A Woman on Purpose has an interesting post up on Truth and Consequences that caught my attention, although my own thoughts run in the opposite direction.
One of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is personal liberty. Most folks don’t understand that, because they have a mental picture of Christianity as being about arbitrary and stringent rules.
I say “opposite” because I think she is talking predominantly about non-Christians and those we tend to not-so-affectionately term “cultural Christians.” Unfortunately, the same statement applies to many within Christianity. Those “arbitrary and stringent rules?” They cover everything from how you can dress, to how you can parent to what kinds of music you can listen to. And before you think, “but shouldn’t a Christian consider these things?” let me clarify. Of course we should. But consider this entry. The first time I shared that story, it spawned a side discussion that had nothing to do with what I was talking about and everything to do with what kind of church I was attending based on the fact that song came up in worship.
In a lot of ways, that post is about one of my first run-ins with fundamentalism. I just did not recognize it as such just yet. I find it somewhat interesting that I was first drawn to internet forums debating Christianity with atheists and agnostics. It did not take long before I found myself wholly devoted to similar types of discussions with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I think the only thing I have really learned is that the latter cast far worse insults. Granted, I can repeat them here without the use of asterisks, but somehow being referred to as “the whore of Babylon” bothers me more than “you’re a [insert swear word of choice] idiot.” Maybe it is just because I do care, at least to some degree, about what those whom I perceive to be Christian think of me.
I have had to pull out of the discussions recently because they were becoming too taxing for me. I started to hear myself in my own thoughts refer to Christians in the same way I have seen atheists refer to us. Basically as “sheeple.” That cannot be healthy, especially for a conservative, evangelical Christian.
But I have never been successful at eliciting much more than personal insults, occasional swipes at my literacy level and fervent assurances that I am being prayed for. Who knew that an offer of prayer could seem so insulting? To a Christian, no less?
Enter the other post I just cannot get out of my mind, leading me to give up sleep for the night. Molly of Adventures in Mercy shares a reader’s question:
I was wondering (since you and your blog are such a wealth of information to me at the moment) if you’ve come up with an effective way to talk to people who are pro-… There honestly is a LOT of the … stuff that I like, but the 10 percent that I dislike I rabidly hate. Just wondering if you’d had experience talking to people who like … without totally being offensive. Because, at the moment, “their discipline techniques make me want to puke,” doesn’t seem like a great opening intro. Ha.
I edited out the ministry being referred to because I don’t want to make this about a specific group. I have attempted to wade softly into these waters for fear of driving people away who might actually be willing to engage in the discussion. I prefer to deal with specific teachings than openly criticizing ministries. But no matter how the discussion is entered into, it ends the same way as Molly describes.
…my questions are either politely ignored or I get a worried glance as if, by questioning the… that can only mean I’ve left the faith and am sacrificing chickens with the pagans at night.
Again, you can insert a variety of groups into that. Except that I haven’t had anyone politely ignore me. It is more of sneering references in other postings while refusing to confront my questions directly. That probably has a lot to do with the fact that I do not actually know anyone who follows any of these teachings outside the internet. And it is a little easier for all of us to set aside normal social etiquette as we tend to forget that those we are conversing with are indeed actual people and not merely disembodied ideas floating around in cyberspace.
So how do you discuss topics that go beyond a simple disagreement, beyond being offensive even, but instead may actually be dangerous?
[tags]Christianity, fundamentalism, evangelism[/tags]
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
When my husband first started using the internet he fell into this trap–first arguing in forums with atheists and liberals, then gradually he found himself arguing with Christians. I was going to say that I never had that problem, then I realized that when I was on the George MacDonald list I ran into it a lot due to the mopre controversial aspects of G.M.’s writings. I have however, otherwise, been taught by my family how to stay out of such arguments and how to stop them when they start. My family, frankly, follows the Proverbs definitions of being a fool–they argue about anything, all the time, regardless of how they really feel about it, they interrupt constantly and gossip or talk about themselves, they refuse to listen to reason and argue in circles or call names when they run out of possible “logical” arguments. I try to be a silent witness and gently turn the conversation when it gets dangerous, and I refuse to argue. It has taken me years but “Do not argue with a fool” and “a gentle answer turns away wrath” are the verses I stand by–and no I would never call them fools to their faces, and they have learned, gradually, not to try to argue with me so that is better.
