Curious Conversation with a Fundamanetalist, far-Right Wing Fellow Believer.

So I’m surfing on youtube yesterday, looking up vids by a few guys considered part of the “Emerging Church”, which among other things has been called the “Christianity to the post-modern world”, a more seeker-friendly Christianity, and a Christianity that attempts to disassociate itself from the “Americanized, politicized Republican red-headed stepchild” of more traditional, biblically accurate, centuries-spanning, multi-cultural Christianity

If the last Presidential election is any indication, any attempt to disassociate Christianity from the Republican party will be met with hostility. From delusional Christians, or angry Randian Republicans who don’t “get it”; surely Jesus was all about punishing the poor? Surely God is all about bombing our enemies over economic reasons? Surely only Capitalism and the love of money aligns with Jesus?!

And to look righteous, to come across as morally superior, they will invoke increasingly granular references to debatable theology. Theology that is not universally agreed-upon by all Christians, anyway, but by their insistence is the only accurate Truth.

Or, in my own observance, they quite obtusely invoke small snippets or sound bites from Emerging Church leaders as “irrefutable proof” that the speaker is “apostate”, when what appears to be the case is a rabid choice to misinterpret that sound bite. Oh, and words like “Heretic” and “apostate” pepper their diatribes, too.

So I comment on a vid by this guy, Rick Warren. He wrote “The Purpose Driven Life”. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Maybe you even read it. A book on the role of Jesus as the means to adding meaning, purpose to one’s own life. After all, he’s a minister. So of course his pitch is the way Jesus accomplishes this. Were he an actuary, perhaps he’d have written how Actuaries add meaning to life.

But be that as it may, the video detailed his assertion that those who call themselves Christians must learn greater tolerance for non-believers. Tolerance not at the expense of Truth, but tolerance with a caveat to “agree to disagree”, recognizing that, quite often, one can be persuaded to “your” opinion if they feel they are not being coerced into that opinion. Sly? Covert? Perhaps…or perhaps plain old grown up respect. Or as Jesus might have said, “Love your enemies, pray for them who persecute you” (much less those who merely disagree with your Faith).

Whether intentional or not, the person posting this vid has a real beef with Warren. But nothing…nothing in the vid itself really violated actual scripture. It undoubtedly violates closed-minded, far right wing absolutism that paints all “others” (non-believers in any of a number of political or theological sub-topics) as not worthy of respect.

As one raised hardcore fundamentalist before getting a college education (ahem), I recognized all the talking points that would have raised my blood pressure back then: respect for others, tolerance, commonalities with non-aligned persons.

So…in my own mind blending the obvious fundamentalism of the poster with the “expected”, complementary far-right ideology, I emailed the poster and asked what their beef was? Was it the tolerance? Was it the peacemaker element? What?

I wound up becoming the subject of their blog in their response.

At the risk of “repaying evil for evil” (for lack of a better phrase; no doubt they would assert they’re “contending for the faith”), I decided to counter-post. Here, to the best of my understanding, are the posters assertions, with my retorts. This was originally supposed to be an email reply, but stinking youtube’s email feature is pathetically limited.

————————————-

Assertion: I am not A Christian. Or a “Real” Christian. Or not the granular, sub-sub-categorized flavor of theological minutiae that my accuser is.

1. I am a Bible-believing Christian, raised in a fundamentalist Assemblies of God church…but now in a Protestant, non-denominational church originally affiliated with the midwest Baptist denomination….whose leadership since the 04 election has been asking hard questions about the synthesis of American patriotism and right wing ideology with the very Eastern, Jewish, non-American faith that (we believe) finds fulfillment and completion in the person of Jesus. So you can quit with the assuming that since I differ with you I must not be a Believer. Believers can differ and still be Believers.

Assumption: I mistakenly lump this person with the likes of Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of Phred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” fame, for (presumably) taking offense at Warren’s advocacy of fellowship with non-believers. And for advocating “being nice” to unbelievers.

Plus, showing that love precludes sharing my beliefs, including warning them of the dangers asserted in the Christian world view…metaphorically warning a kid if they’re about to burn themselves.

2. I certainly have mentally associated you with Shirley Phelps-Roper. Since you opted to provide a video of Rick speaking exemplary things as your “supporting evidence” that he is an apostate…I concluded you took issue with his assertions in that video. By all means feel free to post a video that takes out of context anything he says that appears to fit your belief in his apostasy. I WILL review the links you included in your blog.

