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 think one of the key weaknesses of the progressive movement is that it is a reactionary movement. Like Scot McKnight has said about the Emergents, they’re very good at pointing out problems, but they offer few solutions other than “go on a mission trip and serve food to the homeless.” The problem is those are short-term solutions. You don’t catch a fish for a man to eat, you teach the man how to fish himself. That’s love. Missionaries go out with acts of love that are only the precursor to the main event, which is salvation. Why? Because the Holy Spirit changes on a more permanent scale.
I don’t doubt for a second many progressives have been hurt by Evangelicalism (traditionalism, fundamentalism, whatever you want to call it). But we’ve all been hurt by other Christians. And if we’re being really honest, we’ve hurt other Christians. You have to move beyond that at some point. And that’s the crux: progressives are the teenage children to Evangelicalism’s parents. They bemoan, ridicule and criticize their outdated parents who just don’t get it. But they lack perspective. Most children grow older and have their own children, and with that comes understanding. They still may not agree with their parents, but they have a better grasp of the bigger picture. That’s what’s frustrating about so many progressive blogs/websites. There’s no empathy, no attempt to understand. Only rocks thrown carelessly, fueled by bitterness from past wounds. The father in the story welcomed the prodigal son home, but he also sought out the legalistic older brother.
Hi Bobby,
I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with your take on Progressivism, whether political or religious. It’s not simply reactionary, it has a different vision of what should be in this world. Your characterization of Progressives offering only short-term “give a man a fish” solutions is an inaccurate caricature. That’s the same dog-whistle that political conservatives hurl at Progressives…that they only want to hand out help, not create long-term solutions.
Having been involved in homeless ministry for many years, I know first-hand that Progressives are just as interested in giving people a sustainable future as good-hearted conservatives, if not more so.
And, although many Progressives came to that view after being hurt by evangelicalism, I’m not one of them – and I know many others who weren’t either. I was raised in a conservative evangelical household, but came to a Progressive perspective because, after much prayer and thought, I came to see that the priorities of my faith were more in line with that view.
Alas, your characterization of Progressives as “the teenage children to Evangelicalism’s parents” is not only inaccurate, but belittling. It’s just that kind of commentary that we, in Christ’s love, need to avoid. I don’t know which “progressive blogs/websites” you’re reading, but you’re obviously not reading the ones I do, as I’ve seen countless examples of empathy and efforts to understand the motives of conservative Christians.
All of this to say, neither side has a corner on the human tendency to belittle those who disagree. But Christ would have us do better.
If it’s just matters of social justice, there’s a lot less pushback on that than you think. Scratch an evangelical, and you might find someone involved in prison ministry. Scratch a traditional Catholic and you might find he is a Distributist. Increasingly though, Christian progressives are going beyond that to recommend an overhaul of the faith in line with interest group politics. Most people’s encounter with progressives is often seeing them sanction gay marriage in their churches, talk from the pulpit about trendy issues like Palestinian problems or Obamacare, or just slam fundamentalists in general. They talk from their class, and that’s what the modern, knowledge-economy, city-dwelling liberal believes.
That’s what gets a lot of us conservatives. Yeah, evangelicals do have issues with being co-opted by the republican party, but your average christian progressive is lockstep with progressive politics to the point of being willing to throw out biblical authority and teaching in favor of their ideals. A lot of conservatives and fundamentalists realize that in the long run, this is fatal, and see it in the inability for those same progressive churches to retain people or act as a force in themselves. Or even the individual pundits to retain their faith.
You guys need to keep to the old social gospel, but avoid being devoured by modern social liberalism, and it’s not going to be easy for you. It’s not something a lot of us conservatives are gleeful about, any more than the theological liberalism that forced the birth of fundamentalism as a movement to begin with.
You’ve made my point for me…let’s not generalize. I have many evangelical friends (I sometimes even still call myself one!), and they are involved in social justice for the cause of the Lord.
However, your characterization of Christian progressives is overly general! I’m not lin lockstep with any political party, and never will be. I’d rather use the brain God gave me to think rather than rely on politicians for my religious opinions or pastors for my political opinions.
Believe me, I know all about the Social Gospel (I’m a historian in real life), and yes, we all have our contradictions and cognitive dissonances to deal with. Lord knows there are plenty on both sides. That’s precisely why I value the friendships I have with those who disagree with me!
This is simply going to become a discussion of “the people I’ve seen” versus “the people you’ve seen.” Admittedly, that’s what half these comments boil down to anyway. In perhaps a pointless attempt to clarify the missions/homeless comment, I refer mostly to those who advocate (or lean, or hint, or favor, or whatever) the idea of simply serving others while not stressing the spiritual nature of things. That last bit is often (again, from “the people I’ve seen”) viewed as imperialistic and superior-minded Americans or Christians pushing their belief/worldviews on others.
I don’t doubt for a second there are progressives who are empathetic. One of my two favorite bloggers is a progressive who has boatloads more empathy than the conservative fools who hate on her. As you’ve said, the point is never to suggest that one side has the one-up on being better/more righteous/holier, etc. That doesn’t change the fact that what I’ve seen from many progressives does not fit with your description.
“Christ would have us do better?” You do know Jesus called people vipers, hypocrites and white-washed tombs. Those are very strong terms and he said those to their faces. I have come up with an illustration to explain my opinion, and it is open to debate, as you have taken the time to do.
Sure…and that’s the point. Sweeping generalizaitons get us nowhere. But yes, Christ would have us do better, exactly because people are vipers and hypocrites! He calls us not to be that.
Warning: Generalities abound…
It appears there are many on the left who feel compelled to point out some of the wackiness and inconsistency of those on the right. Predictably, some on the right then want to point out the harsh and seemingly unfair lumping together of all conservative believers into one wacky, inconsistent glob. That’s all fine…until it devolves into name-calling and everyone trying to prove how right they are. That rarely ends well.
I’m convinced most any objective, non-believing observer would decide we’re all nuts.
Generally speaking, the more right-leaning folks seem to value being correct, consistent, and above moral reproach. Left-leaners place a premium on being smart, entertaining, hip, and cool. These (admittedly oversimplified) distinctions help perpetuate the whole progressive/regressive dichotomy. And there’s a pretty good chance it’s a complete waste of time and energy.
Unfortunately, the Internet aids and abets both sides in their attempt to “curate” the aforementioned wackiness and/or inconsistencies. To me, however, curating irony, satire, and snarkiness eventually becomes an exercise in polishing turds. Taking potshots and unmasking ignorance is not terribly difficult. It can be entertaining, I suppose, but always at someone else’s expense. And eventually, what goes around….
