This message is for Christian fundamentalists.
First, let me say that I'm not particularly fond of you right now. On any given day I can tolerate you. Sometimes I even like some of you quite a lot. But now is not a good time.
Before I explain why, perhaps I should clarify who I'm talking to. I am not referring to honest, sincere believers who simply hold to a set of principles they consider fundamental. If this is as far as "fundamentalist" goes in describing you, we're okay. We may have contrary views on any given day, but usually the greater aims of love and mutual respect allow us to, at our worst, agree to disagree.
No, the fundamentalists I am speaking of are the religious operatives who use the theology of biblical inerrancy and reactionary moralism as a thinly-veiled strategy to harness the power of cultural certainty and ride their way to theocratic dominance. Slapping leather. Cracking whips.
If you have been paying attention to my blog, this should come as no surprise. So, I guess the play is the thing. Last weekend, the University staged a student-directed production of a Pulitzer and Tony award-winning play. It was magnificent. Maybe the best performance of its kind I've seen in my eight years on faculty. The play opened to rave reviews and audiences stunned by the vibrancy of the production.
Then it came. The shit. Hitting the fan.
Dr. Fussy Budget, the religion professor, sent an email of rebuke to the theatre professor and his advisory board. Among other things, he referred to the play as "shameful," "an embarrassment," "garbage," and "waste." He went on to comment that "We don't have to crawl into the mud with the pigs in order to know that it's dirty in there."
Was there nudity? Gun play? Were animals harmed in the making of the play? No. There were about a half dozen curse words, "alcohol" consumption, and the suggestion that two of the characters had been sexually intimate offstage. Far less offensive than the average half-hour of broadcast television.
Fundamentalists, this is where I remind myself that I'm not fond of you right now. I know you didn't do it. But, given the chance you would have. If not, the culture of intolerance you promote emboldened this guy to come after his colleagues with both holy barrels ablazin'.
He completely missed the point of the script, disrespected the efforts of the students, and villified the performance by way of a bastardized theology that has more to do with his own provincialism and personal hangups than it does with the nature of God.
I wrote him a lengthy response. I haven't sent it. It's harsh. I mean it's pretty brutal; and I struggle with how much I am prepared to become like him in my rebuttal of him. I am tempted to use Matthew 23 (where Jesus opens up some whoop-ass on the Pharisees) as my justification; but I'm not sure that's enough. On the other hand, I fear that too many believers let crap like this go unanswered because they have been taught that good boys and girls shut up and smile pretty.
What I do know is that it's bullshit. It's exactly this kind of bullshit that prevents us from being a light in the world. It is this kind of bullshit that corrupts and distorts the message of love and grace eternal. (If you are still wondering if this message is directed at you, ask yourself if my repeated use of the word "bullshit" bothers you more than the response of Dr. Fussy. Hint: If it does, this message is for you.)
What's even more disgusting is that Dr. Fussy goes on to suggest that the immorality of the University theatre will cost the campus recruits. Marketing. That's what it's really about. Not Truth and Goodness. I guarantee you, if we were flush with funds, this issue wouldn't have come up. Isn't that usually the case with Fundies? At the end of the day, it's about who has the power (financially, morally, emotionally, etc.).
Before you start weighing in with your charges that I am hoisted on my own petard because I deliver the very intolerance abhor, let me just save you the time and cop to the charge. Guilty. I am stuck. "One dead, the other powerless to be born," as Walker Percy said. I don't want to abandon the field to rhetoric of legalism and control; but I don't want to become the thing I despise.
It's amazing to me that anybody believes in God anymore. I mean, other than those of us who grow up believing because that's what our families did. It seems that the Holy has to cut through a tremendous amount of detritus, wade through a lot of slop, to get to us. I'm just glad Jesus is willing to crawl into the mud with the rest of us.
Oink.
44 comments:
Hey, it's Nick. I couldn't agree more. Saw the show this weekend and thought it was brilliant. Yet another success by the department. When will people stop using religious dogma to further their own personal issues? Drives me crazy. Keep the faith (pun intended)...
Reacher and others,
I see option "A" and option "B" on the table. What i find is that many times we think those are our only two options, when in reality option "C" deserves consideration.
