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.
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.