Somewhere out there in that nebulous, fabled middle ground is an actual solid rock upon which we should all aspire to stand. But instead of sending up flairs and helping fellow believers swim to shore, we seem to be content to put theological rocks in each other’s pockets.
And for the record, I’m as guilty as everybody else.
Peace (seriously…)
Oops…those would be “flares,” not colorful boas or boistrous wrestlers named Rick.
I know you warned about generalities in your post, but “Left-leaners place a premium on being smart, entertaining, hip, and cool”??? Really??? This is not a generality, but a belittling mischaracterization. I submit that you really do not know what motivates “Left-leaners”.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for what motivates me. Christ’s love, justice, and mercy. I couldn’t care less about being “entertaining, hip, and cool”. My views are certainly not seen that way by many of my friends who lean to the Right. Pray and do as God guides your conscience. If we all did that, this thread would be unnecessary.
“Pray and do as God guides your conscience.” Spot on, very solid advice.
My characterizations of both right/left leaners were meant to be viewed through the eyes of the fictional non-believing observer I mentioned. Neither of those portrayals are necessarily fair nor accurate, and certainly not complete! Notice I didn’t say that Occupy Christianity (or any other specific comment-makers) are consumed with being entertaining, hip, or cool! So no offense intended, seriously.
But that’s the problem with this type of discourse, all the stereotyping and pigeon-holing and name-calling. The gist of my comment was essentially a warning against those kinds of things.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for clarifying…it looks like I didn’t read closely enough, and for that I apologize! I’m not above rushing to judgment or painting folks with a broad brush either! As Paul said, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” Don’t we all…
No worries. And certainly no need to apologize!
These discussions remind me of growing up in Virginia. Every time I ventured south, I was accused of being a Northerner. And when I headed north, I was then accused of being a Southerner. I was just trying to survive 3rd grade.
As well, when people ask if we refer to our brown-skinned son as “African American” or “black,” I like to smile and tell them, “We usually call him Isaac.”
Most of the commentors here are children of God. Unfortunately, we sometimes fight like children.
The fact that Mr. Duran doesn’t appreciate Stuff Christian Culture Likes tells me I’m doing something right.
I honestly do not understand why you are so worried about what Mike thinks of your activities.
Maybe you don’t understand because I’m glad and not worried?
Sniping with petty little comments that don’t engage or respond, but just say you’re glad someone was worried enough to publicly call you out on something, because it means you’re “doing something right.”
No, that doesn’t smack of childishness at all.
I don’t see why you think I’m childish just because I only eat mac and cheese and willfully pee when I don’t get my way.
I used to be a Fundy. And the problem is, most of the citations in your blog post – are RIGHT!
I know it hurts… but it’s the truth. Since the shoe fits, go ahead, put it on, wear it!
Wow.
It’s taken me all morning in between patients to catch up with all of this. It seems to me that Mike was trying to give some folks a taste of their own medicine, and without a spoonful of sugar it didn’t go down all that well.
As entertaining as it was at times, ultimately the whole thing boils down to being discouraging. There were good points by both sides, but an excess of snark on both sides really dampened any positive. I’ll give a shout out to Amanda Colbik and her exchange with Mike as a great example of clarifying and getting to a good place in their conversation.
So we can all agree that Fundies have hurt people and Progressives can give the hurt right back? Good. That’s called being human.
What does the Bible call us? His children. How should we act? Even though Jesus’s proclamation to love God and love our neighbor sums up the gospel, it is a short, pithy statement that is easily learned and repeated but is still a summation. It is a glorious statement, but it is still limited because it is summing up. The Bible has a lot more to go on.
Last year I did an in-depth study of the pastoral letters. I was struck by two things – the emphasis Paul put on the importance of right doctrine and the need to discuss it in love and grace. Doctrine and belief is important! It drives what we do, and Paul tells us to hold fast to right doctrine. Yes, we have a ton of debate on particulars, but we are told to wrestle with doctrine and try to get it right – even if that idea isn’t popular in some circles right now.
Yet in the same letters Paul says to avoid quarrelsome speech. It is a repeated idea, and under the guidance of good hermaneutic principles, a repeated idea is important and needs further investigation. I decided that it is important to try and find right doctrine, but we need to speak and discuss with the grace that our brothers and sisters deserve.
I’m closer to Mike in belief. I’d consider myself conservative and evangelical, but I’ve been hurt by evangelicalism and have dealt with toxic issues there. Still, I hold to the fundamentals of the faith because I believe God gave us His word for a reason and all Scripture is valuable for teaching, correcting, and building up. I also recognize the need for mercy and justice that the evangelical church has often overlooked for a long time (and is starting to really wake up to if people are noticing).
I’ve had the chance to hang out with Mike and I know he is full of grace. But he’s also interested in truth and wrestling with that, and he’s not afraid to play the provocateur. I’m by nature a peace maker, so I hope my comments can help bring a measure of that to this intriguing but at times disheartening exchange.
Thank you for taking the time to write the comment we all needed to hear, Jason. This is truth. This is grace. This is love.
Jesus, you are our everything—and we worship you.
What a terrific comment, Jason. You summed it beautifully.
Whoa. Bit of a dust-up. Figured it would be – no way to waltz through this minefield.
After reading the N.T., I’d say Jesus was pretty intolerant. Funny how non-believers pick up on that before believers are willing admit to it.
As much as Christianity falls down, it’s Jesus we have to answer to.
People aren’t going to Hell because they reject me, my group-think, some denomination’s theology, or they’ve committed a particular socially unacceptable act.
Each of us answers to our Creator alone. Our motives, secrets, lies, alibis, courage and compassion will all be revealed. The issue will be how to answer for our sins once we’re there.
With excuses? Victim mentality? Try to balance them with good deeds, rituals, good intentions?
The line between good and evil is drawn through everyone’s heart, and it’s not an equation where variables cancel each other out. What’s done, good or bad, can’t be undone.
My understanding is that God in Jesus allowed Himself to be executed to pay for all our sins, and grants forgiveness if we agree to turn away from them and turn back to Him. To guarantee that offer, He came back to life after three days.
Call that exclusive, narrow-minded, intolerant… whatever. I think it’s completely unique. And uniquely complete.
I encountered Jesus twenty-seven years ago and decided to trust Him. To put my faith in His offer. Strangely enough, it works after all these years. Ignorant, intrusive, dip shit, asshole that I am.
so funny that a blog calling out people about hating has incited so much…hate. from both sides.