While i sympathize with your frustrations (and downright disgust) with the inconsistency and hypocrisy of fundamentalists such as Dr. Fuss, i would like to ask a simple question. Are not Christians supposed to be set apart, different, salt and light, holy, perfect as our Father is perfect... and so on? Granted, Jesus has set an impossible standard for us to attain... that's to show us how much we need His grace. I think we'd all agree on that.
If you want a radical but thought-provoking perspective on this, read the book "The Church as Counterculture" edited by Budde and Brimlow, particularly Brimlow's chapter about the "Christian ghetto." He, along with Paul and Tertullian, makes no apologies for the Church being sectarian and radically so.
That said, i would not have been offended by the play nor the professor's reaction to the play. Drama is a beautiful thing. Fantasy certainly has its place, and artistic license gives us the freedom to distort reality all we want. But i agree that if we're going to make any attempt at reality, we can't ignore reality. We have to paint all the nuances into the picture, vulgar, obscene or not.
Here's where i draw the line: when sin is glamorized. In Hollywood, on TV, in fashion, in books, on stage, wherever. The call of the Church is to portray a pure picture of Christ to the world (which must be, by nature, pure as Christ is pure, however rebellious he may have been to the established authorities). Again, we should strive for that until His kingdom comes.
Those are my two cents for whatever they're worth.
Peace.
Another word...to the humanists out there.
To celebrate "humanity" above all else is to celebrate our nature, which is sinful. To be fully human is to be depraved and "short of God's glory." I don't intend on having a theological debate over the nature of man. This is my belief, which concurs with Christian Scripture. If you don't believe it, that's your choice.
So let's keep in mind that, as Christians, we are not to strive to be more fully human, but more full of Christ--transhuman if you will. Let's also remember that Christ didn't get down into the muck of this earth to stay here. He came to rescue us from it, even while we are still here. Let's not waller around in it anymore than we have to. Let's set our hearts on purity, as impossible as it may be. After all, we are reachers, aren't we?
My real (deep, thought-provoking) comments are knitting and may be cohesive enough to share later. For now, just a quick note...
I attended such a university for a couple of years a couple of decades ago. (Maybe it was that very one???) The experience led me to turn my back on organized religion of any sort. (For a few years...I eventually made it back). At 19, I was so disgusted with the hypocrisy, the holier-than-thou, the racism, mysoginism, and intolerance of any creative expression or individuality that I wanted nothing further to do with them or anyone like them.
More later. Oh, except for this. My studies there were varied but mainly I learned about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. And alchohol.
Sorry! I forgot to balance my comment with the recognition that God created everything "good" in the beginning, and we are no exception. I still believe that a great deal of our humanness is still good and beautiful and worth celebrating, as it reflects the creativity and beauty of God. That was not what i was referring to. I was merely referring to the state of our hearts and souls, our "carnal" or "fleshly" self.
That's all. Promise.
Here's the problem, fundamentalists rarely get upset about sin; they get upset about violations of culture. Dr. Fussy has decided, for instance, that drinking alcohol is a sin. It's not. Show me that in the Bible. It's not a sin. Drunkenness may be, but not drinking. Cursing is limited to a set of words defined by social convention. Is cursing a sin? Perhaps, under certain circumstances, when used in certain ways. Again, fundamentalists define the sin based on their culture. What about sex? What are all the conditions of sexual immorality? Must there be a church service to pronounce matrimony for sex to be pure? If there is a ceremony, is all sex that follows pure? Time and again fundamentalists superimpose their fears and boundaries on scripture and spirituality.
So, I DO oppose Dr. Fussy, because he is wrong to claim that the play was sinful simply because it "violated" narrowly and culturally formed standards of behavior that have little to do with God at all.
As for being "set apart," I suspect God would rather see us as distinct because of our display of community and extravagant love, not because of our smug rejection of dirty words and demon alcohol. My experience has been that people who major on morality fail in love. The behaviors become more important than the relationships.
Funny, the theatre department was one thing that kept me at said school. Helped me realize that not everyone on campus was completely crazy.
And this may be why "The Believer" is my favorite movie. . . I understand all too well the contradiction of both hating Christianity (in the film's case, Judaism), and being completely drawn to it as well.
I find that life is very rarely G-rated.