In fact, I think the very best answer to how to deal with such things is in 2 Timothy 2: 14-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:14-26%20;&version=31;
I tend to agree with Heather on this. And would add “casting pearl before swine” and “shaking the dust from one’s feet.” I realize I shouldn’t refer to my brothers and sisters in Christ as swine.
That’s why I have my own blog, I can get my thoughts completely out and not be in anxiety over arguing with a person online.
You’re right, Dana. The tone of my post at my blog may have appeared to only be addressing folks who haven’t accepted salvation, but I do recognize that there are many out-of-balance Christians with a skewed view of Biblical teachings.
I think the internet gives folks a platform that has never really existed on such a scale before. I was browing some blogs last night, and could not believe the complete wackjobs that call themselves ‘Christian’- but they are preaching blood-sucking angels from Jupiter fly UFOs and are coming to take us away-ha-ha!
Quite frankly, as as snobbish as this might sound, I don’t get into discussions on doctrine with a know-it-all who doesn’t even read their Bible through once every year or so. We are commanded to study, and to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’. Now- if someone has questions and are genuinely interested, even if they are off-kilter, I could talk to *them* all day.
Two verses come to mind-
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
While appearing contradictory, we understand the principle being taught here- that sometimes it is appropriate to answer, and sometimes it isn’t. We need discernment to know which approach to take.
You know what is difficult, Sunniemom? I can hardly dismiss them as those who don’t read their bible through once a year. Those I have been discussing with do…passionately and devotedly. Probably more than I. After all, it is one of the only books on the approved reading list.
When they are talking about UFOs…or a recent discussion I had in which some woman was “prophesying” some pretty strange things, I don’t find it so hard. I say something and move on. I might not even return to see the answer.
But some of these things are frightening on more than a spiritual level. Some of them lead to actual physical abuse, with people welcoming it.
This is more representative the groups I am talking about:
http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/
And I will warn you. Perusing that site made me physically ill. But it is hard to walk away from people holding these views. It is like walking away from someone in the street on a freezing day. The consequences are all too clear, whether they accept your help or not. It is also not an “under 18″ website.
“Who knew that an offer of prayer could seem so insulting? ”
That made me giggle a little. Though I don’t have anything to offer to the topic, I couldn’t pass that by without a smile. As a non-Christian I think there are only a small handful people who have offered to pray for me and it wasn’t meant as an insult. When talking aobut the internet that drops to none. I always thought it was a bit funny that something meant to be so beautiful and connecting could also be used in place of giving the finger.
I’m an Episcopalian. Needless to say, I am not even considered to be Christian by many Christians in the world. I’ve always felt that to be their problem, not mine. I’ve also been told, ever so politely, by a Roman Catholic Monk that I am going to hell because I am not Catholic. (I must confess, I told him very sweetly to save me a seat. As my fourteen-year-old would say, my bad.)You just can’t please everyone, so I don’t try.
All in all, I have to tell you that it doesn’t really bother me. I know that I am walking with Christ. Should I really care what others think of me? Isn’t that just another form of vanity? (That is one reason I don’t use my blog to discuss this topic. Of course, I’m more than happy to discuss it here, Dana:)
On a side note, I pray for you, Summer. And not just with one finger! All ten are actively engaged. And it’s done with love.
I agree Dana, that those situations are very difficult, but ultimately we are each responsible for own our actions, and what we allow in our lives. If someone embraces something such as on the website you linked, I cannot ‘do’ anything about it, as long as they aren’t doing anything illegal. I could comment and even argue, but the Bible talks about folks who are ‘given over to a reprobate mind’ and those who are ‘past feeling’.
There does come a time when you shake the dust off your feet and walk away, as lacking in compassion as that sounds, one has to guard one’s own health, so to speak.
If out of the heart are the issues of life, then there are just some hearts that can only be touched by God. I pray for those who are perverted and deceived, but I am careful as to how much I expose myself to that mindset directly, if that makes any sense.
