A Devil Perched On My Shoulder, His Name Was Karl

well, Josiah, except for the part about being glad Bush won, I think we actually agree on something!!! :-D

The Slate passages are both EXCEEDINGLY arrogant and sloppy. Dear writer, are we supposed to find solace in your words? It seems that you are as equally (just in a different way) partisan and also "virtually unteachable." And what is it, exactly, that you are going to teach me? Bollocks.

Bill, I hope you're nothing thinking I'M the writer of the Slate passage, I hope you're not equating the two of us.

I agree with your assertion that we treat gays poorly inside Christian circles. I think it's years and years and years of ingrained social stigma that has brought us here.

Of all the people types and of all the ideologies in the world the Christians should be most friendly, indeed the most loving, towards gay people...and to all sinners regardless of their sin. There are some but we should be reaching out and loving them like we love anyone with, quote, lesser degrees of sin, unquote.

-p

No, I wasn't Josiah...

You made your point quite convincingly. There was, however, no need to cite this tripe from Slate to back you up, as you are certainly more of a caring person than the Slate writer is.

Bill, I get that, but my POINT was to provide an example of how "the Church" is viewed by those on the left. I think its important to take note of those external critiques because there may be some truth to it, and we can learn from it and grow and develop etc.

Well, there are a couple of solutions to this. The Anglican community has problems in dealing with homosexuality in that they tend to not think it's a problem, but the orthodox among them take the sin seriously without attaching any stigma that it isn't due as such. This along with a host of other issues, like truly understanding the nature and character of a community of believers, loving the arts, and having some of the best liturgy in the world. Makes for an attractive combination. So just remember, that just because fundamentalist Baptists and Presbyterians have a problem with, well, fundamentalism, doesn't mean that the whole church does.

Additionally, fear-mongering isn't exactly a forbidden tool of statecraft anymore. The Kerry campaign has been harpning on the draft for months, and the only suggestion that it might be a remote possibility came from the Democratic party. That's fear-mongering to the point of outright deception. Same goes for their sniping about Social Security and Medicare. They're the ones content to have the whole thing burn down around their ears, yet somehow Republicans are scary for wanting reform? Yeah, that makes sense.

As far as how the Left views the church: screw them. No, I don't think you need to take note of these particular external critiques, for two reasons. First, they hate us and are diametrically opposed to everything we stand for. Don't listen to them. Second, there is plenty of internal critique if you're willing to look outside your own little segment of the broader church community. Anglicans need to listen to Presbyterians about theology and taking Scripture seriously. Presbyterians need to listen to Anglicans about liturgy and actually letting people be redeemed sinners. Everyone should learn from Rome's use of tradition, while Rome needs to learn about grace again. Pentecostals need to listen to just about everyone for everything, but they certainly have a way of connecting with the poor that is unmatched. There is plenty of internal dialog to be had if you'll only listen. You don't need to heed pagans for critique.

I think Josiah was just saying that if a group of people have a critique of another group, it behooves the second group to take a second and see if the critique is accurate (or has a degree of accuracy) and, if so, fix it. You don't dismiss critiques simply because of their origins. That's ad hominem.

And I actually think the Anglicans need to learn from Presbyterians about liturgy, but I could probably buy the redeemed sinners part. ;-)

I wasn't attempting to suggest that any critique of the church by the Left is automatically incorrect simply because of its origins. That would be the ad hominem argument. No, I was suggesting that the accuracy of the outsider's critique is irrelevant. The church looking to the Left for criticism would be like America asking France for advice on foreign policy. You don't ask people who hate you for constructive criticism. It's counterproductive..

The thing is though, the "left" views Christians like that for a reason. Stereotypes usually have at least some foundation of truth. Sadly, (at least with the third point of the Slate article), I think is dead on with Christian America. It seem its becoming a rarity to meet a Christian who actually believes hes a sinner. Even when we have the genuine gospel being preached, it seems to be heavily coulded with all sorts of moralism shit. (Well I guess that would make it non-genuine then).

