amounts either to disbelief in a perfect, almighty, all-knowing God in three Persons.
“Does God love us enough to tell us what we need to know about His person, plan, and work? “—There’s the key: “what we need to know.” As I explained upthread, the Adam and Eve story tells what we really *need* to know in a way that’s readily accessible regardless of the level of scientific knowledge. It explains our relationship to God and the essence of why it’s broken in a way that people across time will understand, from stone age to space age. The details that fill in that story don’t matter, and the other explanation would actually get in the way of communicating the really important points. (Notice how easily people on both sides of the evolution/creation argument pretend that it’s impossible that God deliberately created us *by* making a universe whose processes would eventually develop us naturally.) By comparison, finding out our ancestors of a billion years or so ago were fish is just satisfying curiosity, even if it can have practical implications in this life.
“We recognize the same authority and rely on the same Holy Spirit who Scripture tells us will lead us into all truth.”—Same here. It does, though, get confusing when many people go to the Holy Spirit with the same questions and seem to get different answers.
Of course, some of that, I’d expect, is that we’re all sometimes unwilling to hear anything but the answer we already have in mind, and other times because the real answer is “it doesn’t really matter” or even “why are you bothering me with this?” For example, I understand that the church I now go to, before I started going, had a surprisingly big argument over whether the new sign out front should be marquee or monument style (and, if I understand rightly, also one a few years before that over what color carpet to lay in the sanctuary… but I’d have to ask to be sure, and haven’t seen any point in doing so). I’d be surprised if nobody on either side prayed over those and was convinced God was firmly on their side, but much more surprised if God really cared one way or the other.
I personally think this should give you abundant understanding about how God feels when He has revealed Himself in nature, physically to Israel, through the prophets, in His Son, and by Scripture to have people mis-characterize what He’s revealed.
Which brings up the point that I do, in fact, believe God has revealed Himself in what He created. (After all, He told us in the Bible He did so 😉 ) and in “the abilities he gave us to observe, experiment, etc.” The difference in my view, however, is that these things don’t superintend Scripture: Scripture superintends them.
Consequently, Scripture tells me that iron floated, the sun stopped still, and Jesus rose from the dead. Science says none of that is possible. So, do I believe Scripture or science? Because I know God’s word to be authoritative, I believe science has not taken into consideration the power of God in making pronouncements that would disprove the miracles the Bible records. It’s that simple. It’s not that science is wrong; it’s incomplete.
I also agree with you that God did not intend for each part of the Bible to be understood in the same way as other parts of the Bible. In my little corner of evangelicalism there’s a popular saying going around: we don’t understand the Bible literally but literarily.
At the same time, the Bible interprets the Bible. Hence, when Jesus references Noah and Paul compares Christ to Adam, when both Noah and Adam appear in the genealogy of Jesus, it’s not hard to conclude that Jesus, Paul, and Luke all believed Noah and Adam to be real people, that what Genesis records about them actually happened. And so throughout Scripture. It’s why I made a point in my first general comment about the need to read the entire Bible, not just certain portions.
My point is, this approach lets the Bible be the authority, telling us how to read and interpret different genres. The Law of Moses, then, is clearly not the law by which the Church is to live today. Why? Because Jesus said He fulfilled the law; the epistles tell us Jesus is the sacrifice once for all. That He was the unblemished and spotless lamb. So we don’t have to be out there slaughtering bulls and goats to find forgiveness with God.
I also agree with you that what God revealed in His word worked for the “stone age” as well as for us today. However, when you say “the details that fill in that story don’t matter,” I have to disagree. If God put in the details, then why would we change them or ignore them or even say that they don’t matter? That’s no different from me rewording your comments so that they say something similar to what you mean, but missing the point in some meaningful way. This is troublesome to you, rightfully so. Why is it so hard to think God would be troubled by the very same thing?
Your closing remarks make me think you have an issue with creation, not just the existence of Adam. The creation/evolution issue is another Big Topic, and we probably don’t need to open up the whole package here, but I want to be clear about something: I think there are a good number of evangelicals who do take the Genesis account literally. So, because their English Bible translated a word as “day,” they believe that meant 24 hours, never mind that the sun hadn’t been created so as yet there was no way of measuring hours. You can probably tell, I’m not one who holds that view. Actually, I don’t rule it out, either.