You brought out some interesting issues; both in the article and in the comment section. I have had people pray for me where it came out as an insult, their attempts to save me from my particular beliefs. They would even leave hateful propoganda on the windshield of my truck at work to explain how I was a member of the wrong church; theirs being so much closer to God. Thank goodness for trash cans at the exit to the employee parking area.
I have also entered into discussions with folks on the internet who appeared to have a Christian mindset only to find their mind closed to discussion. The spirit of contention destroys any hope of open discussion and rather than agitate folks, at least by leaving them comments on their blog/turf, I prefer to save those opinions either for my own blog or by sending them email on a private setting.
You do have to be careful what you say, or as you indicated from the old blog article, it could come back and bite you. lol
Great discussion… The whole thing is so…COMPLICATED~! I’m not sure there is a ‘right answer’ that will fit all situations…
I had to laugh at your comment about how ‘being prayed for’ can be so insulting. HA! We Christians may not drop the f-bomb, but we have our own unique way of letting others know what we think of them. (gag)…
Interesting post, Dana. I think that this is doubly hard when these issues are online, because sometimes the only way to break through walls is relationally. First you know someone, then you an enter into those discussions without (as much) anger or defensiveness. Communicating electronically, without knowing someone as more than pixels on a webpage certainly makes that much, much harder.
I don’t think we need to abandon the discussions, but certainly the usual methods aren’t working too well. So, how’s that for an answer? Helpful, huh?
Happy Ephiphanating! (It’ a new word I’m trying out.)
Summer, the vast majority of offers of prayer are meant as a beautiful thing. And I like I told an agnostic friend of mine who was terrified of teaching in Texas because she was convinced every student would try to proselytize her: regardless of the stereotype, it is a rather intimidating thing for most of us. And it is done in love. But it can be used in a way that isn’t, and I have seen it occasionally.
April and Sunniemom, I think both of you hinted at something that I need to keep in mind. The internet has given us an opportunity to talk to a diverse group of people that we don’t otherwise meet with. But it also allows for people with “fringe” ideas to find each other and find support.
The relational aspect is huge. And honestly, just when I think it is all pointless and I’m doing nothing but talking to a wall, someone emails me and tells me they had heard about whatever teaching but had no idea that “that” was really what was being taught. Now, chances are, these people would have found out for themselves before they got that far into it. But it keeps me hanging around.
And really, I do “dust my sandals” but there are always new people. Actually, a thought just struck me. I wonder if some of these groups, given their small size and “need” for fellowship might not be overrepresented in forums. Or if it is just my bad luck in surfing.
There are people looking for other people to control, and there are people looking for someone to control them. Not everyone believes in individual liberty, because liberty frightens them.
IMO this is because the flip-side of liberty is responsibility. Liberty is not the freedom to be as immoral and unethical as one chooses to be, because all actions have their own particular repercussions, which was one of the points of my blog post. Liberty is the freedom to make choices and direct one’s own life, which also means when I fall on my face, it is MY fault.
If folks can find a way to abdicate their freedom, they believe they have by proxy absolved themselves of responsibility. This, also IMO, is illustrated by folks who blame gov’t for everything in their lives. They have given the gov’t power to direct their lives, and so don’t take responsibility for their circumstances. But then when things don’t go their way, it is the gov’ts fault.
This also happens in radical Fundamentalism (I say ‘radical’ because the origin of Fundamentalism was about defending basic Biblical principles and doctrine, not about going to movies or wearing pants). It is perceived as living by a strict set of rules and standards, and so is embraced by folks looking to be controlled or be controlling.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
I guess we are wimps. We keep our religious and political affiliation a carefully guarded secret to avoid the commotion as much as possible. I sanitize some of my posts to remove any blatant indication of a specific group.
It is kind of sad. I used to think that having a blog meant having the opportunity to say exactly what you thought. However, since the purpose of our blog (whyhomeschool.blogspot.com) is to promote homeschooling and not a particular religion, political party, or world view, I find that it is far wiser to keep what I really think to myself.
You would not believe (unless you’ve hosted the carnival of homeschooling) some of the conflicts on relatively benign posts that pitted “We Are The Only Saved Christian” against “Not Christian Enough / Pagan going to Hell.”
We’ve literally spent hours on carefully worded emails between warring factions. Sadly, it is often the “Not Christian Enough / Pagan going to Hell” who are the most gracious and Christian in their conduct.