-Jennifer
While there were many things about "Fussy's" letter that I found lacking, one of the greatest was the claim that the play offered no hope in its story. Funny, I found that the play was filled with statements about faith, hope, and love - the three greatest components of Christianity, right? Too bad.
I appreciate your words. The more I think about all of this, the more I feel discouraged - as if someone is stealing the joy of this weekend from me. So it is encouraging to know that others feel the way I do and are speaking up about it. Thanks.
-Candace
Reacher,
Your comments are well-made and seem well-intentioned for the most part. I do think it would do you some good to spend more time and energy getting to know Christians more personally. You may have been around them more than i have in your lifetime, but i think it's the pharisaical, authoritarian leadership you take issue with. Most Christians are not mean-spirited and bigoted. They may not be as "educated" and intellectual as some of us, but they're not demonic.
I would be remisc if i neglected to share truth in the midst of these meanderings. As i said previously, options A and B are competing, when option C is most likely the best. Option C tends to be the "both-and" answer. Right intentions and right actions need to coincide to make right decisions.
I Corinthians 6:13-20 addresses the peculiarity of sexual sin. Sexual sin is indeed different than other sin, because of the role our bodies play in it. Ephesians 4:17-32 balances the call of the body of Christ to be both radically loving and holy. It admonishes us to "let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear."
I am not generally offended when people curse, except for the vain use of my Lord's name. But if our language is offensive to someone, we need to respect that.
As for the sexual issue, i don't think we even need Scripture for this one, but it helps. Whether people admit it or not, sex outside of a marriage covenant is sin (whether or not the ceremony takes place in a church building). Jesus throws it in our face when He says that we commit adultery when we so much as look at someone else with lust. And i'm certain that the "lust" He is referring to is more than just a "power" or "dominating" issue. It's a real, physical/ physiological issue. It's an issue of self-control and patience. As Paul says, we are to "beat our bodies into submission." I agree that we need to also practice self-control and patience within the marriage context. Exploitation in any context is wrong. But exploitation is not the only factor in sexual sin.
This response is very lame, incoherent and incomplete. I wrote a previous one, but my internet lost connection and the comment was lost. I tried to anticipate responses, because i already know what most of the answers will be, but i simply lost my train of thought and did my best to piece it back together. Hope it's helpful to the discussion.
Two responses, Beloved. First, the person who provoked all of this might not THINK of himself as mean-spirited and bigoted, but he was. I acknowledge that there is a lot of stereotyping that goes on, painting conservative Christians as ogres. There's a reason. Occasionally, they do things like this that become case studies in unsupportable meanness. Should they be ignored? Not in my opinion.
As for the definition of sins discussion, it's a red herring. I don't want to argue what is or is not a sin. I'm uninterested in such moral parsing. Furthermore, that's not the point. You can locate sin in any human interaction. The broader question involves the response to art and performance. If we tightly define the sins in our world, and set them as prohibitive criteria for public performance, we would be left with two movies made in the '70s by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Sin is part of life. Let's not run from its depiction; let's engage its meaning in our world.
I certainly agree that we should be critical of meanness in Christians. Ignoring corruption and misrepresentation of Christ by Christians is just that...ignorant, and an abdication of one of our responsibilities as brothers and sisters.
As far as art and performance goes, i'm pretty sure i made the case for not painting a false picture of reality (which is full of sin). But don't you think that the glamorizing of sin (sexual immorality, rebelliousness, hostility toward God, witchcraft, vulgarity, and even violence, just to name a few) in media of all types is counter to the call of the Church, and thus the Christian? Aren't we to "have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness"? Aren't we to "put off everything that hinders and the sin that so EASILY entangles"? Aren't we to fix our eyes on Jesus, and not this fallen earth? Aren't we to dwell on "whatever is true... honorable... right... pure... lovely... of good repute"?
I think we would be fools to think we could run from sin if we tried, and thus to refrain from its depiction. I think we would be bigger fools (and often are) if we therefore embraced and celebrated it. Likewise we would be fools not to recognize it's devastating nature and the fact that it separates humanity from God. This is the reason that it MUST be a concern of ours to understand what is and what is not sin. If we have no definition, how can we strive to defeat it? How can we confess it to God if we don't know what to confess other than "forgive me however i may have sinned against you." Maybe that's the best we can do, but we have a wealth of Scripture that addresses sin, and with a combination of intelligence, common sense, and submission to the Spirit, i believe we can come to consensus on what is and is not sin in most instances.