Guys, Mike’s a good guy who is trying to make a point about how sometimes we don’t think about what we say, and how we say it. He points out that it’s rare for the usage of name calling and derision to create a space for encouraging rebuke. Sure some of that same derision seems to be in his own post. When drawing a line we can’t help but make it painfully obvious which side we’re on. And some of his frustrations with certain sites or quotes are things that don’t bother me at all. But the heart of his post is true. The internet makes it far too easy to not consider how we’re saying something.
So that’s what I’m gonna take from it, even if I disagree with some of the points.
Fair enough. Can we all agree that calling each other names and other hateful acts aren’t what Christ had in mind? I can be and am friends with many fundies, and value those friendships even when I don’t agree with them. Unfortunately, most fundies I’ve come across aren’t so reciprocating, and don’t want an open exchange of thought. I know, I know…many progressives are the same way. So, let’s just cease all of the hate and agree to disagree, OK?
He’s so transparent it’s not even funny. This is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, much much worse. To see what really goes on in the “hearts” of some of these people watch “Koch Brothers Exposed.” Watch “When Mitt romney came to Town” Watch “The Inside Job.” There are so many more. But no, they’re not going to educate themselves are they, because they don’t even realize they need it. They’ve propagandized themselves into complete oblivion.
Gee, somebody’s feelings are hurt. So.. does anybody else think this article exaggerates a wee bit, protesteth too much? Jesus himself called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, and worse. I guess that’s the way it is when you’ve put up with hatred and judgmentalness till you’re up to your eyeballs sick of it. Fundies have driven untold numbers of people AWAY from the church. So you’ll have to forgive the Christian progressives for over-correcting at times after putting up with 30 or 40 years of batshit craziness, being told that progressives are not even Christians, being told our Christian president is a Muslim, and now you’re trying to buy and steal your way into the highest office in the land. Yeah, you guys are real cupcakes
Could someone please clarify for me how any of this is furthering the cause of Grace?
Iron sharpens iron? 😉
The irony is that otherwise we’d ignore each other. There’s no grace when we are in different camps that never come together, and ironically challenging or defending a belief can force people to look at each other. I know that there is a big tendency for Christians to try and peacemake to avoid conflict, but many times that conflict is what forces us to grow.
This. A thousand times this.
I associate with all sides all the time. Your hypothesis about “we only talk when we fight” doesn’t hold true with me. I think we can grow in politeness and dialogue without keeping record of wrongs–real or perceived.
As do I, and I’m sure as do most who’ve commented so far. But invariably disagreement occurs. The closest of spouses and friends know this. I agree that consideration and compassion need to rule the roost, but sometimes working out a disagreement in all its bloody, gory honesty, is the only way to progress.
I see what both you and DM are trying to say, and neither of you is wrong. Sometimes, though, simply bemoaning the existence of conflict in Christianity and wishing for a peaceful utopia in which no one ever disagrees is wishful thinking at best and painfully naive at worst. I speak generally here, not to anyone in particular.
I think it’s making me grumpy, but I can’t seem to stop rubbernecking.
There is an old expression: the devil lurks behind the cross. And Christ warned that many would come in his name falsely: wolves in sheepskin. Christ is good, as were his actions on earth. The wicked rulers you empower with your vote do NO good; their works are evil. George Bush and Mitt Romney are two conservatives who are NOT even Christian, among many others, so why would you show your love for your neighbor by choosing them to rule over us? Bush waged war for profit, deregulated the oil industry so that they could trash God’s pristine Gulf of Mexico (Revelation 11:18), they championed the rich and oppressed the poor, stole widow’s homes and on and on and on. Would you care to list the good things conservative politicians have done over the years? There are NONE. They are wicked. How can you love Christ then vote for Pilate, Caiaphus and Herod to rule over yourselves and your neighbors? I read the Scriptures every day, and informed by the word find those polarities to be irreconcilable.
Here is the definition of liberal from an online dictionary. Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample
Jesus Christ is liberal, so how can you despise liberals and claim to love Christ?
Oh boo-hoo. You “do what I say or you’re going to HELL!” types have been dishing it out centuries. Now that there’s some push-back, we find that you can’t take it. It makes me so very, very sad.
Just a quick nod to Mike. Post appreciated! As a person who has been hurt by some of the posts on sites (and books) like Stuff Christians Like (i.e. a diagram mocking the way Christians raise their hands while singing in church) I appreciated someone else echoing my own discomfort with mission-derision strategies. I remember walking away from the one post I mentioned above thinking, multiple times, why would a fellow Christian want to make a joke about the one moment when my inhibitions drop and I actually forget myself while appreciating the love of God? How does this joke change the world for the better? Or, the same author’s post jabbing at “side-hugs.” While I think those are kind of funny when they happen, I completely understand the “why” and I have never attempted to make a guy give me a full frontal hug in church when he’s obviously struggling with something. So again, my question was how picking on something like that (intended to help a person out who’s struggling with something) constructive? I wasn’t hurt by that one, just baffled. As for the lifted hands diagram thingy….
I’m hardly fragile, so I still raise my hands, but I did feel concerned that other Christians – especially those brand new to the faith and already struggling with derision from family and friends that don’t share that faith – could see that particular post, and walk away self-conscious and discouraged about expressing their love of God in a Fellowship of friends. How is that constructive? Isn’t that the same as making a person feel uncomfortable in church because their clothes aren’t good enough? or their hair is too long? Isn’t it kinda worse to actually make fun of a person expressing their love of God?
It reminded me of the day my five-year old little girl wore her favorite t-shirt to school only to hear “Girls can’t wear Spiderman. Girls wearing Spiderman are stupid.” No matter how much I tried to heal that wound, I couldn’t. She never wore it again.
I’m personally not fond of satire. It has made me laugh from time to time, but I’ve never been able to shake the conviction that all satire is laughter at someone else’s expense.
It reminds me of something Donald Miller wrote about in Blue Like Jazz. He was so happy that there was a kid in school nerdier than he was, because the bullies never noticed him when that kid was around. He actually was thankful for the kid’s existence because he was the one that got beat up and picked on and Miller somehow knew that if that kid wasn’t there, he’d be the preferred course.
Sometimes, I wonder if the jabs Christians throw at one another aren’t something similar. If we are laughing at the other kid, the bullies will forget to pick on us and do the same. It’s like we’re so afraid that the culture will notice us, we’ll do anything to make ourselves at least look cooler and more valuable than that Christian standing next to us. Problem is, we ourselves become the bully on the playground.