There are those who are not looking to “reason together,” but are simply looking to pick a fight.
Janine, I can imagine. And honestly, that is the biggest reason I think that the sprittibee would be making a huge mistake if she were to make the HSBA Christian only. There would be no end to the fighting.
Actually, that sort of thing was the first thing that clued me in to the fact that something was not right about some of these groups.
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” –John 13:35
And Sunniemom, you are right. And I agree on the history of the word fundamentalism. I used to fight it, but finally gave in for clarity’s sake. Fundamentalism was about returning to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. There is nothing “fundamental” about spanking babies, spanking wives, listening only to old hymns, etc.
When the most visible “fundamentalists,” like presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, says things like this:
“When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go,” he said. “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”
…
“When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ,” Huckabee told the enthusiastic audience.
…
Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said “there is suffering in the conditioning for battle” and “you obey the orders.”
It’s hard to square that with personal liberty.
Whoops!You may want a link to the article where Huckabee is reported to have said that. I got it on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html
Norman, that really depends. I will say that I do not support Huckabee, but for other reasons.
When a non-Christian sees some of these kinds of statements, I can see why they might think of a physical army, but it isn’t. If you want to go that direction with Huckabee, you’d do better looking in to his relationship with Gothard…
But as far as metaphors between the Christian and soldiers, they are recurrent in the bible. What one needs to remember is that it is a spiritual army with spiritual weapons and a spiritual battle.
The “armor of God” is there to protect us from “attacks” of the enemy. And that essentially amounts to:
The belt of truth (knowledge)
Breastplate of righteousness (I’m a pretty ineffective witness if I’m sinning myself)
Shoes of peace
Shield of faith
Helmet of salvation
Sword of the spirit (the Word of God)
Most of it is defensive. The only “offensive” weapon is the “sword” which is the Word of God. Christ’s army will do no more than evangelize.
I only point this out, because I have no objection to any of these statements on their own. There are groups who have a faulty view of these things and they forget about what Christ said to Pilate:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” — John 18:36
This kind of language resonates with a lot of Christians, but don’t think more of it than it is. I promise, mainstream Christianity is not organizing a jihad. We organize prayer meetings and candlelight services. There may be a few cult-like groups out there who do look at this more physically, but you still need to be careful how you interpret what they are saying. Some of them are actually quite libertarian. And the others…well…at least one argues against women voting. Which effectively halves their already tiny voice.
Dana wrote:
“If you want to go that direction with Huckabee, you’d do better looking in to his relationship with Gothard…”
I see why atheists and agnostics would get frustrated with you and call you an idiot.
Stunning argumentation there. I will delete further comments that serve only to insult.
Dana wrote:
That wasn’t an argument. Sorry. You’re frustrating because you’re throwing up old news and pointing me to a smoke screen. The connection to Bill Gothard seems minor — he showed up at a Huckabee fundraiser or something… Why should I think there is anything there? George Bush has more connections to the moonies — as do a lot of people on the right. If you’ve got something you need to do better than that.
I’m not making an argument that Huckabee has anything to do with fundamentalism. From the quotes you left, he sounds Christian to me, but not fundamentalist. What do you understand as fundamentalist?
And I’m not arguing that there is anything to whatever relationship between Gothard and Huckabee. I don’t know. All I know is that Huckabee said something about liking him, but I don’t know that there is more to it. It isn’t my issue.
The only point of my comment is that you appear to be afraid of something you don’t really fully understand. The Christian “army” is in scripture, but it isn’t anything that takes anyone liberty away.
It doesn’t even take away your right to disbelieve. Scripture tells me to “dust my sandals” at some point. Which is only to say that your decisions in spiritual matters are your decisions. And I respect that. I will never force anyone into any belief, even if I could.
You can’t make a tie to fundamentalism based on these words by Huckabee.
Dana wrote:
Even: “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.” ??
Is there something Orwellian about Christian language? Is it like doublespeak?
Not at all.
It is quite clear, so long as you remember that there is a difference between the spiritual kingdom and the physical. These metaphors are for a spiritual kingdom.
And specifically to “you’ve signed it over,” one must ask to whom?