“Being Nice” as you put it is in fact respecting the dignity of the non-believer, still believing they are doomed to hell unless they repent, and for that reason NOT making the message of Jesus into something odious by virtue of my approach. And yes, you have the power with your approach to make the message of salvation an ugly looking thing. Refer back to Shirley Phelps-Roper.

And No, loving someone does not mean allowing them to burn themselves or hurt themselves. This is raw straw man on your part. But in that context, if you present the gospel in an offensive manner, the old “reverse psychology” is risked; people may reject Jesus by virtue of rejecting you. But know it is YOU and your odious approach they are rejecting, NOT Jesus.

Assertion: I hate this person, by virtue of disagreeing with their absolutist position.
[Note the dualism in this assumption. Either I 100% agree, or I'm 100% wrong, and I hate them. No in between, no third (fourth, fifth, myriad) option.]

3. I do not hate you. Bluntly, I’m not operating under what appears to be YOUR paradigm in regards to Rick Warren. I am not. Exposing false teaching is absolutely important. But Physician…heal thyself! Unless my googling is mistaken, I believe you are a contributer to Free Republic who, among other things, advocated a Christian-based defense of warfare. When exposing false teaching, do consider the false teaching that blends nationalistic pride in America with the faith of Jesus, again founded well before 1776.

Assumption: My referencing snopes and/or Wikipedia is by turns suprising (someone who disagrees with them knows nothing of snopes) and ridiculed (since Wikipedia is open-ended in article contributors, nothing on Wikipedia “must be” correct)

4. Snopes: Snopes is certainly an excellent resource for myth de-bunking. I can see why Conservatives tend to hate it. Wikipedia certainly has its flaws, but has engineered into its very structure an ability to challenge false data, and the reference sources they include (at bottom) are certainly not mere links to other wikipedia articles, but outside sources. But I know Conservatives are trying to create their own version of wikipedia, on that tired assumption that any open information source (or free press) must have “librull bias”.

Assumption: Since I didn’t know that Ted Kennedy accidentally called Obama “Osama Obama”, and Faux News aired it, I must be ignorant about current events.
[I assumed this presumed far right writer was repeating the myth that Obama is some sort of al Quaida agent.]

I assumed the Obama Osama reference related to the pathetic false rumor that Obama was an al quaida operative. My mistake, but understandable that a presumed conservative would also jump on that debunked bandwagon.

And your link to Obama Osama directs to a Fox News clip. Sorry, the “when Animals Attack” network isn’t the most trustworthy of news outlets. Fox was the #1 network of polled viewers who mistakenly believed Saddam was behind 9-11, that WMDs were found in Iraq, and that Saddam acquired nukes. And yes, memo’s instructing its journalists to massage stories to fit conservative biases is very real. Fox’s conservative bias is pretty much a part of the national “Zeitgeist” at this point. The clip is real, and Ted needs to learn to speak better, but I avoid Faux News like the plague, so I would not have watched that bit.

Assumption: An article by one Joseph Farah of World Net Daily will affirm the position that Rick Warren is a liar/apostate/heretic, etc.

And Joseph Farah? Contributor to World Net Daily? WND makes Fox “News” look like Mother Jones by comparison. An even clearer politically conservative bias…meaning they will see nothing but their prejudiced “haters o’ freedom over thar’”…and Ricks “two lyin’ eyes” become part of the conspiracy that threatens their ideology. So of course the choice will be to attack Warren’s “two lyin’ eyes”.

Assumption: Somethings wrong with me for referencing Snopes and Wikipedia rather than the Bible with regard to the condition of Christians in Syria, nowadays.

5. The Bible is not going to tell you the modern demographic of Syrian Christians. So we can either assume Rick is another sleeper agent for al quaida, secretly wanting to harm Syrian Christians further….or he speaks his observances of what he witnessed in Syria. Regardless, at worst he is demonstrating love for our enemies. And when Muslims and Christians can come together as human beings and converse, our Truth WILL get through, provided we don’t choose to be ugly in OUR approach.