Whatever happened to “my pastor, or dad, or crazy uncle, or church lady isn’t perfect but God has given me more grace than I deserve so I’m going to do the same?” What happened to the lesson gave us from the cross as he looked down on the very people who put them there and asked God to forgive them because they just didn’t know what they were doing?
Interesting you should mention the hand-raising thing. I’d never seen that done until this past Sunday, and it took a moment to realize what people were doing. Had I not read about it elsewhere, I’d have had to ask… and, other than a break of a few years when I was working Sunday mornings, I’ve been in a variety of churches since nursery age. I still don’t understand that particular reaction; it just seems bizarre. That doesn’t mean there’s anything *wrong* with it, but it would be interesting to know where the custom comes from. (It’s not *just* forgetting yourself or totally spontaneous, or everyone would express that differently instead of being so consistent.)
One thing that really grates on my nerves, though, and I’m not picking on you but just finding a convenient place to mention it, is people saying “Christians do this” when it’s not anything near a universal thing among Christians, or say “the Christian view” as if there were only one view *real* Christians have on the matter, that sort of thing.
Hey, and I totally get the reaction “that’s bizarre, why do you do that?” That’s totally natural. My fear is that a person who already is seeing some of the new things Christians around them do (in any place of fellowship) is that Christians poking fun of those things in a very public forum will confuse them. I don’t expect all Christians to raise their hands, but the practice goes back as far as the old testament. It is mentioned in the Psalms. Heck, David danced half-naked before God in a public place – so crazy and naked in fact that one of his own wives made fun of him for it.
But it’s not the sort of freedom one steps into automatically – or at least, most don’t. In some countries where there is less inhibition, it’s almost an automatic response.
I’m not here to convince people to raise their hands when they’re praying or singing, just wondering why someone would make a joke of people who do. It’s not the kind of thing I could ever imagine Jesus doing.
As for people getting pain off their chest, I think that’s very important. It needs to happen. How that happens requires wisdom. I would hesitate to mention every bad thing a church has ever done to me in a room full of people that have never experienced Jesus’ love. I say I would, but me I do hesitate. I have suffered much at the hands of Christians, just like all of us do. They’re people after all and they aren’t perfect – they’re just as selfish and in need of change as the rest of us. However, I think the focus of the Gospel message – which is good news – becomes blurry when we take our therapy session to the city square. Admitting we’re all sinners and have fallen short of Jesus perfection is part of the road to salvation. Talking about each other sins and complaining about them is less fruitful. I think we will continue to wander around the desert until we get past that funk.
The gospel message is this – I AM NOT JESUS!!! And arent’ you GLAD??? Because I SUCK! But since you know that I SUCK and Jesus still loves me and forgives me and even wants to find a melody in me somewhere, there’s hope for all of us. Because if He can use ME He can use ANYONE!! I mean He even loves that guy over there, my crazy neighbor. Isn’t that AMAZING?? Only God has that much LOVE!
If we stick to that, how can we go wrong? We can overcome all the crap of the world by the word of our testimony – the living Word of God dwelling in this madeover ark of a body that is now just a bus stop between two worlds.
I love Christians. I’m going to spend eternity with them. And they’re the only ones in the world who, in spite of having a million differences from me, can talk about the one thing I love most – Jesus. They are capable of saying “you too?” more than anyone else on the planet. Perhaps if I lifted my glass more to them and said “God bless us, everyone” and spent less time nitpicking at their faults, I could draw out the good fruit that I know we all have the potential of bearing.
I so need to proofread.
Well, we *can* stick to the love of God, but at some point you have to get into details, even though that brings in trouble.
I do know at least one benefit of making certain disagreements public: those on the outside see them anyway. At least, they see one side which is unpalatable and, unless those Christians who disagree are vocal about it, think that’s the only kind of real Christian there is, especially when, as is too often the case, Christians on that side say the same thing.
For example, say someone could accept the Gospels as essentially true in the literal sense, but who thinks taking Genesis as literal would require denying too much plain evidence from too many fields. Which scenario is likely to let more such people come to Christ?
1) They see open disagreement among Christians, with some believing in a literal Adam, Eve, Noah, etc., and others finding the notion as silly as they do themselves, or
2) They are left with the impression that it’s all or none, and they therefore cannot be saved without denying everything they know about astronomy, geology, biology, etc.?
Why do we think that Christians are the only ones who have differences? The world is much less surprised by this than by how Christians respond to these differences. In fact, one of the primary complaints I hear about the church isn’t that it dares to believe (any part of) the Bible, but how Christians talk about one another.
I have rarely met an individual who opened his heart to the invitation of the Holy Spirit only after every theological difficulty he’s struggled with is reconciled. The Holy Spirit is more powerful than any human reasoning at resolving reluctance. It has been my experience that prior to a man’s conversion, although he may excited his interest through reason, He places more effort into wooing his heart. Then, as newly birthed Christians, we move into that deeper theological realm of working out our salvation with fear and trembling and we are now, infilled with the Spirit, incalculably more prepared for it.
I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis’ perspective – written from the character of Screwtape – that even this theological questioning poses far less a threat to the newly converted skeptic than that particular, hell-born mentality which attempts to disenchant him with the church itself. Not the theology of the church, but the people themselves. He (Screwtape) would point out the uneducated grocer sitting one seat over who clearly doesn’t understand the liturgy, puts too much oil in his hair, and sings off key. He would then be sure the new convert recognizes every person in the room with whom he has avoided association, highlighting their flaws – making them ridiculous.
Humility is a far greater struggle for the Christian than theology. Even at the root of most theological debates, humility is the last stronghold. We don’t want to be seen with that guy over there because he’s such a jerk – or because he’s kinda out there. He’s embarrasing. Not to God – to us. We don’t want to admit that crazy Eddie is part of our Christian family. Instead of loving our neighbor as ourselves, we become the kid who wants to be dropped off a block from church so we aren’t seen with our neighbor. Even if we talk to him in public, it will be in a condescending way so that no one would ever suspect that we enjoy or love being with them.
Screwtape, or Hell, loves to cultivate in us a sense of superiority. As Katherine Coble pointed out in an earlier post, Hell would have us “othering” each other all day – Hell would have us say anything but “we.” It will convince us that we are righteous in our eye-for-an-eye criticisms – make us hate and call it true love. It would pervert every good thing that the church is supposed to be – and it often does. Even Paul had to write to the church and tell them to cut the I am of Paul and I am of Apollos crap, reminding them that a rose by another name smells the same.
