Melissa McEwen wrote a post last week that's fairly labeled "provocative," and which I am in typical fashion just getting around to reading.
McEwen's post is long and worth reading in its entirety, so I won't excerpt from it here. The gist is that when the non-crazy Christians ask her not to lump them in with the crazy, hateful ones, it only furthers Christian privilege in our society. (The rough equivalent of distinguishing between "real" Christians and otherwise, she points out, is something like a white man saying "but the Klan aren't 'real' white people!")
McEwen has more cause than most to be sensitive to Christian privilege, a history she summarizes in the post. Read it and weep, ye liberal Christ-followers.
Though I agree with much of what she has to say — and have stopped asking people like her to make those distinctions for roughly the reasons she cites — I do believe that it's in everyone's best interest to understand that American Christianity is a contested category.
For the sake of accuracy, if nothing else, journalists and bloggers should ask themselves "which Christianity is this?" whenever they get a press release or see the latest outrage. Who does it represent? How does it advance their agenda? We are long past the time, if such a day ever existed, when statements about Christian beliefs or practices could be given neutrally. I wouldn't expect an outsider like McEwen to evaluate the claims made by various Christians. Like she says, it's not her job. But responsible writers ought to let their readers know that claims to speak for Christianity itself ought not be taken at face value.
That's important for two reasons. First, though there's no arguing that Christianity is privileged in American society, that superiority is not equally applied. As McEwen says, that fact doesn't relax the necessity of Christians examining their own privilege. But at the same time, the claim of Conservative Christians to speak for all Christians is part and parcel of their exercise of power over liberal co-religionists and non-believers alike. This, I think, is what most liberal Christians are after when they ask someone like McEwen to make distinctions between the various brands: don't let one fragment of the entire religion speak for the whole. That partly reflects the desire not to be affiliated with people whose beliefs we find noxious, but it's also the plea of allies wanting to maximize their ability to help.
An admittedly extreme analogy makes the point. Westboro Baptist Church is roughly to American Christianity what the Klan is to white folks. No reasonable person that I know of would say that the Klan speaks for white Americans, even though they hold beliefs that are distressingly widespread. Responsible commentators don't allow the Klan to become representatives of the wider society because it would empower them. Likewise, most people who write and talk about Westboro keep them in the margins where they belong. That need not reflect anything more than the pragmatic calculation to disempower them relative to other voices.
Now, you might say in response that Westboro, like the Klan, holds beliefs that aren't all that uncommon. And indeed, some of their ideas are only slight exaggerations of what many people think and practice. Homophobia, like racism, is all over the place.
But just as often, the conservative voices don't represent the wider view. That's the other reason not to give them a pass when they claim to speak for Christianity. Because when they say, for example, that Catholics or other Christians are concerned that health care reform might make abortion more easily available, they might be lying through their teeth, and failing to contest the lie makes it that much easier for it to win the argument.
McEwen, among others, might want to check out that last link to see how you can make careful distinctions without ceding an inch of privilege, and without being appointed the judge over anybody's tradition.
Tags: conservative christianity, labels, liberals, progressive
Trying to work through the problems can lead to more problems. There are good and bad Christians. The problem has grown so big in this country, the average Christian is now less like Jesus than the average atheist. How do you draw the line? Should you draw it, and what does it mean? The purpose of the line is to say these Christians are of God, and those others are not, and even though the line might be a little fuzzy for the most part that judgment stands.
THERE IS NO LINE
American Christianity is now such a disaster it is clear there is a large group that has no actual connection to God, and the people are the most opposite of Jesus of any segment of American society. These people worship their church. They are their church. They are actually worshiping themselves. How about those good Christians that are on the other side of the line, if there was a line? The good Christians are in the good churches. It seems to me they are the good church, and they are worshipping good churches. It is still idolatry. Flushing the bad makes you more good, but does not make you of God.
[from the article]"the claim of Conservative Christians to speak for all Christians is part and parcel of their exercise of power"
This is the crux. Conservative Christians have this tendency to say such things as "Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin" or "Christians are upset at the homosexual agenda." Or else "Christians are alarmed that 'Obama-care' will give free rein for abortions and for illegal immigrants getting free health care."
Unfortunately, this is part and parcel of the belief system of many fundamentalist Christians -- that THEIR belief systems are The Truth, that anyone who calls themselves "Christian" and disagrees with these fundamental tenets of their belief systems are not truly Christian. For them, it's not enough to state something such as "we have profound disagreements with liberal/progressive Christians." Their belief systems require them to deny the very Christianity of those who don't hold to their own fundamental tenets.
The only response I can come up with is to state to them, "as a Christian, I have my own beliefs that are different from yours -- and in the end, it is God, not you or I, who will be the final judge."
People in my congregation often impress me. However, even with college professors and a pastor and his wife who are graduates of the University of Chicago Divinity School, the ambience in the church is that of an intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic dead zone.
The only response I can come up with is to state to them, "as a Christian, I have my own beliefs that are different from yours -- and in the end, it is God, not you or I, who will be the final judge."
janitorial supplies
floor buffer
And liberal values are based on hope, leading to acts of love. Anyone familiar with "The Course in Miracles" understands the basics of that. Joe McCarthy? Fear. Mother Theresa? Love.