Because I believe in an omnipotent God, who revealed His creation of the world, I do not ascribe to any kind of accidental coming together of substances that initiated the universe. Besides being an incredible contradiction to much we know about science and probability, it violates what God said. However, He didn’t tell us the particulars of what happened after He said, Let there be … Was it instantaneous? I’d believe that because an omnipotent God could bring about the entire universe fully formed in an instant, if He so chose. Did it take 24 hours? If He chose to do a kind of time-elapse creation, it’s possible. Did it take an unspecified “time” (the way the original word is translated elsewhere)? Another possibility which would favor the slow development of particular parts of creation. I could go on, but you see the point, I’m sure.
I bring up all that to say, all evangelicals don’t agree with the particulars of creation. But we do believe God created. It’s an important point because the Bible is the authority, God’s self-revelation. And certainly, over and over throughout the rest of the Bible, His work as Creator comes up again and again. So the self-interpretation of Scripture on this point is clear.
Becky
Ah, I see there’s a second note.
I see what you mean. The thing is, in believing the Bible to be authoritative, it reduces a lot of the “different answers” as possibles. If someone claims the Holy Spirit told them to rip off their neighbor’s car, that would be pretty easy for a Bible-believing Christian to say, No, He didn’t–whoever you thought you heard from, it wasn’t the Holy Spirit because He doesn’t contradict God’s revealed word.
I think God does care about what we do, but in ways that might surprise us. For example, in the illustration from your church, there may have been a reason God wanted one sign over the other–to provide a job for someone or because one sign would be more noticeable to a person God wanted to attend the church–any number of possibilities. But for the people praying and discussing, the key is to do so in ways consistent with Scripture. The main point, of course, would be to be “harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit.” Those things, God cares about deeply. How do we know? Straight from Scripture, baby! 😉 So the “what” might not seem to matter to us, but the “how” ought always to matter.
Becky
Some of this is just discussion, while some of it is simply condemning the same tactics young evangelicals use on those they disagree with, minus the language (usually).
The big key is this. Most of those on the Christian left come FROM evangelical backgrounds (as do many neo-atheists). Their discovery of fallacies in doctrine, abandonment of rationality in scientific discourse, and hypocrisy in those they idolized often leads to TOTAL abandonment and resentment of everything. (Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Thankfully, there are many thinkers out there who have come through or bypassed this pitfall, and they are offering alternatives to blatant atheism and agnostic thought via a path to a strongly Christological theology and reasoned debate over issues of the divine.
From my perspective as a former right wing Christian, the evangelical church of today should carefully evaluate WHY they are losing these young people and why the rejection is so thorough. (Actual metrics might help, so look up the Barna Group’s data on the relationships between evangelicals and youth, as well as the Gallup data). Then, quit blaming and pointing fingers, and find a quiet corner to fix it before it is too late.
Interesting article and pretty accurate description of the “Anti Evangelical Hate Machines”. While I do not agree with all of your doctrinal postitions, I do believe you offered a fair and balanced assessment of these groups agendas and beliefs. It certainly got the attention of the ultra-liberal, “anti-fundy” Darrell over at the Stuff Fundies Like forum [I have been banned from that forum three different times for stating what “fundies” actually do like, I mean, who better to find out from about what fundies really like than from a fundy! But objectivity is not their strong suit].
And of course you riled up the occult mind and spell-checker-onlyism of Jeri Massi who blamed your website on me in response to Darrel’s rant about your article http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6034
(I run the Do Right Christians website which documents the occultism of the Do Right Hyles Anderson FB group, and the false gospel and occultism promoted by Jeri Massi which you can find here http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/jeri-massis-false-gospel/ and here http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/trisha-fundamental-revolution-occult/
With your permission I would like to post this article on our website.