While I don’t think God’s love is the only thing Christians should ever talk about (you are right about that) it is certainly the motivation which should be behind every thing we say to one another. There is simply no room for arrogance when we talk to other people. We’re supposed to wash their feet. And we’re supposed to do that without talking about how bad their feet smell.
By the way, I have totally been guilty of every single arrogant thing I mentioned above!
This: “It has been my experience that prior to a man’s conversion, although he may excited his interest through reason, He places more effort into wooing his heart.”
is supposed to say: “It has been my experience that prior to a man’s conversion, although the Holy Spirit may excite his interest through reason, He places more effort into wooing his heart. ”
And it did. But I think my laptop ate some of it, because I know I typed it.
Gosh, Melissa, I loved reading your perspective on all this. You said it very well.
Thank you so much Melissa. It is rather interesting that those who employ satire and paint caricatures of evangelicals and Fundies say they do it as a means of healing for victims. Apparently, they don’t care that such an approach may be offensive or hurtful to others. Anyway, I appreciate your perspective.
I suppose the Bible is the real dividing line between “progressives” and evangelicals. The conversation has focused primarily on being hurt by other Christians, and it seems clear that people on both sides have experienced sinful treatment at the hands of those claiming a relationship with Christ.
But how each side views the Bible is different. “Progressives,” it would seem, see the Bible as “moldering parchment” or as outdated and contradictory to a number of fields of study. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God in which He revealed His person, plan, and work in the world.
The first position puts individuals in a position to decide, based on what evidence they have, what is true; the second trusts God to reveal what is true.
The thing that strikes me is this false dichotomy–that a person must either believe the Bible or evidence from other fields of study, as if there are no geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, mathematicians, physicists, philosophers who are students of and believers in the Bible. If some great minds have resolved these issues–and they have–might that not be an indication that a resolution is possible? And if it is possible, doesn’t that undermine the idea that the Bible can’t be trusted in its entirety?
What I am left wondering is how many people who dismiss the Bible have read the Bible. Not parts of it, but the Bible in its entirety. The Old and New Testaments are so intricately woven together, and Jesus Himself quoted so often from the Law and the Prophets, even took the time after His resurrection to explain to His followers how He fulfilled all that was there, that it seems nearly impossible to believe the one without believing the other.
Becky
And here we have it. Falsely claiming that progressives “dismiss” the Bible, see it as “moldering parchment,” etc. That’s exactly why it’s important for those of us who don’t do any such thing, who see no reason that the Bible can’t be God’s Word in a more vital sense without insisting all of it be an accurate tome on prehistory and science as well, have to speak up publicly.
And of course resolution is possible. It’s just that not everyone resolves the apparent conflict the way you do. Which is right? In a sense, it doesn’t matter… but then, I see not only people turned away for not believing in the “right” way, but also people using their beliefs about how the world was made and, perhaps more relevantly, how soon they believe it will end as an excuse to do all manner of environmental harm.
I also despise the abuse the word “evangelical” gets these days. By rights, it ought to include *all* Christians who believe in spreading the Gospel (and which don’t, exactly?) Instead, it seems to be reserved for a subset with a mainly fundamentalist (or at least leaning that way) and attached to a particular political slant. How did that come to be?
Hyhybt, to be clear, I wasn’t saying you consider the Bible “moldering parchment.” I was quoting from another commenter. Here’s the pertinent part of the comment:
Also “dismiss” is your word, not mine. I believe you, as many of my family, consider the Bible to contain truth. It’s just not authoritative. In essence, you reserve the right to decide what parts to believe and what parts to ignore. That creates a difference between “progressives” and “evangelicals.” (I’m with you–I never understood how that label became attached to those of us who believe the Bible is, in total, God’s word. It seems quite far afield from the issues.)
Becky
Actually, “dismiss” *is* your word, from the sentence “What I am left wondering is how many people who dismiss the Bible have read the Bible.”
“In essence, you reserve the right to decide what parts to believe and what parts to ignore.”—“Believe” and “ignore” are not even close to adequate. That’s the same problem over again; that what is not taken as not only valuable in some way, but also historically and scientifically accurate, is ignored or discarded as worthless. That’s not truth: it’s a misrepresentation, and one which I believe does a lot of harm not only between Christians who disagree, but to those who aren’t yet.
For example: I emphatically do not ignore or discard the story of Adam and Eve. It’s important. It shows a part of the essential nature of the relationship between God and creation, especially us, in a way that gets the point across, whereas an account of the nitty gritty of the universe coalescing into stars and planets over billions of years and then life developing on this planet would at best obscure that. I think that if the past were a recording we could rewind and see, the generally accepted scientific account (not “creation science”) would be what we would see… and, therefore, if that were all we had, we’d miss out on deeper truth.
It is incredibly frustrating to have that waved off as merely ignoring parts of the Bible I don’t happen to like.
I stand corrected, Hyhybt.
I meant the part addressed to you to be “outdated and contradictory to a number of fields of study.” It’s apparent from the quote above that some do dismiss the Bible and those are the ones I wonder whether or not they’ve read it.
I’m also aware that some people, you perhaps, don’t ignore parts of the Bible as much as subjugate them to the authority of human resources. All I’m saying is, this divides us, whether someone dismisses, ignores, or subjugates, the Bible is not the authority. For others of us, it is.
This is not a mindless decision, either. We have the same questions you have. But the difference is, we say, God is omniscient, sees the end from the beginning, and knows what we don’t know. Hence, all our findings are suspect and His revelation is not. That I don’t understand or have all my questions answered, doesn’t mean God’s word is wrong or that I won’t have my questions answered as I grow in my understanding.
Becky
Ah, but “subjugate” isn’t right either, and as for “We have the same questions you have. But the difference is, we say, God is omniscient, sees the end from the beginning, and knows what we don’t know,” it is flat out false that that is a point on which we differ.
The disagreement, instead, in that area is over what God’s revelation is intended to reveal and how, and perhaps also in whether the all too human hands it’s passed through have tinted that, including those who wrote it down in the first place or, in some cases, their oral predecessors.
Pick your own word, then, Hyhybt. It’s obvious we don’t look at the Bible in the same way. I’m not trying to be offensive. I’m simply stating that this is actually the great divide.
You say that you believe God is omniscient, knows the end from the beginning, and knows what we don’t know. Do you also believe that He is all powerful and can do what we cannot?