If there are different varieties of Christians, and if no single Christian is entitled to speak for all Christians, then it's up to Christians to make that clear. There is just no way around it.
Unfortunately the difference among Christians is rarely communicated. Christians merely assume that everyone "knows" they're all different. So when individual Christians, especially of the Right wing, make pronouncements in the name of Christianity and of all Christians, they just assume everyone else knows there's disagreement. So they remain silent when, for instance, Rightist Christians declare that "Christianity condemns gays." Because the whole world just "knows" that not every Christian agrees with that ... right?
I hate to break it to everyone, but it doesn't work that way. The whole world does not, in fact, "know" that. What you refuse to denounce, you condone. It's up to Christians to make the differences among them clear. It's up to Christians to shout down all the folks who assume to speak for them when they actually don't. Assuming everyone knows better, does not work. Silence is approval.
I'm not talking about using force or censorship to control them. I am, however, referring to other methods of making this message clear. For every militant, outspoken, attention-hungry Christian-Right group, create an equally militant, outspoken, attention-hungry Christian-Left group. Every time a Christian Right leader says something outrageous on TV, buy ad time to say the opposite. Don't just sit back and let Christianity be absconded with, just because you don't have the courage to say something.
As for the notion of "a 'Real' Christian," that's nonsensical. Most people who are Christians consider "a 'Real' Christian" to be "another Christian who agrees with me, and doesn't make me look bad." That's FAR too subjective to be meaningful to anyone else. The truth is that the word "Christian" comes from the Greek, it's the genitive form of "Christos," which means "messiah" or "annointed one." As a genitive it designates something belonging to or coming from Christ; when referring to people, then, it means "follower of Christ."
Exactly what constitutes "a follower of Christ?" Basically, anyone who claims to know what Christ taught and who claims to follow those teachings. Some get those teachings from the Bible. Some get them from other Christians (i.e. being taught in-person). Some get them from both these sources. Who's to say which Christian more accurately knows and follows Christ's teachings? Do the rulings of a Church embody them? Perhaps. But maybe the declarations of a prophet to. Or maybe it's something more mystical, where the believer has to determine those teachings for him/herself.
Talking about "a 'Real' Christian," then, is a straw man, since no such thing exists in any meaningful way.
Great points. That is the problem, Christians need to take over the job of canceling out the conservatives so that us non-believers can stop worrying so much about it.
I think the concept of "real Christian" might no longer apply. Jesus is no longer in the picture, both conservative and progressive Christians are following their church, so those in the churches decide who the Christians are, and if they have disagreements it doesn't matter anyway.
So I'll chime in here, because now we have people making allegations that christians are following their church, meant as following the cult of personality around the pastor and the localized or regional doctrines I presume, and I must point something out.
The reason, and lets just consider the large number of official denominations, that all split off from a former group because of doctrinal issues(morality is doctrinal to a christian, is it not?), which basically means that the christian god is in just one of them, or not the god they thought he was and is in all of them, or a number of them(good luck finding out which ones!), or in none of them. Maybe indeed all this brouhaha can best be answered by stating that the evidence of the lack of a god is the very existence of the judging, immorality, and sectarianism that occurs in this religious group.
It is filled with anger, lies, adultery, fornication, corruption, judgementalism, sexism, and greed. Just a list of recent fallen "saints" could prove this point easily, all masked conveniently by the catch phrase of, "we're only human."
Really? Claiming to be the sole representatives of God, who is allegedly none of that? Then I see massive firings are in order, or, concluding the whole story is a fiction. That would better explain why christians are "following their church" and why there is such acrimony and lack of unity better than trying to find the need to classify oneself.
I have made the allegation that Christians are following their church, but it is really much more than the cult of personality around the pastor. It is all of the people supporting each other in their faith, and the entire experience including the buildings and services and traditions and literature and artwork and centuries of history, plus multiple cults of personality. It has grown to the extent that almost nobody can see it any more, only those willing to consider the fruits. It can now be boiled down to one simple question, why did they put Bush in power? The beauty of that question is the blind can't see it. Non-believers have responsibility to do the job because progressive Christians are too nice.
You guys kill me! You make things much more complicated becasue you are impressed with your own logic. You are preaching to your own choir. It can be as simple as believeing the Scriptures or not believeing them for instance: 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 (NIV) 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Of course I admit that I am intellectually challenged and unsophisticated, my bad.
no problem. I am not all that sophisticated either.I am very glad that is not the pre-requisite for being a Christian ;)
As for the quote- no, it's not that simple. Scripture also says that anyone who is married to a divorced woman is an adulterer. Should i, by that logic, not eat with them? That would eliminate a huge amount of people in modern church. What about an idolater?There are a lot of baby christians that still idolise a lot of things- like money, education, job, cars, etc. Slanderer? Have you heard the political debates among church people? Sexually immoral, etc.? I am afraid , if we are so haste to judge, we would eat in a very, very small company of selfish ,pious , sanctimonious snobs , thus reminding unbelievers why they decided to stay far, far away from Christianity.
The word “sophisticated” is, I think, rooted in the notion of artificiality. At least, I heard a sermon on that theme about 50 years ago by a New Testament scholar from Emory University. The distinguished theological philosopher Paul Ricoeur wrote about giving up one level of naivety to obtain a new level of naivety. I appreciate your wise post.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.