On that note i'm sure you would disagree. "If we could theoretically achieve consensus on such matters, then why don't we have consensus throughout the Church? Why so much variation?" My answer to that is this: There is disunity in the Body of Christ for two primary reasons. One, there are many who "go to Church" and who claim the name of Christ who will one day be thrown into the eternal pit of depravity. So there is confusion as to who is even a Christian. The New Testament is not silent about this matter. It speaks to the fact that we do indeed need to judge who does and does not belong to Christ, because we are not to be yoked with unbelievers.
Second of all, those who are believers disagree because of their own pride. People get so caught up in debating and proving each other wrong, that they neglect the voice of the Spirit. Furthermore, many Christians do not engage in an ongoing, passionate relationship with God as our Father, lover, friend, Lord, savior, master, and creator. We talk and read a lot about Him (and many neglect to do even that!!!) but we rarely fellowship with Him. When we are out of fellowship with God and with each other, it's no wonder we can't agree on anything.
My conclusion is that if everyone pursued Christ passionately, in Spirit and in Truth, and submitted to the Spirit, then we would all have unity, because the Spirit of Christ will not lie to anyone. So when we experience significant dissonance, here's what needs to happen. Pray, and i mean PRAY. Humbly, wholeheartedly, consistently. Then study God's Word and again, pray for illumination as to its meaning.
If our source is not the vine, then we'll be producing all kinds of funky, rotten, poisonous fruit.
Let's not run from sin's reality, let's battle it's devastation and corruption in our world.
I think my definition of unity is different than beloved's. I don't think it is wrong for Christians to disagree. I think unity comes in when we are willing to say "hey, you aren't exactly like me. . . but that's okay, I want to serve beside you anyway."
I'm not sure that in order to "battle sin" we need to eliminate its depiction from Art.
In fact, I would say that most people who call for that are calling only for their pet sins.
In a study by Christianity Today, readers answered questions about R-rated movies: if they watch them, if certain things would make the reader more or less likely to watch them. . . the trend that many noticed where that conservatives were more likely to run from sexual content / nudity while liberals were more likely to run from violence.
Funny how no one ran from the liars or the greedy or the thieves or the prideful or the gluttons or the lazy. . .
-Jennifer
whoops... just realized I only caught parts of conversation rather than the whole thing. . . therefore I was responding to statements not neccesarily made. sorry.
-Jennifer (insert foot in mouth)
Sister, your comment made me laugh. Yes, yes, yes and yes. I feel the professor has blown up for all the wrong reasons. He obviously didn't pay any attention to the plot, otherwise he would have walked away with a message. Maybe not the one he wanted to hear, but a message nonetheless. And if he thinks students at this university are being 'forced' into listening to foul langauge and sexual situations, he has no clue what's going on around him. Language is beautiful in both kind and vulgar senses. Both bring emotions. And I feel he has no idea about realistic sexual situations of the world. I know, he taught my spiritual formations class. He would teach students that men are in charge of all sexual acts and that women are controlled by men in this area by dutiful right. Bull f'ing shit. And as far as losing people due to a show, that's crap. If enrollement isn't swayed by a girl being beaten and raped a mile from campus, I dont' think a 3 day stint of a production is going to do much to affect heavy enrollment.
Jennifer,
I share your sentiment on unity. Agreeing to disagree es muy importante, but in the midst of disagreement we shouldn't neglect to seek the truth, no matter how far we have to "reach".
You're right. We do seem to have pet sins. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, that doesn't give us license to embrace all sin, but to struggle against all of it and not just some of it. Again, (and i think you went back and read this, so forgive me for being repetitive if that's the case) depicting sin in art makes sense insofar as life is indeed many times R-rated, or at least PG-13! But associating sin with heros, heroins, stars, happiness, satisfaction, and so forth is counter-Christian.
Forgive my Spanglish.
Good comments, Jen M. Are you serious that that prof said those things in class? Or did you just interpret them that way? Did he mention the fact that men are to lay down their lives for their wives as Christ did for the church? AS JESUS DID! He suffered unspeakable torture, even unto death. That is my calling as a husband. I don't know too many women who would feel exploited or dominated with a husband like that.