The homosexual issue is a tough one for me. (The issue part, not the homosexual part, hehe). Its not quite the same as the abortion issue. With abortion I know where I stand. Its wrong. Nuff said. With homosexual marriage I start getting into the whole thing with is it my right to legaly restrict their sin, should I be doing it with stuff like porn as well, what about other stuff that we do restrict like drugs and even obvious things like stealing, murder, etc... It seems to open up a can of worms that I simply dont have an answer for. As a Christian should I be fighting against gay marriage. I will tell you 100% that I know its a sin, but I struggle with whether or not I should oppose legislation for it. (Non-opposition isn't the same as supporting it either). At that point its hard to figure out if I am motivated by the Christian side of me or the American side of me.

At least for now, Josiah I like your solution you mentioned a few posts ago. It was something along the lines of "let the states decide." At least for me it sounds like the perfect "I have no friggin idea so Im going to delay the issue" kind of plan. So thumbs up to states rights! And thumbs down for being forced by my conscience to vote for a political party that I dislike simply because a few trumping issues. I might hate them for using things like homosexuality or abortion to win the vote, but sorry folks, I simply cant put environmental issues or foreign policy above millions of aborted babies.

Geez that comment was long...

Ryan et al - I wonder about the dangerous insularity of discarding out of hand the "liberal critique" of the church. A couple of thoughts - this would seem to be of particular concern in regards to the mission of the church as be a redemptive agent of reconciliation in the world - if we begin shaping the ministries, priorities, and yes, even the theology of the church, without taking into account, and I would think that this involves not only critiquing but listening to, those who are harsh critics of the church I fear that we will begin to perpetuate not the gospel but traditional and ideological expressions of the gospel that have not been sharpened against the iron of contemporary context as the best of tradition by definition is. Second I wonder if there is anything to the Jonah narrative that speaks to the issue - if I remember correctly it was not the prophet who righly discerned the will of the Lord but those in the boat, the "pagans" if you will, who connected their present circumstances to a failure on the part of the prophet. That would seem to be at least one biblical precedent for listening outside of the church to those who are not by nature sympathetic to its mission. The church must be in dialogue with culture, regardless of where that particular aspect of the culture falls along the spectrum of sympathy, and I am not sure if true dialogue can take place if we discard out of hand the message of the other side. Its tough to make that argument without sounding hopelessly idealistic but as believers I would like to think that it is not wishful thinking that undergirds our engagement but a hope in and experience of the redemptive power of the person in Christ--(I wonder if the author of the Slate piece has ever had the experience of meeting an authentic community of faith that seeks to embody that redemptive nature?).

To throw in my two cents:

As this election demonstrates, Christians have no problem using their religious beliefs to guide their voting. Nor should they. But it must be recognized that by doing so, they are taking their values into the public sphere, which, in a "democracy" (whatever the hell that is) is a place of debate, critique, and compromise. Consequently, you can say "screw em" if they are critiquing issues of doctrine or church government, but if you are going to inflict your policies on them, I think they have a legitimate claim to making a critique. The Left's problem with the church is a result of conflicting values which influence how our society looks, acts, and functions. Christians shouldn't act as if they are the innocent victims of unprovoked ire.

The text specifically states that Jonah told those on the boat that he was running away from Jehovah and that is how they linked their circumstances to him. Not only that, but he also had to tell them what it was that needed to be done to rectify the situation, not the other way around as you seem to suggest by saying we should listen to liberal non-Christian critiques to see where/if we have gone wrong.

The most glaring problem in your argument, to me, seems to suggest that the Gospel is malleable based on cultural or social context. It is not. We have to be much more loving but we also have to be uncompromising in the truth. Unfortunately biblical claims, many times, just run against the grain of the secular, non-Christian, liberal realm.

Now, I agree that we must be in dialogue with the culture. I have often times advocated that the church today hides it's head in the sand and retreats when it comes in contact with some subject in culture that it considers taboo, hoping it will go away.

The problem lies when the church comes to a decision (i.e. homosexuality is a sin, in other words a tainted version of creation) that is not accepted by certain segments in society. It is labled as intollerant, judgemental and hateful. Then what do we do? Do we compromise truth to be "more liked" by those that truth offends? I would have to register a resounding no.

