From the perception of the media and, therefore, the public in general ...
The Christian South with its largely Southern Baptist base went to war ostensibly to defend their right to violate Scripture by kidnaping and enslaving Africans for their workforce and amusement. To this day the argument holds that sincere Christians (as opposed to the liberal, progressive type) are racists.
Sarah Jones of the New Republic assures us that the "religious right" is on its last legs, as demonstrated by the Nashville Statement. What is at stake here? She says it is patriarchy -- male power. The media (and Jones) reported that "Roughly 80 percent of all white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump." (How we got from "roughly 80%" of those who actually voted and who self-identified as white and 'evangelical' or 'born again' voted for Trump to the entire 80% of white evangelicals I don't know, but honesty in reporting isn't really an issue, is it?) Clearly the Nashville Statement is proof that biblical Christianity is on its last legs in America.
Westboro Baptist Church is a tiny little organization (I am loathe to call it a "church") built almost exclusively on a single family that has gained a reputation. They have a website that informs us how much God hates people of the homosexual persuasion (but not nearly as kindly as I just put it) and go around with signs to different events -- funerals and the like -- to assure us that anything bad that is happening is God's judgment on America for allowing homosexual behavior. The group has the words "Baptist" and "church" in their title, so clearly all Christians hate homosexuals.
We say, "You know, God's Word says that homosexual behavior is a sin and they, like all of us, need Jesus." They say, "Hater." All Christians, you see, are haters. Well, at least Christians who believe their Bibles.
The report was that 81% of white evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump despite his claim to being a Christian who has no need to repent of sin, his womanizing, his crude sexual speech, his gambling casinos, his cutthroat business practices, his multiple divorces, his arrogance and childishness. Now, there may well be reasons to doubt that number and it is very likely true that those "white evangelical Christians" who did vote for the Donald did not do so because they support his immorality or his attitudes, but hoped for new Supreme Court justices more in line with their views and opposed the Hillary at all costs. Still, they voted for him, they "put him in office", and now "white evangelical Christians" are just like Donald Trump.
Are you starting to see a trend? Did you note that the trend is a lie?
24 comments:
But it’s a trend, trends are news, so it must be true.
If it's reported, it must be true. If it's on the Internet, it must be true. True is defined by how we feel, so it must be true. Lots of reasons it's true ... even when it's not. They complained about "alternative facts", but they sure like to provide their own.
My primary concern, however, is that we know what our words and actions are saying.
Don't miss the fact that not one of those characterizations of Christians was accurate. Not a single one.
Glenn, I've let it go until now. I don't think your name snipes at people you disagree with are helpful to the conversation, nor are they a good representation of how Christians should act. "Name calling" isn't a mature or respectful way to disagree with someone. It doesn't speak well for your "side" when you lower yourself to that level, and it doesn't represent the Christian love we should have for everyone, even such morally lost people as Hillary. Disapprove of her platform, or her politics, or her beliefs, but calling her names isn't beneficial and it reflects poorly on Christ. I say this simply for the name of Christ. When opponents consider your arguments and see that you, as a Christian, are behaving no differently than others, you weaken your position and misrepresent Christ.
David,
You gotta be kidding. I think that moniker for MRS CLINTON suits her, ever since I first saw her.
I think you are a wee bit sensitive to the point of legalism.
"I don't think it represents the Christian love we should have for everyone" doesn't really look like legalism.
I fail to see how politely suggesting that your practice of giving people childish nicknames is anywhere close to legalism. It seems much more like one Christian gently correcting another. I also agree that it’s not particularly Christlike.
Not that I haven’t done things on blogs that aren’t Christlike, when I do, I’d appreciate someone pointing it out.
Actually, I didn't proof read my comment -- it should read "since I first saw it" -- the name, not "her" the person.
I merely used a moniker which has been all over. And I said it is to the "point of legalism" -- meaning bordering on it.
Come on fellas, a little humor is not a reason for chastisement.
I could point out that according to Calvinist beliefs we have no free will, ergo everything I've written was pre-programmed by God (this is actually taught by Rick Warren in "The Purpose Driven Life" where he says God chose who we'd be born to, what our eye color will be, and even what we are reading and writing at any moment) so I can't be held responsible. :oD
There, I fixed it -- I deleted the comment so no one will be offended. Sorry, I thought we were all grownups here.
Was my response not grown up? Was I sounding like a whiny child that got my feelings hurt? Did I even say I was offended? No, I was speaking out of concern for your representation of how a Christian should act (talk, type). And responding with insults isn't a mature response either. You could have taken it in the way it was presented, considered my view, and agreed or disagreed. But no, you threw a tantrum, had a hissy fit.