So… From an outsider looking in, this all seems very unhealthy and messed up, both the Hammond Baptist Church (and churches like it) and those who are knee-jerking to the opposite spectrum because past abuses, which I believe probably have merit, though there is no way for me to confirm it. However, the answer need not be moving to the far left, nor does the answer have to be a lifetime spent fighting the abuses of unhealthy churches. A better answer (in my opinion) is spending time with *healthy* Christians who do in fact believe in the “fundamentals” of the faith, but use them to point wounded people to freedom rather than using them to inflict wounds (this is satans way of twisting scripture that people remain in spiritual chains.) Veering too far to the right or to the left leads you off the narrow way, which is contrary to Jesus’ purpose.
Like I said, I’m speaking as an outsider. As an outsider, the links in Mike’s post and the counter links in the above comment clearly say “dysfunction” to me. Christ’s yoke is easy and light…none of this is easy and light…it’s *dysfunctional*.
And for the record, the KJV Bible is confusing, it is written in a style of English that is not used today. There is nothing in the Bible stating that the form of English in the KJV is the holiest of holies. Believers have to use discernment, which I think comes from studying various translations, and for absolute clarity requires learning Hebrew and Greek (but how many of us have time to do that).
Sunday at church, I had my iPhone out and as the pastor made scripture references I looked at fifteen or so different translations side-by-side…there are sites that allow you to do this, and it is enlightening. One thing it showed me is that KJV is confusing for the modern reader, however, the reading of the various translations side-by-side highlights both its strengths and weakness.
Bottom line, Christianity can be and *ought* to be freeing WITHOUT having to ditch the fundamentals of the faith (please do not get caught up on that “f” word, it’s not bad in itself) and if it’s not, or if you have to twist, strip and bastardize scripture to make it so, something is wrong with your church or fellowship of believers. Keep seeking.
I think Mike may have accidently stirred up a pot unintentionally, but I can’t speak for him. I can say he is *not* a fundamentalist or far right wacko. His views on the Bible and life are very balanced, otherwise, I would not keep coming back here.
Even “fundamentals of faith” is tricky, because we don’t all agree on what is and is not fundamental. The Apostles’ Creed seems like a good starting point for that, but even there, some think it says too much and some too little.
I agree it is tricky, and I’m no scholar in the matter, but based on my observations, the Christian belief system falls apart when there is no parallel belief in the devil/hell/evil, and when there is a belief that all go to heaven regardless of whether one has consciously accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (universalism). If there is no such thing as satan/hell and if Jesus is only “one way among many” what’s the point? Why bother calling oneself a Christian when there are many other religions/beliefs you can adopt that will grant you the same perks,but don’t require associating with that wrathful God of the Old Testament.
Thank you; if those are what you consider the fundamentals, we have much in common. Others would put in quite a bit more.
ARE conservative Christians ‘losing young people’ to the same extent liberal Christians are? Most liberal churches I know of are old people’s clubs. And no one point of view has a monopoly on reason. Many of us have used reason to discover the fallacies behind liberal Christianity and other liberal-friendly faiths/nonfaiths.
I was wondering the same thing, Nissa. And good point about no monopoly on reason.
Becky
Wow. To quote Han Solo: “I’m out of a it for a little while…”
Quite the…hm…lively discussion going on over here. I’ve had an emotional journey reading over these 200 some-odd remarks, going from initially agreeing to Mike’s post, to considering the opposition, to being angry at both sides, to being disgusted by the hatefulness I see among the “brethren”, to shaking my head in defeated laughter at how insane we all are, to now a place of peace. I wish I had some snarky comeback or some awesome “Ha! Take that, you who disagree with me!” But I just don’t. Instead, I do have one of my favorite passages from the Bible, which sums it all up for me.
Joshua 5:13-15 (NAS)–Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” He said, “No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the Lord.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?” The captain of the Lord’s host said to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
Yep. I think that’s all I’ve got to say on the whole thing.
In the interest of full disclosure, I came to this article via a link from “Christian Nightmares” and it’s my first time reading anything here (I am also a “non-believer”, if you hadn’t already guessed.) While the discussion has been reasoned and thought-provoking, I have to agree with what at least some of the commenters have said, which is that the premise of the article is a huge over-reaction to blogs that are either satirical or generally sympathetic to believers. Calling it a “hate machine” is ridiculous, especially comparing these sites to the some of the stuff that is really are out there on the internet. Even the Shore article (which I only went back to read after I realized Mr. Duran might not have been fair to it) seems to have been stripped of any context here.