It also does not mean that we ostracize that segment of culture either. It seems too often we swing on a pendulum and we are either way on one side or way on the other.

Dilemas...

-p

My four main points:

1. I am, indeed, a sinner.
2. I welcome outside criticism of the church. What a great way to open a door to a discussion the gospel...
3. The writer who wrote the Slate piece sounded like an egotistical punk, the kind of person HARDEST to talk about scripture with, but often the kind who actually needs it the most.
4. Talking about politics or religion is always stressful. Talking about politics AND religion is almost unbearable.

I think i agree with ryan the most. Its kind of like who cares. Politics is dirty, you gotta play dirty to win, bush did in some people's minds> I don't think he did. He appealed to issues people feel are relavent. He may have made them more pressing than they were, kerry did the same thing.

I have a very different assessment

Addendum:

Haze, Holton, Ryan, Bill (Or anyone else who cares)

Why do you think certain individuals on the Left hate you?

(It's an honest question)

Because I say/write things they a)don't want to hear or b)don't believe or c)both. It's no more complicated than that.

Paul, I would leave it to the individuals that hate me to explain the reasons why they feel that way. If you are one of those individuals, then please explain away. If not, this is not a game that I gain any understanding by playing.

Josiah, Terrablogs won't let me post my reply to Bill and Haze, what's the dea?

I had this great reply and it got blocked. So here's a question and a comment:

A) Bill, do you hate those who say/write things you don't want to hear, don't believe, or both?

B) Haze, (I don't hate you), but I think it behooves us to try to understand why we are hated, just as much as we should try to understand why we are loved. It isn't a superflous game; it's an exercise in critical thinking, and it makes us stronger.

Paul, the game is superfluous though. You are talking about something much different than honest discourse and debate. The reason people hate are numerous and just as often not based in logic. It doesn't mean that there is never solid reasons to hate, but there are so many non-logical reasons, that playing the "why do they hate me" game, without forcing them to explain why they hate you will often lead you to a conclusion that is not even close to the actual truth.

When someone disagrees with me, they give me a reason and I can attempt to 1)explain how they misunderstood what I was saying 2) tell them how I believe that my idea is better and explain why. Many people disagree with me, but also still love me as a person. The origins of the type of hate from the slate article and the premise that this same type of hate drives Christians to vote for Bush due to homophobia will not be discovered though personal critical thinking about "why they hate me."

So I wasn't saying that you hated me, I was making the point that unless you did and expressed why, my personal pondering was not going to bring me to enlightenment about the incorrect position that I may hold. The type of rhetoric in the article is irrational. My belief is that attempting to understand irrational bile like Ms. Smiley's article is not possible using critical thinking, because it relies on reason as the foundation.

We can confront arguments when they are presented to us, and then we can discover if our behavior is incorrect or may be improved. That game is not superfluous, and it will make us stronger. When an argument ammounts to "your stupid" there is little I can discover. Don't confuse the two.

While I would agree that there is a point where the legitimate give and take of rational dialogue ceases and therefore may not be worth continuing, I think that there is also a legitimate "self-dialogue" that even irrational hate can evoke (and perhaps should). When someone says to me, "you're stupid," I agree that this is not an argument. I can, however, have at least two responses. I could reply, "that's just irrational bile" and walk away. Or I could try to understand why the other person thought I was stupid. Their reason may be irrational; but it also may be rational as well. As you pointed out yourself, nothing shuts down conversation quicker than calling the other person unreasonable. And even if they are being unreasonable, one still may learn from this.
There are definite times to walk away. But it seems as if we are all far too willing to shout at one another's back. THAT'S unproductive.

OK, I agree there are times that we may seek out reasons that individuals hate us. But I was trying (although unsuccessfully) to limit my comments to the focus of this post...the slate article and it's influence on our own selfassessment as Christians. The writers views were clear and of the irrational nature that didn't warrent a self-examination. Unfortunately, that is the majority of the responses since Nov. 2nd and even over the last 4 years. This photo essay of a spontaneous protest is becoming much more common, and this (along with Ms. Smiley) are not worth dealing with.