If this prof is really spewing out garbage like you say, someone--Reacher, yourself or someone else-- needs to put him in his place, because that's disgusting. It truly is people like him who give conservatives and fundamentalists a bad rapport. For Christ's sake, I hope i don't come across that way.
Oh no Beloved, that is what he was teaching us. I understand the concept of husbands being the head of the household and so forth. I could have positively understood this viewpoint. I also understand basic gender differences that affect relationships. He was stating to the class that women were second class when it came to sexual relations. Meaning that men are in charge of when, where, duration, ect. While I'm yet to be married and cannot state with exactness the truth in all such things, I still find that a bit degrading that he felt women had little choice in a martial, sexual relationship. It takes two to tango!
"MARTIAL sexual relationship"
Interesting Freudian slip. Ironic.
Dearest all:
I am an outsider to this discussion. Let's say I know some of the parties involved. Let's say I've heard of the University involved.
I have three responses:
1) If you are unable to communicate your ideas or opinions or personal doctrines in Good English (or whatever your native tongue may be), your ideas should be utterly ignored. If you are capable of expressing opinion, congratulations. Lucifer had an opinion; look where it got him. If one's writing is immature, is one surprised that one's ideas are as well?
2) I see two dangerous things coming out of debates like this:
a. "Fundamentalists," however you define them, seem outright disdainful of the world they live in. This may or may not be the case, but that is exactly how the situation reads. The fundamentalist perspective sees attempts to be "set apart," or "holy"; the world sees religious snobbery and will not let you into the conversation. I think this is a radically different position than Jesus took. Jesus was holy and purposed to become more human. Our task is not to reverse that process, but to employ our human nature in an urgent call for the world to look at God's grace. I imagine that, given the intent of the play in question, that's exactly what the University theatre was attempting to do.
b. From an outsider's perspective, the debate that has ensued as a result of this play is not a theological, religious or moral debate, but a political and/or aesthetic debate. Often, I hear Christians trying to equate their own politics or tastes to morality or doctrine. In short, I would say that being a conservative Christian has nothing to do with being Christian and everything to do with being conservative; I'd say the same as it applies to liberal Christians as well.
The debate as I have seen it rise on the University's campus is about two or more political perspectives.
3) Two observations on plays:
a. Plays are not reality in the same way that fables or -- in Jesus' case -- parables are not reality. They may share some correspondance with reality, but that is quite beside the point. They are hypotheticals. This may be why Jesus asked or was asked questions following his parables.
b. My weakest argument (because it is the most out of context): Jesus insulted and offended people, most of them quite religious folks.
Jen,
I'm dreadfully sorry you had to sit under the instruction of such a man. Thankfully the instructor who taught a similar class i had in college never stooped to such depravity. I couldn't agree more with you about the place of sex in a marriage. Don't ever settle for a man who (1) treats you like you owe him something, or (2) let's you run all over him. Both will fail you in the end. Find a man who will lead you humbly, as a servant, honor and build you up in your gifts and passions, and challenge you in your faith walk as well as allow himself to be challenged by yours. You deserve that.
"Anonymous visitor".
You are pompous, arrogant, and presumptive and your mud-slinging will get you nowhere in the pursuit of building relationships, even e-relationships! Not to mention the fact that you do the very thing you have "admonished" us about. Your claims are unfounded and counter to the truth found in Scripture.
Apparently you are not familiar with the Scriptures in which Jesus and many others command us to live holy, perfect lives. It is not surprising that the world looks upon us with disdain. Jesus promised us they would. And whether or not they think so is beside the point. Even so, we are to live both holy lives and lives of love and servanthood, not one or the other. In fact, i doubt one's life could be considered holy if it was not lived in service to others. "Faith without works is dead" (in other words, not faith at all).
You should seriously consider reading "The Church as Counterculture" ed. Budde and Brimlow. It is a compilation of essays by theologians, social theorists, pastors, and so forth, regarding the issue of the Church's place in culture and society. Don't be so quick to assume that the Church's only hope of communicating its message is by become like the culture around it. The book's authors make many convincing arguments just the opposite.