That said, I’m glad I found this site, and I’m interested in reading more. It’s only recently that I’ve realized there even are these sort of intelligent and sincere discussions of (and disagreements about) faith in the Christian community as opposed to all the stuff I hear on the radio and learn about from the “Hate Machine” 😉
Jimbo, I prefaced this piece with a warning, albeit tongue in cheek, that this post contains sarcasm, etc. So I’m not a little surprised at how many commenters feel compelled to defend the satire used on these other sites, while slamming mine. Obviously, the Hate Machine is a parody of something I see, a “movement” of ex-evangelicals or ex-fundies who build an apologetic around snark and ridicule. As I’ve said here, when they claim to be so loving and tolerant, I find this terribly hypocritical. Anyway, glad you found the site. Hope to talk to you some more!
Mr. Duran — I was sent a link to your blog and, I have to be honest, 99% of the time I don’t follow the links I’m sent – let alone actually read them…
But not this time. I want to thank you for writing the “Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine” – so glad there’s someone else out there that finds this stuff more disturbing than funny.
And it’s amazing to watch how these disaffected, professing Christians will ally themselves with some of the most verbally vile people (many non-Christian/former-Christians or professing atheists) while at the same time mercilessly criticizing those who simply choose to live a little more conservatively than they “The Disaffected” do.
It’s a one-way tolerance they espouse and a narrow mindedness seldom seen in all of Christianity.
Actually most of us are more interested in showing and encouraging the study of Jesus’ words and follow his example. Which generally excludes hate. However, when we see children holding signs explaining how much God and Jesus hate gays and others that believe differently than their parents, it brings out the anger in us. If there were less hate thrown at us our responses would be less extreme.
You are using the actions of ONE single church as evidence that ALL evangelical Christians are like this? Oh my goodness.
This article is an excellent showcase of the hypocrisy of evangelicals, not of anti-evangelicals. Calling out the intolerance and hating bigotry doesn’t make you a bigot, but many evangelicals are so precious about their beliefs that anyone criticizing them using strong language is part of some “hate machine.”
Let’s be clear about this. Strongly opposing intolerance doesn’t make you intolerant. Warning that people who believe that all other beliefs aside from theirs are fighting for a world with little tolerance of those beliefs doesn’t make you a fear monger. I think calling people “morons” is lazy and inarticulate, but anti-evangelicals are not fighting for a world that doesn’t allow evangelicals to preach and believe whatever they want to. The converse, however, is true.
“even though they decry hatred, bigotry, judgmentalism, and mean-spiritedness, religious progressives feel they are justified in loathing evangelicals.”
Oh look, a victimiser playing the victim card.
How (yawn) interesting.
I grew up in the independent fundamentalist movement. My father was a preacher as was my oldest brother. I attended christian school and then an IFB Christian college for two years. I have heard more hatred come from the pulpits of conservative christian churches than I have heard from all other sources combined in my entire life. The fact that these preachers don’t use curse words (in public at least), doesn’t detract from the angry, nasty attacks they make against anyone that they disagree with. Yes that is a broad generalization, but I spent 30 years in the IFB and then Southern Baptist Churches and it is pervasive. I’m sorry but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the poor evangelicals who are being attacked by progressive Christians. When Conservative Christians clean up their own house, then maybe I can take this article seriously!
Jon Weaver, in criticizing the Baptists and “poor evangelicals” says “I’m sorry but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the poor evangelicals who are being ATTACKED by progressive Christians.” (emphasis added). First of all, I don’t see the attacks coming from Progressives as a whole, the ones who THINK they are progressives make up a small minority.