Not the state nor even the church but to Christ. That is pretty basic Christian teaching.
The difference between what a fundamentalist believes and what evangelical or mainline denominations believe probably does hinge on the understanding of this…I don’t know. I haven’t thought about it that much…that is why it can get confusing.
Some will pervert these kinds of statements to try to prove that you have to follow their brand of Christianity without questions, effectively turning reason in the believer off. That is what I was talking about more in my entry.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
We have liberty of conscience, and the practical outworkings of faith are between the individual and God.
I’m not defending Huckabee. I don’t know enough about his religious beliefs to know more than what you quoted. But Christian teaching is no more dangerous to you than someone handing you a tract or conversing with you.
Dana wrote:
And if Christ doesn’t exist and if the spiritual is merely the psychological, then to whoever is interpreting, defining and inducing whatever Christ is to you.
No, that doesn’t follow.
If we are answerable to Christ and He doesn’t exist, then we are answerable to our own idea of Christ. Which leads us where? The same place as anyone with a partial understanding of the workings of the universe. Which is all of us.
It is between the individual and God.
Dana,
I had a long old comment typed out here several hours ago but got distracted and a few other things and when I came back to review it I realized that what you are saying, about feeling bad when people are like that to you, is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that it would be a bad thing if you weren’t sad that those who are your brothers & sisters in Christ, or who claim to be, treat you, therefore most likely others, with disdain simply because they don’t agree with you on a topic.
I guess I just think that as long as you aren’t allowing that feeling to change your opinion on something, i.e. just to be liked, then it’s the right feeling to have. It is wrong to treat others with contempt simply because we don’t agree with them and we only do it because of our sinfulness. Sin is wrong therefore, being sinned against is painful. Your feelings aren’t wrong, they are human and they are a good part of being human.
As for how long to carry on a “conversation” with people like that, it’s really up to you. For me, if a person was completely belligerent or obviously not listening to a thing I’m saying, I would end it. If they are truly trying to understand what I’m saying, then I would carry on.
Sara (d-b mom)
Thank you, Sara. That is an encouraging thought. : )
Dana wrote:
And your own idea of Christ comes from where? Is it really your own, or the one your parents gave you — or what you read or what some other authority figure gave you?
This line of reasoning isn’t really going to go anywhere because you are making presuppositions that I disagree with at their basis.
I could ask the same questions about whatever it is you hold as true and wherever it is you learned it from.
There are too many “ifs” for rational discussion.
Are those arguing for a “vaccination” for this “cultural virus” of religion promoting “liberty?” Or mind control?
Dana wrote:
I agree: You disagree. And you you don’t want to think about “ifs.” I can only say I think you should because those “ifs” are probably true.
You have no problem with someone telling you: “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”
I will continue to think that is a nasty form of psychological manipulation and very revealing of Huckabee’s psyche (and apparently your’s too) while you won’t.
I have the feeling that unless I agree with you, than you think I am somehow being manipulated. Fine. Believe what you want.
There is no “psychological manipulation.” But term it what you will. It isn’t that I don’t want to think about “ifs.” I just don’t see the point in going forward with a conversation built on a presupposition that I do not even hold. We can can construct our own universe and write our own rules, but that doesn’t necessarily conform to reality just because we like it better. You are leading me down a bunny trail and I have better things to do with my time, as I’m sure you do as well.
Because you find my reading of scripture and understanding thereof “psychological manipulation” I find rather disturbing. Does that mean that I need to be freed from it? And to what lengths are you willing to go so that I don’t continue in my “delusion?” Or teach my kids in it?
Who has the power over my mind? Just those who agree with you? Or am I allowed to make my own decision?
You are looking for monsters that aren’t there. You are afraid of something you know only a little about. That isn’t meant as an insult. It is the way most of us function. But be careful about the strength of your language and what you are willing to go to to rid the world of this “psychological manipulation.”
You find my voluntary belief in a religion that is based on voluntary submission frightening.
I find these people frightening:
http://principleddiscovery.com/?p=340
These “modern” views have resulted in the murder of millions. For religious faith which went against state imposed atheism.
When there are fundamental philosophical differences, attempting to reach an agreement on beliefs and words and phrases is about as productive as explaining the difference between pink and red to someone who was born blind.