Regarding your smug dismissal of those whose skill may not lie in the medium of written language, "you best check yoself." There are many ways to communicate, and there are many brilliant people who have not had the priviledge of learning the upper/middle-class secret code of written language. Thinking before one speaks (or writes) is much more honorable and effective than using eloquent speech to say something that's not worth listening to (or reading).
Regarding point 2a., Jesus became human in the physical and emotional sense, but his character is unparalleled. He did not try to behave in a sinful way, as humans naturally do, but to live in a holy way, to set the example for us to follow. He demands that we "follow Him" and strive to be like Him. Even aside from Scripture, it makes no sense for sinful humans to try to be more sinful, rather than trying to be more holy. Sinning is not something we have to TRY to do. We all do it naturally. Jesus is in the business of conforming lives to His likeness.
Regarding point 2b., you are correct that many times conservative/fundamentalist arguments and agendas are political, cultural, and downright selfish and mean. But you are amiss to assume that all those who align themselves with the conservative/fundamentalist perspective. And likewise, those with liberal perspectives. There are positive and negative elements to both ideologies, and those are the pitfalls we all must watch out for.
If you are challenging us all to become more "moderate" i think that's wise advice. That doesn't mean, however, that we become impotent fence-riders with the attitude that anything goes. Jesus came not "to bring (earthly) peace, but a sword."
Finally, on your last "argument", Jesus insulted people with the truth, which was always good and pure, and always did so out of pure motives. The "religious folks" were the ones who had their priorities mixed up. Their sin was the sin of pride.
Whoops. I guess my ideas aren't worth consideration. I made a boo-boo. I meant to write"
"But you are amiss to assume that all those who align themselves with the conservative/fundamentalist perspective do so because of political or selfish reasons."
Reacher, it wasn't a freudian slip. It was intended. Although he did apply the same principles to pre-martial relations within a committed relationship. I was just defining a consentual consumation.
Beloved, I have found a good man who fills both shoes as both a leader and a servant. It'll just be a while before the hitching takes place.
Anonymous, as for as English grammer is concerned, I'm a product of the Texas education system. If you've listened to our President, I'm sure you can give me grace. This, however, does not make me ignorant. We's just got none of them English skills, yo.
I thought you brought some lovely points to the discussion. I'm not sure what stance you're taking with the definition of a fundamentalist, but in my experinece on this campus, the tie between politics and Christianity has been tightly pulled. I agree that the issues should be over ethical standards, not political standards, but one must also consider that a large group of people tie the two together and cannot seperate them. This is why we see poor people vote Republican. And your observations on plays are spot on. Not much to add to that.
i thought most poor populations voted more heavily Democratic? if not, i learned something new today!
by the way, Jen... i'm glad to hear you caught a good one. ;)
Well, I belive most urban poor people vote Democratic, I was refering to rural folks. While they may not be dirt poor, they still live below the poverty line. It's the concept from the book "What's wrong with Kansas." Or something like that. Reacher knows, he can correct me. And thanks, I'm quite fond of him myself.
Gotcha.
Point 1: I said that people who cannot express themselves in Good English should not be paid attention to (although, for you inerrantists out there, I didn't exactly say it that way). I think it is possible for one to be both articulate and not know how to spell or use commas; I do not think it is wise. I said that you should be ignored if you can't express your ideas in Good English. I see Good English as a low common denominator. It is not the lowest -- we could all gurgle like babies. And Good English may be secret code, I grant you, but it is a code freely taught to and expected of people who attend the academy. It may be that the bar is too high, but I have no dog left in that fight.
Point 2: As you called me "pompous, arrogant, and presumptive" as well as guilty of "mud-slinging," I would question whether you'd like me to pay attention to that bit of your Christ-like attitude or the bit when you told me I was "quick to assume" and implicitly "smug." You say:
"Jesus insulted people with the truth, which was always good and pure, and always did so out of pure motives." Was calling me pompous and arrogant purely motivated by the nudging of the Holy Spirit or were you just angry?
Point 3: I think that Christians (including myself) are too quick to liken other Christians or demi-Christians to the Pharisees Jesus so often took issue with and use the Biblical precedent for antagonism as weight for whatever argument is being put forth. I don't think any of us are Pharisees and I don't think many of us are particularly Christ-like.