This is one of those moments where we have to put our (hey, even my own!) Americanized distrust for the middle eastern muslim on the back burner, in favor of Christ’s approach of Love. Yes, loving engagement with the Truth, but in a way that doesn’t alienate them. They probably know our theology better than we know theirs, anyway. We’ve certainly pitched it from the tips of our swords throughout History (that slippery topic which an understanding of would have prevented GW from calling the War on Terror a “CRUSADE”).
Assumption: I ought to be offended or fired up because Syrian…or Chinese Christians are under greater oversight by their respective governments. Fired up that their relationship to the government differs from my own.

6. Pointing out Syria and (straw man) China’s state control over Church’s neglects to contemplate that this prevents what Greg Boyd (another heretic, pant-pant) called the “top down” means of Christians controlling society…in favor of the bottom up approach, where Christians MUST behave like Christians, since they are not the domineering power.

I cannot speak to the total status of Christians in Syria, so either we take Warren’s word for it that outside of America (gasp), culturally Syrian Christians live peaceably with culturally Syrian Muslims, or we again assume he’s in on some nefarious conspiracy.

Assumption: Integrating one’s Faith … with tangible demonstrated healing ACTION in the world, is heretical. Faith only. Do nothing, get your own head straight, pitch to non-believers while doing nothing else but pitch to them. Religious traditions that merge faith and works are “compromised”, “works oriented” , contrasted to a strictly faith form of salvation, etc.

7. I find your ridicule of “faith plus works” Christianity….perplexing. I “get”, as a Protestant, the hostility towards what we think is Catholic “salvation by works”, but again, if all we ever do is get our own personal faith in order but do not go out and demonstrate light and salt to the world, how will they know? Surely you do not practice a “Works Free” faith?!

And, like you, I want to give Coptics the benefit of the doubt that there are believers among them. Again, most Christianity in the world precedes 1776; it would be error to believe flat nothing Christian exists in the middle east, that Christians don’t represent, or even flourish and live at peace with typical, non fundamentalist Muslims.

Assumption: Since I differ with this far right Fundamentalist on a few points, I must not believe in the Bible’s account of “Judgment Day”. [Again with the "all or nothing"; no grounds to consider everything individually.]

8. Yes, I believe in Judgment Day. I AM a Believer. But I deduced from your commentary, and later your journalistic affiliations that, like many Christians, you’ve been seduced by the Religious Right, and hold a much higher THEOLOGICAL-grade respect for America than is biblically defensible. Certainly not uncommon in the last 30 years, but inaccurate, nevertheless. Just be aware….beware that those affiliations do not replace your faith. Because God will certainly take a dim view of ANY idol, even when it’s the Republican Elephant wrapped in the American Flag.

Assumption: Since I believe America is only “on top” because God chose to allow it, and that God could choose differently in the future, I am a pre-destination Calvinist [this is interesting, because most absolutists I've ever encountered were Calvinists, too; either this person happens to be a hard-charging "free will" advocate, or maybe they're Calvinist and wanted to give a "back-handed complement"] .

9. Pointing out that America has been blessed only because it suits God is hardly Calvinistic, which I do not believe in, either. I believe I also asserted that we’ve been blessed ONLY to the extent that enough Christians in America have remained faithful to the Lord. In and of ourselves, outside of that, our nation matters no more or less to god than, say, Antarctica.

The (common) mistake American Fundamentalists and Evangelicals make is morphing that love for country in with our faith, as if God chose America to the same degree he chose…Israel (and you know THAT’S actually in the Bible). Clearly he has used us to further his Kingdom, like he used Britain. But their nation is not the great Empire it was 100+ years ago. I believe that directly relates to the degree to which their nation fell away from pursuing the biblical Jesus, or any Jesus. And you acknowledged this in your blog.

Assumption: I’m throwing something highly confusing and immaterial and foreign into the discussion by telling this person “with all due respect” as a precursor to disagreeing with them. [ISN'T THAT AMAZING? A PARADIGM WHERE DISAGREEMENT EQUALS DISRESPECT?!?!?!]

10. The “with all due respect” is another wiggly wimpy emerging church concept of recognizing you are worthy of respect even if I disagree with you. No, haha, in fact it’s just plain civility.

I really do want you to know that I respect you, though I disagree on a few points. Again assuming you’re also a columnist for Free Republic on topics of faith, you appear to have massive credentials to speak on hermeneutics and theology, far more than me. So be it…I would again simply assert that none of us is immune to being seduced by the old human trick of blending faith with Patriotism. But the two ARE separate.

Feel free to take portions of this out of context in another blog.

Matthew