Why, then, is it a stretch to believe that Scriptures are God-breathed as they say they are? Why would it not be possible for His Holy Spirit to superintend the writing, copying, and translation of the Scriptures? If God wants to reveal Himself, is He not strong enough to protect that revelation?
Those of us who believe the Bible is authoritative say, yes, He is strong enough. We have good evidence to believe He did so.
As to what He revealed, He makes that clear through the interweaving of the Old and New Testaments–start to finish. I used the short hand version earlier: the Bible reveals God’s person, plan, and work in the world.
Becky
We do see it differently. To the extent that you mean seeing it differently is a divide, yes, you’re absolutely right.
However, you vastly mischaracterize the side you don’t happen to be on. “Why would it not be possible for His Holy Spirit to superintend the writing, copying, and translation of the Scriptures?” Who said that wouldn’t have been possible? Not I, certainly. Nor anyone I know of who believes in God at all. We disagree that God did in fact choose to do it that way, not *at all* in whether He is powerful enough to have done that if He’d wanted to. Do you, please, see the difference there?
We do see it differently. To the extent that you mean seeing it differently is a divide, yes, you’re absolutely right.
However, you vastly mischaracterize the side you don’t happen to be on. “Why would it not be possible for His Holy Spirit to superintend the writing, copying, and translation of the Scriptures?” Who said that wouldn’t have been possible? Not I, certainly. Nor anyone I know of who believes in God at all. We disagree that God did in fact choose to do it that way, not *at all* in whether He is powerful enough to have done that if He’d wanted to. Do you, please, see the difference there, and why it’s a distinction that matters?
I do see that there’s a difference and I think the difference does matter, but I don’t think it reflects favorably on those who agree with your position, Hyhybt. Essentially you’re saying, God knows all, He is powerful enough. But when He’s said He has revealed Himself, His work, His plan in Scripture, you apparently don’t think He has. You reserve the right to decide what part is from God and what part isn’t. You, therefore, are the authority, not God.
Do you see that distinction?
Becky
I see the distinction you wish to make, but it’s still in the wrong place. “But when He’s said He has revealed Himself, His work, His plans in Scripture, you apparently don’t think He has” is, again, a mischaracterization of my position. That’s not it at all.
I reserve the right to decide what to believe, because we all do that, whether we use a combination of sources for that purpose, take the Bible (or, more accurately, an interpretation of it based on whatever ingoing premises a person has, even for literalists who often deny they do any such thing), or any other method of deciding what to believe. That does not, despite consistent efforts among more conservative Christians to paint it as such, mean placing myself above God as an authority. It means, instead, a difference in what we believe God has said and what He wants of us.
Hyhybt, as I see it, you’re essentially reserving the right to believe what God said or not. For example, in your comment that first brought my attention to your ideas about the Bible, you said in part
But the “silly notion” of Adam and Noah’s existence is reinforced in the Gospel of Luke when both are listed in Jesus’s genealogy. In fact, Jesus Himself used Noah and his times as a point of comparison for His own return:
The point is simple. If Jesus believed Noah, the ark, the flood to be real, why would anyone else discount them?
You seem quite exercised, Hyhybt, every time I’ve mischaracterized your beliefs (and I’m sorry for those–not intentional). You want the truth of what you believe to be known. You’ve been patient in explaining your position. How would you feel if I answered you by saying something like, you might say you believe God is omniscient, but I know you don’t really.
Based on what? you would rightly answer. Based on my reasoning, my belief that your actual words were lost in cyberspace. After all, we know the Internet isn’t perfect. People hack in all the time. In fact, one of your comments had a duplicate, with just a few words added. That’s evidence someone is tampering with your comments. So I know, regardless of what you say, that you don’t believe God is omniscient.
In the same way, God has told us what He wants us to know, and we can either believe it or sift through and pick, choose, and interpret into mischaracterization what He has said.
I don’t expect this little role-playing to sway you, but I believe God has been very clear in His Word, if we take it as a whole and don’t divide it up piecemeal. There is some interpretation on our part because we are fallen, sinful people who can’t see our hands in front of our eyes at times. But for the most part, those of us who believe the Bible is God’s revelation of His person, plan, and work (not a list of do’s and don’ts, not a bunch of fairytales) have more points of agreement than disagreement. We recognize the same authority and rely on the same Holy Spirit who Scripture tells us will lead us into all truth.
Does God love us enough to tell us what we need to know about His person, plan, and work? Is He powerful enough? Then why wouldn’t we believe He did so when He said that’s what He did?
Becky
Moving upthread a step because there’s no “reply” button below…
First, thank you for your patience. I do hope, though, you understand how frustrating it is to be repeatedly told your beliefs are other than what you’ve repeatedly explained them to be. Take that a step further and it should be no wonder some people on this side lash out now and then, which is what the OP is complaining about.
“Hyhybt, as I see it, you’re essentially reserving the right to believe what God said or not.”—Not quite. That would involve agreeing with you on what God has said, and yet not believing it. I reserve the right to disagree with you or any other person about what God’s message *is* within any communication he has sent, and reject the notions that he only speaks through the Bible (as opposed to also speaking through his creation itself and the abilities he gave us to observe, experiment, etc.) and that he necessarily intended every part of the Bible, which after all is an anthology and not a single work, to be taken in the same manner. That is not the same thing as 1) rejecting God’s authority; 2) rejecting his omniscience and/0r omnipotence; 3) rejecting the notion that the Bible is “God’s revelation of His person, plan, and work,” (or, at least, a partial revelation; I don’t think we could take a full one, and certainly God cannot be fully contained within printed pages); or 4) anything else anyone may choose to add to that list that amounts either to disbelief in a perfect, almighty, all-knowing God in three Persons.
“Does God love us enough to tell us what we need to know about His person, plan, and work? “—There’s the key: “what we need to know.” As I explained upthread, the Adam and Eve story tells what we really *need* to know in a way that’s readily accessible regardless of the level of scientific knowledge. It explains our relationship to God and the essence of why it’s broken in a way that people across time will understand, from stone age to space age. The details that fill in that story don’t matter, and the other explanation would actually get in the way of communicating the really important points. (Notice how easily people on both sides of the evolution/creation argument pretend that it’s impossible that God deliberately created us *by* making a universe whose processes would eventually develop us naturally.) By comparison, finding out our ancestors of a billion years or so ago were fish is just satisfying curiosity, even if it can have practical implications in this life.