Point 4: Back to the play. Did it really suck? Or was it all right? Was there anything redeeming about it? If not, more power to you, but why (other than that the world is a cesspool of sin) do you think that it got lots of awards, a movie contract, etc.
Point 5: I am not a student, faculty or staff member of the University community of which we all speak, so please don't take your frustration out on anyone you think I might be.
"point 1"- Who says everyone participating in this conversation is from "the academy" or should be?
"point 2"- I'm just stating it how it is. I don't think that's particularly un-Christlike, personally. You spoke arrogantly and recklessly. And no, your comments didn't get my panties in a wad, and still don't.
"point 4"- If you paid much attention to the original blog we are commenting on, you would have noticed it was a stellar performance.
"point 5"- Why the defensiveness? No one's taking frustration out on you. Did you want to be a part of this conversation, or did you just want to do a drive-by mudslinging?
Reacher,
I like your new self portrait.
Why'd you remove your picture and profile info? Are you fearing for your life?
Whew. Y'all done got me all tuckered out. (Jen's not the only Texan around these parts).
I'm not even going to attempt to play with the big dogs in the war of words we have going here. Too many years post-unused lit major to even try. So I'm tossing all my deep thinking for this brief statement that reflects the totality of my Christian perspective:
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Period.
Now, ta-ta, all. I'm off to Playa del Carmen for a long weekend full of depravity and wickedness.
Oh. But I did want to say this. Here's my biggest struggle in this arena--Being tolerant of the intolerant. Know what I mean? I really have to work at that one.
Damn, Sister. I spend a good hour crafting a sharp, incisive, yet snark-free comment, and before I can post it, you jump in there and shame me for even having the thought. You could not be more right.
Although it would be a hell of a lot easier to love my neighbor if that bastard had to love me first.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40517
Yeah, I saw that. Sweet.
I guess that'd be a good topic for another post... but is it even worth our time? Seems pretty absurd to me.
Actually I think it's pretty dead-on satire -- and relevant to what we've been talking about here as well: the debate over whether/how much we should shelter ourselves and our children from "sinful" words or ideas. And how far off track some religious people get from the big-picture message of what Christianity is supposed to be about (see Sister's comment above).
Guess that shows how ignorant i am of the onion website. i'm not all that into cyber-life. this blog just interests me particularly.
i don't blame some people for home schooling their children or having house churches, although i think that article was a little extreme. I think the house church movement is the future of the church. It's the primary method of Christian expansion throughout the majority of the world, because they don't waste time setting up bureaucracies and raising massive amounts of money for buildings and paid staff. They just love people and proclaim the good news and train everyone else to do likewise. They don't leave time or space for people to just get settled in and get comfortable with the Gospel. The Gospel is preached as an "all or nothing" proposition. Either you give your life to Jesus or you don't. If you do, then do something about it. If you don't, then don't pretend to.
I think that someday in America organized, institutionalized Christianity will be either completely ignored or completely persecuted. It certainly won't happen while this nation is still a democratic republic, but i also have doubts as to whether this country will continue to be so for hundreds of years to come. The deeper we go into debt, the closer we are to that reality.
But i'm still wracking my brain on the model of church that will be most effective right here and now. And it's definitely more than random individuals loving other random individuals. It's gotta be a group thing or it's not a Body. Anyway, gotta run.
Listen. I understand we need to work on ALL the possible solutions to this problem. We need to work on keeping people who aren't ready for children from having irresponsible sex. We need to make rape offenders accountable in MAJOR ways, and follow through in our judicial system. We need to take care of our poor and love women who are impregnated against their will. We must do these things! But we CANNOT in the meantime allow public opinion to continue to support abortion IN ANY INSTANCES WHATSOEVER. There is no instance that justifies killing an innocent life. None. Not rape. Not incest. Not poverty. If you do not believe that God can make good out of difficult situations you #1 have no faith and #2 are ignorant, because people have children under difficult circumstances all the time, and those kids most often turn out great. And even if they DON'T, we have no right as human beings to decide ahead of time for them that they don't deserve a chance to live.
God knows us even before we were conceived. God is God and we are not. Jesus said "For any of you who cause one of these little ones to STUMBLE, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and drowned in the ocean." Do you honestly think that causing someone to stumble is worse in his eyes that killing them? Come on.