Secondly, you have “no sympathy” for the evangelicals, Baptists, conservative Christians (all 3 totally different groups although your ire seems to be directed at mainly IFB because “conservative Christians” would also include Progressives) and apparently welcome the attacks on them, but condemn those (what you call) attacks from the conservatives. Then that brings up 2 issues: 1) The “progressives” or let’s just correct this now, ANYONE that is justifying their attacks is doing so because they disagree with the 3 groups you listed, so what’s the difference in one group “attacking” based on disagreements, from the other attacking for the same reasons? 2) If it is OK anyone to attack the conservatives, evangalicals, IFB, then how can you be mad at them if that’s what they are doing?
There is no doubt, room for “house cleaning” in the IFB, and many are taking the appropriate steps, but the way you constructed that comment was probably not the best way you could have put it.
You say “because “conservative Christians” would also include Progressives”. I bet a lot of progressive Christians would be surprised to hear that. I won’t waste my time on the rest of your diatribe. You are proof positive of how IFB Christians attack anything they disagree with. Anyone who wants to see what I mean, just do an internet search for his name. By the way shouldn’t you be out witnessing or something. There are billions of lost souls that need to be saved. Better get busy!
Quote from Wikipedia under Progressive Christianity
“Differences between Progressive Christianity and Conservative Christianity
Holding to the ideals of progressive Christianity sets the movement apart from other forms of traditional Christianity. Many, if not most, progressive Christians believe that the Bible is not the literal word of God. While all progressive Christians recognize Jesus Christ, some view him not as the only way to God, but one of many ways, continuing the Christian modernist paradigm. Inclusiveness and acceptance is the basic posture of progressive Christianity.Progressive Christians tend to focus on issues of social justice, rather than proselytizing efforts to convert others, as conservatives and mainstream Evangelicals tend to emphasize.
Another key difference is that evangelical churches tend to have focussed on church growth, while progressive churches have not.”
Progressives may not be AS conservative, but you lumped in 3 other separate groups with no distinctions, and there are many progressives who are conservative. Since you made no distinction between Evangelicals, Conservative Christianity, and the IFB, it was only proper to point at that there are progressives who are conservative since you appear to have spoken for them all.
And of course, since I would be labeled as a dissenter no matter what (as if we don’t have the right to disagree about ANYTHING) I will say that progressiveism is a glorified version of communism, universalism, socialism and Christian syncretism.
And you apparently are blind to your hypocrisy. You use the very same language that you condemn in conservatives: “I believe in tolerance as long as you agree with me”. What you and most progressives don’t get is that 2 opposing views can not be equally right at the same time, it’s called the law of non-contradiction: somebody is wrong. Yet in your accusation that I think I am always right, you use the same logic to attempt to invalidate my argument. It’s a self-defeating concept. The major difference in a fundamentalist, at least for me, is that I establish that truth is absolute, and not only is it absolute, it is knowable, and if things that are different can not be the same, then it would behoove me to find out what the truth is. A progressive does not attempt to define truth, and denounces that there is absolute truth, but in the process, poses an absolute truth: that there is no absolute truth. Again, a self-defeating concept. Fundamentalists believe that the Bible reveals the truth about God, and that within the Bible is the foundation of understanding and knowing absolute truth, so it is not us disagreeing with everything you say, it is your word against God’s.
I minister to counter culture people and I catch it from Fundamentalists and Progressives. Every time God moves me with these people I catch it.
last summer we had a Goth tea party and bible study at the local Cemetery. We shared food and the gospel and had a great time.
The Fundamentalist said ” you should have been protesting this! why didn’t you stop this abomination? YOU PERVERT. YOU RAPPED THE DEAD! ONLY PERVERTS WORSHIP AND SHARE GOD’S WORD IN CEMETERY!
The Progressive ” you insulted them. you are a fake Goth and should be kicked out of church.
Me “Really Fundamentalist Brother read the history of the early church Cemeteries. People used them for such things for years. Progressive Brother they came to check out what our Sunday celebration is like. So where is the problem.
Last November I was at a Game convention I ran some D&D, Played some D&D and we handed out a booklet called Jesus for the Win. This is the Gospel of John with commentary by gamers for gamers.
My small group meets at a coffee shop instead of the Church house.
Guess which group is known for introducing people to Jesus.
I had the same reheated arguments from both sides to these things as well.