No. No, I don't. Simply because I may argue a point in a spirited manner, it doesn't mean that I actually hate the person or mean any ill will for the person on the other side. I have no time for hate. There's no future in it. I have other things to do. It's simply bad, period.

I have NEVER felt the venom towards anyone else that I've felt directed towards me. As someone who's earned a living as a writer, if I had a thin skin towards those who've attacked me, I wouldn't have lasted long. Cultivating ire towards myself and my opinions is a great portion of my job requirement, and a good barometer as to how sharp I'm writing.

...But, with that said, i don't think people hate ME as much as they do the things I say and write. They hate ideas. and people HATE to be disagreed with. And I don't mind being hated. I don't LIKE it. But I don't mind it, either.

Back to the original topic, I think that the left has built up a stereotype of what Evangelicals think about homosexuality, and that while there is a nugget of truth, the reality of what Evangelicals think on the issue is much more nuanced than they realize.

I think that the best example of the stereotype vs. the reality is the reaction that the average member of the "Religious Right" had to the whole Mary Cheney thing. The left thought that in outing Mary Cheney to people on the right who didn't know that she's gay, it would cause the Christian conservatives to flip out to such a degree that they would stay home from the polls. If their stereotypes had been right, that ploy probably would have worked instead of backfiring horribly. People I know were appalled that they would use the private life of a candidate's daughter for such a blatant political maneuver, especially when the party that purports to care about homosexuals and be all tolerant is the one using her as a political pawn.

Incidentally, the exit polls did not make any sort of distinction as to what voters meant by "moral issues" and that can mean a lot more things than just the gay marriage issue. It was post election analysts who assumed it meant that, but they forget (or didn't ever know it) that the biggest area of opposition to Kerry among religious conservatives was that he never met a form of abortion that he didn't support. That, combined with his stated litmus test that he would never appoint a judge who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and Rehnquist's illness reminding voters that whoever's elected is going to end up replacing him and possibly others, was, in my estimation, a bigger determing factor than gay marriage.

You mean except Kerry's opposition to partial birth abortions? Check his actual voting record. Read transcripts of his actual speeches. Nobody who did their research from primary source material would make the sweeping claims you just did.

And why aren't you equally disgusted that Republicans didn't get upset about the use of Mary Cheney politically until after the third time it happened? Democratic comments about Mary Cheney were evidently just fine when Kerry did it during the first debate and Edwards did it during the vp debate, but when Kerry wipes the floor with Bush in the second debate, now all of a sudden the Cheney's are deeply wounded and Kerry is an evil man for mentioning their daughter in a presidential debate.

Left or Right, you climb to the top of a huge political party, and you're fighting for your political career with the biggest stakes America has to offer, and you will probably whore out whatever you can for political gain, whether it's the orientation of your opponent's daughter, or getting mad about it at just the right time.

And what's with this line of critique, anyway? Bush WON. Does he have to decapitate Kerry in ritual combat before Republicans will stop bitching about him? You've got Legislative, you've got Executive, and it looks like you might end up with Judicial. What do you need to make you happy with how things turned out?

I'm getting tired of the Democrat protests, which are basically useless, big neon signs that say "I'm Obnoxious." But I can understand a little; they feel disenfranchised and powerless. But the Republicans took it all, and they STILL won't let it go.

It looks like this conversation has moved on, and I think we've come to some commonality. I asked my question, Bill, because your reply to my first question ("Because I say/write things they a)don't want to hear or b)don't believe or c)both. It's no more complicated than that.") seemed to paint your opponents with a very wide brush, one I know you or I would not want applied to ourselves. But you just qualified yourself and I understand where you're coming from.
I got involved with this discussion because each side in our political debates accuses the other of sins that they are guilty of. It's like an echo. And, its true: we all pull the same hateful, ridiculous bullshit. Satire is one thing, flat-out hateful mockery another. And sign waving democrats do it as much as letter-writing republicans.