We need a COMPREHENSIVE effort to reverse this sickening trend. But it will never happen until (1) we stand unified as a nation on this issue, (2) we stand unified that sex outside of marriage (which is ALL unsafe no matter what precautions you take) is wicked, (3) we as a CHURCH care for the poor, the widows, and YES the orphans (those whose parents at least gave them a chance), and (4) we share the TRUTH of the hope of the Gospel and drop our theological bickering and intellectual picking apart of scripture. Most of the time, being politically correct means being morally, ethically, and religiously INCORRECT. Think about that for a minute.
Start a new blog topic, cause we need to have some serious, fucking bullshit conversation.
No. Get your own blog, if you want to start a new topic.
DAMN YOU. Damn all of you!
...
FUCK YOU. ok? FUCK YOU. All of you who are about to throw stones at me. Just go fuck yourself.
I appreciate your passion and anger over this, but you just lost me (and everyone who doesn't agree with you, and maybe even a few who do) right there. This does not a conversation opener make. Nor does it accomplish this:
You're damn right we need to get together, liberals, moderates and conservatives, and do something about this problem, and do it fast.
Nor will your "conversation" go far with this attitude:
I will never write one more word on this blog site or speak one more word to any of you who claim in the name of Jesus to advocate pro-death.
Again, I both understand and respect the pain and anger that led to your post, but you just took a great big piss over this site and insulted at least half of its readership. And you expect what, exactly? That we now automagically agree with you, or go fuck ourselves? This puts your criticisms of arrogance and condescension upthread in a whole new light. Mote, beam, etc.
And finally:
Most of the time, being politically correct means being morally, ethically, and religiously INCORRECT. Think about that for a minute.
I have. A great deal, in fact. And I couldn't disagree with you more.
I apologize for not just letting those comments drop, Reacher, especially given that this is your place and not mine.
Sorry all.
If you knew me, you'd be shocked that the things i wrote last night came from my fingertips. But the truth is, they came from my heart. What does that mean? i don't know. i guess some people channel their emotions in different ways. i just happened to be on the computer at the time.
I realize that being absurdly offensive as i was does not accomplish much. But does sitting around nicely pondering things generally motivate people to radical revolution? Of course, offending people doesn't motivate them to do anything but retaliate or dismiss you altogether, so i realize my comments may have been counterproductive. Obviously (or maybe not so obviously) they were out of character.
I think it was just the last straw for me. That article just put me over the top. Sorry to impose on your blog. I should have gotten my own. I just haven't mustered up enough creativity to write up an original post that will be as thought-provoking as Reacher did here.
I'll rid you of my narrow-minded conservative comments. You won't be hearing any more out of me.
I ask your forgiveness. What you do with that is up to you.
Adios.
I find reading such comments rather tiring, and there's no way I can begin to reply with the proper response. However, there I had a conversation about this topic with a friend of mine who is studying to become a social worker. Neither of us are willing to make bold statements, but rather bring up questions that baffel us. We brought up the fact that abortion isn't a problem. It's a SOLUTION to a problem. The problem is unwanted pregnancies. Am I saying it's the most ethical solution, no, but in definition, that's what it is. How is it that we come up with a way to attack the problem? We have solutions that you can find in any planned parenthood guide. How do we stop the pregnancies in the first place? Better education programs? Cheaper contraceptives? Free condoms avaliable to students in high school/college? We have many thoughts and emotions towards the solutions, but can't we find a way to eliminate the problem in the first place?
Wow. I go to the river for the day and all hell breaks loose.
Let me say this: I appreciate all participation and comments on this site; but I will be posting some ground rules for the future. When we abandon good sense and relationship for idealism that drowns others in the weight of its perspective, we cease to be engaged in an exchange of ideas. I hate to be controlling, but that will come to an end here and now.
I'm not going to begin to try to address all the issues flying around here. I appreciate those who have attempted to preserve the conversation.
I see that some have removed their own comments, and I have removed comments that I deemed to be offensive and abusive. My call. I hated to have to do it, but there are limits to free speech on this site.
For the time being I am disabling everyone's ability to leave comments on this particular post. I think we all need to let it ride for awhile. I'll be back with something fresh in a day or so.
Talk to you soon.
Post a Comment