“We recognize the same authority and rely on the same Holy Spirit who Scripture tells us will lead us into all truth.”—Same here. It does, though, get confusing when many people go to the Holy Spirit with the same questions and seem to get different answers.
Of course, some of that, I’d expect, is that we’re all sometimes unwilling to hear anything but the answer we already have in mind, and other times because the real answer is “it doesn’t really matter” or even “why are you bothering me with this?” For example, I understand that the church I now go to, before I started going, had a surprisingly big argument over whether the new sign out front should be marquee or monument style (and, if I understand rightly, also one a few years before that over what color carpet to lay in the sanctuary… but I’d have to ask to be sure, and haven’t seen any point in doing so). I’d be surprised if nobody on either side prayed over those and was convinced God was firmly on their side, but much more surprised if God really cared one way or the other.
I personally think this should give you abundant understanding about how God feels when He has revealed Himself in nature, physically to Israel, through the prophets, in His Son, and by Scripture to have people mis-characterize what He’s revealed.
Which brings up the point that I do, in fact, believe God has revealed Himself in what He created. (After all, He told us in the Bible He did so 😉 ) and in “the abilities he gave us to observe, experiment, etc.” The difference in my view, however, is that these things don’t superintend Scripture: Scripture superintends them.
Consequently, Scripture tells me that iron floated, the sun stopped still, and Jesus rose from the dead. Science says none of that is possible. So, do I believe Scripture or science? Because I know God’s word to be authoritative, I believe science has not taken into consideration the power of God in making pronouncements that would disprove the miracles the Bible records. It’s that simple. It’s not that science is wrong; it’s incomplete.
I also agree with you that God did not intend for each part of the Bible to be understood in the same way as other parts of the Bible. In my little corner of evangelicalism there’s a popular saying going around: we don’t understand the Bible literally but literarily.
At the same time, the Bible interprets the Bible. Hence, when Jesus references Noah and Paul compares Christ to Adam, when both Noah and Adam appear in the genealogy of Jesus, it’s not hard to conclude that Jesus, Paul, and Luke all believed Noah and Adam to be real people, that what Genesis records about them actually happened. And so throughout Scripture. It’s why I made a point in my first general comment about the need to read the entire Bible, not just certain portions.
My point is, this approach lets the Bible be the authority, telling us how to read and interpret different genres. The Law of Moses, then, is clearly not the law by which the Church is to live today. Why? Because Jesus said He fulfilled the law; the epistles tell us Jesus is the sacrifice once for all. That He was the unblemished and spotless lamb. So we don’t have to be out there slaughtering bulls and goats to find forgiveness with God.
I also agree with you that what God revealed in His word worked for the “stone age” as well as for us today. However, when you say “the details that fill in that story don’t matter,” I have to disagree. If God put in the details, then why would we change them or ignore them or even say that they don’t matter? That’s no different from me rewording your comments so that they say something similar to what you mean, but missing the point in some meaningful way. This is troublesome to you, rightfully so. Why is it so hard to think God would be troubled by the very same thing?
Your closing remarks make me think you have an issue with creation, not just the existence of Adam. The creation/evolution issue is another Big Topic, and we probably don’t need to open up the whole package here, but I want to be clear about something: I think there are a good number of evangelicals who do take the Genesis account literally. So, because their English Bible translated a word as “day,” they believe that meant 24 hours, never mind that the sun hadn’t been created so as yet there was no way of measuring hours. You can probably tell, I’m not one who holds that view. Actually, I don’t rule it out, either.
Because I believe in an omnipotent God, who revealed His creation of the world, I do not ascribe to any kind of accidental coming together of substances that initiated the universe. Besides being an incredible contradiction to much we know about science and probability, it violates what God said. However, He didn’t tell us the particulars of what happened after He said, Let there be … Was it instantaneous? I’d believe that because an omnipotent God could bring about the entire universe fully formed in an instant, if He so chose. Did it take 24 hours? If He chose to do a kind of time-elapse creation, it’s possible. Did it take an unspecified “time” (the way the original word is translated elsewhere)? Another possibility which would favor the slow development of particular parts of creation. I could go on, but you see the point, I’m sure.
I bring up all that to say, all evangelicals don’t agree with the particulars of creation. But we do believe God created. It’s an important point because the Bible is the authority, God’s self-revelation. And certainly, over and over throughout the rest of the Bible, His work as Creator comes up again and again. So the self-interpretation of Scripture on this point is clear.
Becky
Ah, I see there’s a second note.
I see what you mean. The thing is, in believing the Bible to be authoritative, it reduces a lot of the “different answers” as possibles. If someone claims the Holy Spirit told them to rip off their neighbor’s car, that would be pretty easy for a Bible-believing Christian to say, No, He didn’t–whoever you thought you heard from, it wasn’t the Holy Spirit because He doesn’t contradict God’s revealed word.
I think God does care about what we do, but in ways that might surprise us. For example, in the illustration from your church, there may have been a reason God wanted one sign over the other–to provide a job for someone or because one sign would be more noticeable to a person God wanted to attend the church–any number of possibilities. But for the people praying and discussing, the key is to do so in ways consistent with Scripture. The main point, of course, would be to be “harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit.” Those things, God cares about deeply. How do we know? Straight from Scripture, baby! 😉 So the “what” might not seem to matter to us, but the “how” ought always to matter.
Becky
Some of this is just discussion, while some of it is simply condemning the same tactics young evangelicals use on those they disagree with, minus the language (usually).
The big key is this. Most of those on the Christian left come FROM evangelical backgrounds (as do many neo-atheists). Their discovery of fallacies in doctrine, abandonment of rationality in scientific discourse, and hypocrisy in those they idolized often leads to TOTAL abandonment and resentment of everything. (Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Thankfully, there are many thinkers out there who have come through or bypassed this pitfall, and they are offering alternatives to blatant atheism and agnostic thought via a path to a strongly Christological theology and reasoned debate over issues of the divine.
From my perspective as a former right wing Christian, the evangelical church of today should carefully evaluate WHY they are losing these young people and why the rejection is so thorough. (Actual metrics might help, so look up the Barna Group’s data on the relationships between evangelicals and youth, as well as the Gallup data). Then, quit blaming and pointing fingers, and find a quiet corner to fix it before it is too late.
Interesting article and pretty accurate description of the “Anti Evangelical Hate Machines”. While I do not agree with all of your doctrinal postitions, I do believe you offered a fair and balanced assessment of these groups agendas and beliefs. It certainly got the attention of the ultra-liberal, “anti-fundy” Darrell over at the Stuff Fundies Like forum [I have been banned from that forum three different times for stating what “fundies” actually do like, I mean, who better to find out from about what fundies really like than from a fundy! But objectivity is not their strong suit].