I am asked why I am evangelical. the answer is simple in 1979 some people took the time to share Christ with me.
This summer my church family will host a one day game convention, on a sun day no less. I wonder what both sides will say to that?
If I didnt get the living shit beaten out of me and constantly get my life threatened by evangelical ‘Christians’ in junior high for being gay, I’d probably like evangelicals. When assaulting people who are different is a trained political tool for evangelical youth, then the rest of society will grow up to hate them. As a Christian minister, I can rightfully say that evangelicalism is a southern disgrace to both Christianity and America. Hate should never be tolerated towards evamgelicals , but I’m sure there are several eastern Europeans who hate communism because they were trained to hate it. In a similar, albeit lesser way, evangelicals train the rest of society to hate them.
If I didnt get the living shit beaten out of me and constantly get my life threatened by evangelical ‘Christians’ in junior high for being gay, I’d probably like evangelicals. When assaulting people who are different is a trained political tool for evangelical youth, then the rest of society will grow up to hate them. As a Christian minister, I can rightfully say that evangelicalism is a southern disgrace to both Christianity and America. Hate should never be tolerated toward evangelicals , but I’m sure there are several eastern Europeans who hate communism because they were trained to hate it. In a similar, albeit lesser way, evangelicals train the rest of society to hate them.
Mike,
Here is a unique view from an ex fundy:
I am a former fundamentalist Christian pastor who left Christianity . . .
In spite of this fact, my son also became a fundamentalist Christian pastor.
Now, he and all his family think I am headed for Hell. This is my response to him.
*My Son Thinks I’m Going To Hell
Dear Son,
Your faith is important to you.
My beliefs are important to me.
We pray to the same God every day.
For me, He is the Caring Creator
Who cares about my well-being.
To you, He is the fearful God
Who demands obedience.
I believe Jesus was a spiritual man but not God.
I believe Jesus said some great words of wisdom
And I am sorry he had to die on the cross.
You believe Jesus died for the sins of man
And his salvation is a gift from God.
I do not believe this,
But let’s suppose I did.
Didn’t you say salvation was a gift?
If it is a gift, why do I need to do anything?
You say I am going to hell unless . . .
You even give me the words I should say —
“Jesus, forgive my sins.”
Do people go to hell for not saying these words?
What if I wait until just before dying and then ask?
What if I meant to ask Him for years but didn’t?
You say, “Too late — you missed your chance!”
This is God we are talking about isn’t it?
Is God limited by time or death?
On the other hand, if salvation is a “gift,”
Do I really need to ask Him for forgiveness?
The Bible says God freely gives this gift.
Where did all these attached strings come from?
Why conditions on God’s unconditional love?
New converts are told their Christian duties.
Tithing is one — not too bad — it is do-able —
Unless you are unemployed or on minimum wage.
But the heaviest of all these burdens is . . .
People go to hell unless we show them Jesus.
So their salvation is in our hands . . .
I thought salvation was a gift.
Why is this huge ugly rope attached to this gift?
Am I responsible for my neighbor’s salvation?
Why am I involved with another man’s salvation?
Why does God need me?
Suppose I want to play golf on a nice day,
But my neighbor dies and goes to hell . . .
And it is my fault . . .
Because I did not tell him about Jesus.
Please don’t tell me
God is so awful and demanding.
Why am I involved in someone’s eternal choice?
I thought God loved me and my neighbor.
Because of His heavy guilt trip,
I can’t even play golf without God on my back.
I cannot believe God dearly loves me . . .
But loads me down with guilt trips
About darn near everything I do.
If I truly am a child of God,
Why do I have to be afraid of Him?
Why can’t I enjoy God
And let Him fix the world?
I thought that was His job.
Scripture says God is with us always . . .
If so, “Come on God, let’s go play some golf.”
*****
What is a “free” gift?
Aren’t all gifts free?
*****
This is a fun post to come back to in light of the current election.
What a stupid article by a stupid person. So we cannot hate the KKK because then that makes us like the KKK? Is morality now subjective? These lunatic evangelicals promote hate and exclusion. That is FACT. Jesus would be ashamed of them and show them the path to Hell. Where they all belong.