I didn't throw any tantrum or hissy fit -- I poked fun at you. It was YOUR response that was a hissy fit. And it is not an insult to state what someone is; e.g, if I call a murderer a murderer, that isn't insulting the person. I believe the evidence demonstrates that Hillary is was responsible for the deaths of at least four men (who know how many others). Ergo, the name fits.
Talk about who could have taken something as it was presented! "Killary" was an amusing moniker and I expected everyone to understand that. You only demonstrate you have no sense of humor, and then go virtue signaling.
Saying Hillary is responsible for the deaths of four people is not the same as calling her names. Apparently you and I have different definitions of tantrum. I stated my observation in a calm, informational way. You reacted, not by saying why I was wrong, but by calling me not a grown-up and deleting your post. I expressed no offense taken, but for some reason you believe I am a sensitive flower because I called you out on a behavior that I didn't believe was a good reflection of Christ. And just because I don't find your "joke" funny, doesn't mean I have no sense of humor, just that it wasn't funny, nor amusing. Calling her "Killary" is at most adolescent. It brings nothing to the conversation and reflects poorly on your argument and your Savior. When we are reduced too name calling, we have given up the debate and can not get beyond that point. I'm sorry you feel that calling someone out on their wrong actions is not an adult reaction.
Sorry Glenn, your crossing into Dan territory now. David’s point is reasonable and was presented respectfully and politely. To call it anything else is overreacting.
David,
There was no "tantrum" since I was not angry, irritated, etc, just amused at your reaction. You are still picking at one little thing in a statement about why Christians voted for Trump. But you took off into virtue signalling, making yourself the judge of what a poor witness for Christ I am by using a humorous term for Hillary rather than just flat out calling her a murderer. It is just YOUR opinion that punning her name is juvenile; others don't see it that way.
Craig,
Thanks for that nasty insult. In my opinion the overreaction was by David. It should have been accepted for what it was - a humorous pun. Next time I'll just label her the murderer she is.
I've been mostly staying out of this because "who called who what and was that wise?" wasn't really my point here, and when Craig offered, "you're crossing into Dan territory now", I thought, "I don't know, Craig ... that's a lot like name-calling", but then Glenn offered David, "It is just YOUR opinion that punning her name is juvenile; others don't see it that way," I had to admit "That really did sound like Dan."
I should note that conversation on the Internet stinks. I mean, it is not possible to see Glenn's face when he wrote ____ or David's look when he answered ____, so who was kidding, who was serious, and who was trying to be helpful isn't going to come across in this medium. I've had people who know me well be insulted by something I said electronically that, said in person, would have been surely taken as the jest it was intended.
Too bad all this sniping between believers is going on in response to post about how the public is assigning to Christians faulty definitions because of the poor behavior of some and it looks a lot like we're just furthering those faulty stereotypes.
Stan,
When Dan says "that's just your opinion" he is arguing against factual evidence. Whether or not something is "juvenile" is not an objective fact, rather it IS an opinion. So you comparing that with Dan is fallacious, and I find it rather disappointing coming from you. I find it rather disappointing that disagreement immediately leads to people accusing one of being "like Dan." And yet at the same time deriding one for name-calling!!!
I guess comment on your blog must come to an end for me -- I don't like disagreement leading to association with Dan.s
Glenn, you said, "Sorry, I thought we were all grownups here" and said you were poking fun in it. I was noting with humor that the phrase "your opinion" sounded like Dan. I'm pretty sure that if you had said what you've said to our faces in a conversation, we would have all smiled about it. I'm confident that if I had said what I did about "your opinion" to your face, you would have laughed along with me.
As I claimed, Internet conversations stink. You were kidding around. No one got it. I was kidding around. You didn't get it. It's too bad Christians can't get along better ... with Christians ... in a discussion on a blog post about how Christians are being misunderstood and mislabeled.
Personally what made it sound like Dan, was your reflexive attempt to justify your comment, rather than to acknowledge how others might receive your comment and how they might react to it.
Yes, it’s difficult to communicate in this forum without body language and facial expressions which means taking more care in what we say.
FYI, the Dan comment was at least partially tongue in cheek, so I guess it might be more difficult to detect humor than you thought.
When you're faced with door A and B, and one is wide open and it's ugly in there, and the other is shut but there's a sign on it that says, "lots of stuff you like, and some stuff you might not, and you must walk through one, that is not even a choice. I voted for the platform, even as ricaty as it was.
So...what's goin' on guys?
Art,
I made the egregious error of punning MRS CLINTON's name as "Killary." It was probably the worst sin one could commit. :oD
2nd worse. The worst is identifying one of us with Dan. :) I think we're all agreed on that.
Post a Comment