And of course you riled up the occult mind and spell-checker-onlyism of Jeri Massi who blamed your website on me in response to Darrel’s rant about your article http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6034
(I run the Do Right Christians website which documents the occultism of the Do Right Hyles Anderson FB group, and the false gospel and occultism promoted by Jeri Massi which you can find here http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/jeri-massis-false-gospel/ and here http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/trisha-fundamental-revolution-occult/
With your permission I would like to post this article on our website.
So… From an outsider looking in, this all seems very unhealthy and messed up, both the Hammond Baptist Church (and churches like it) and those who are knee-jerking to the opposite spectrum because past abuses, which I believe probably have merit, though there is no way for me to confirm it. However, the answer need not be moving to the far left, nor does the answer have to be a lifetime spent fighting the abuses of unhealthy churches. A better answer (in my opinion) is spending time with *healthy* Christians who do in fact believe in the “fundamentals” of the faith, but use them to point wounded people to freedom rather than using them to inflict wounds (this is satans way of twisting scripture that people remain in spiritual chains.) Veering too far to the right or to the left leads you off the narrow way, which is contrary to Jesus’ purpose.
Like I said, I’m speaking as an outsider. As an outsider, the links in Mike’s post and the counter links in the above comment clearly say “dysfunction” to me. Christ’s yoke is easy and light…none of this is easy and light…it’s *dysfunctional*.
And for the record, the KJV Bible is confusing, it is written in a style of English that is not used today. There is nothing in the Bible stating that the form of English in the KJV is the holiest of holies. Believers have to use discernment, which I think comes from studying various translations, and for absolute clarity requires learning Hebrew and Greek (but how many of us have time to do that).
Sunday at church, I had my iPhone out and as the pastor made scripture references I looked at fifteen or so different translations side-by-side…there are sites that allow you to do this, and it is enlightening. One thing it showed me is that KJV is confusing for the modern reader, however, the reading of the various translations side-by-side highlights both its strengths and weakness.
Bottom line, Christianity can be and *ought* to be freeing WITHOUT having to ditch the fundamentals of the faith (please do not get caught up on that “f” word, it’s not bad in itself) and if it’s not, or if you have to twist, strip and bastardize scripture to make it so, something is wrong with your church or fellowship of believers. Keep seeking.
I think Mike may have accidently stirred up a pot unintentionally, but I can’t speak for him. I can say he is *not* a fundamentalist or far right wacko. His views on the Bible and life are very balanced, otherwise, I would not keep coming back here.
Even “fundamentals of faith” is tricky, because we don’t all agree on what is and is not fundamental. The Apostles’ Creed seems like a good starting point for that, but even there, some think it says too much and some too little.
I agree it is tricky, and I’m no scholar in the matter, but based on my observations, the Christian belief system falls apart when there is no parallel belief in the devil/hell/evil, and when there is a belief that all go to heaven regardless of whether one has consciously accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (universalism). If there is no such thing as satan/hell and if Jesus is only “one way among many” what’s the point? Why bother calling oneself a Christian when there are many other religions/beliefs you can adopt that will grant you the same perks,but don’t require associating with that wrathful God of the Old Testament.
Thank you; if those are what you consider the fundamentals, we have much in common. Others would put in quite a bit more.
ARE conservative Christians ‘losing young people’ to the same extent liberal Christians are? Most liberal churches I know of are old people’s clubs. And no one point of view has a monopoly on reason. Many of us have used reason to discover the fallacies behind liberal Christianity and other liberal-friendly faiths/nonfaiths.
I was wondering the same thing, Nissa. And good point about no monopoly on reason.
Becky
Wow. To quote Han Solo: “I’m out of a it for a little while…”
Quite the…hm…lively discussion going on over here. I’ve had an emotional journey reading over these 200 some-odd remarks, going from initially agreeing to Mike’s post, to considering the opposition, to being angry at both sides, to being disgusted by the hatefulness I see among the “brethren”, to shaking my head in defeated laughter at how insane we all are, to now a place of peace. I wish I had some snarky comeback or some awesome “Ha! Take that, you who disagree with me!” But I just don’t. Instead, I do have one of my favorite passages from the Bible, which sums it all up for me.
Joshua 5:13-15 (NAS)–Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” He said, “No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the Lord.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?” The captain of the Lord’s host said to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
Yep. I think that’s all I’ve got to say on the whole thing.
In the interest of full disclosure, I came to this article via a link from “Christian Nightmares” and it’s my first time reading anything here (I am also a “non-believer”, if you hadn’t already guessed.) While the discussion has been reasoned and thought-provoking, I have to agree with what at least some of the commenters have said, which is that the premise of the article is a huge over-reaction to blogs that are either satirical or generally sympathetic to believers. Calling it a “hate machine” is ridiculous, especially comparing these sites to the some of the stuff that is really are out there on the internet. Even the Shore article (which I only went back to read after I realized Mr. Duran might not have been fair to it) seems to have been stripped of any context here.
That said, I’m glad I found this site, and I’m interested in reading more. It’s only recently that I’ve realized there even are these sort of intelligent and sincere discussions of (and disagreements about) faith in the Christian community as opposed to all the stuff I hear on the radio and learn about from the “Hate Machine” 😉
Jimbo, I prefaced this piece with a warning, albeit tongue in cheek, that this post contains sarcasm, etc. So I’m not a little surprised at how many commenters feel compelled to defend the satire used on these other sites, while slamming mine. Obviously, the Hate Machine is a parody of something I see, a “movement” of ex-evangelicals or ex-fundies who build an apologetic around snark and ridicule. As I’ve said here, when they claim to be so loving and tolerant, I find this terribly hypocritical. Anyway, glad you found the site. Hope to talk to you some more!
Mr. Duran — I was sent a link to your blog and, I have to be honest, 99% of the time I don’t follow the links I’m sent – let alone actually read them…
But not this time. I want to thank you for writing the “Anti-Evangelical Hate Machine” – so glad there’s someone else out there that finds this stuff more disturbing than funny.
And it’s amazing to watch how these disaffected, professing Christians will ally themselves with some of the most verbally vile people (many non-Christian/former-Christians or professing atheists) while at the same time mercilessly criticizing those who simply choose to live a little more conservatively than they “The Disaffected” do.
It’s a one-way tolerance they espouse and a narrow mindedness seldom seen in all of Christianity.