by: Kara Crawford
Mariann Devlin recently wrote a post for In Our Words entitled “The War on Christians: Who Is Really Leading the Attack?” In it, she looks at what conservative Christianity and Fox News and the other conservative news media refer to as the “war on Christmas,” which seems to have carried over this year thanks to GOP and conservative Christian leadership — though, arguably, this phenomenon has been going on for years, just more under-the-radar than it is this year. But that difference of understanding is irrelevant to what in the post I feel merits response.
I am in wholehearted agreement with the basic premise of her post – that the so-called war on Christianity and Santorum’s idea that Christianity is more persecuted than the queer community are utterly ridiculous. And that Santorum is obviously not really concerned with Christianity, but rather gaining votes by fearmongering and promoting hatred of the Other – in this case queer folks. Likewise, Fox News and the other networks do the same for the purpose of making money.
I also agree with the earlier points that Christianity is not the monolith that the media would lead us to believe, and that image taints secular society’s view of what Christianity is and can be, though I disagree with her idea that this is moot to the issue at hand, because I believe these are integral to the issue we are addressing.
What I take issue with is her second-to-last paragraph. In it, she writes:
Even though I’m an atheist, it’s my recommendation that intellectual and progressive Christians begin reclaiming the word “Christian” to mean something other than ignorance and prejudice — if Christianity has any hope of surviving the onslaught of both New Atheists and conservative fundamentalism (those unlikely bedfellows).
Now, in case this post, and this one, and this one, and this one, and my bio didn’t make it perfectly clear to you, I am, in fact, a self-avowed, practicing United Methodist – a Christian. And a progressive. And an intellectual. And a member of Queerville. Each of those identities makes up a part of who I am. And I’m not alone – much of my community is made up of people who claim the same identities.
In fact, the progressive and queer-loving Christian community is larger than you might think. According to a 2007 Religion and Public Life survey conducted by the Pew Forum, 56% of Mainline Protestant Christians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted, and while I don’t have the data to back it up, I am virtually positive this percentage has only increased in the last five years.
I don’t know of any statistics for Christians who identify or could be identified as progressive, but while I doubt it is a simple majority like the other statistic, I would be willing to venture a guess that it is at least as big of a group as fundamentalist Christians, if not an even bigger group. So, it should be readily apparent that queer-loving, progressive, and even queer-identified, Christians do, in fact, exist, and are not few in numbers.
But as for the idea of progressive Christians reclaiming “Christianity,” it is in process. In fact, I would argue that it must be re-reclaimed, because, frankly, the way I see it, it was the fundamentalist Christians who took the name from its progressive roots in the first place. I’m not going to trace back through the history of Christianity, but Christianity has had no small shortage of radicals and progressives in its history. And those radicals weren’t always on the fringes of Christianity; in fact, once upon a time, Christians were on the fringes of society.
Dorothy Day, the co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, and one who we claim as an important figure of the modern Christian radical/progressive heritage, was quoted as saying, “We want [people] to love one another. We want all [people] to have what is sufficient for their needs. But when we meet people who deny Christ in His poor, we feel, ‘Here are the atheists.’” And I couldn’t agree with her more. Those who oppress, those who do harm, those who espouse hate instead of love, who care more about the money or the number of votes more than the people affected – those people do not espouse Christian values.
My good friend Johnny Gall, another IOW writer, frequently blames the misappropriation of Christianity’s good name for the sake of un-Christian values on Constantine. But no matter who the original blame belongs to, what matters to me is that radical/progressive Christianity has a long history of trying to re-reclaim Christianity from fundamentalism. And I am proud to count myself among those continuing the struggle.
Admittedly, the movement is not perfect. And we could always be doing more. But the fact that it appears to outsiders of the movement that we might not even be doing as much as we are already, I believe, is largely the fault of the media. Mariann was absolutely correct when she stated that all the media cares about is viewership, and I would add, money. Not truth, not portraying any semblance of reality, but viewership and money.
And with the 24-hour news cycle and corporate media sponsorship as it is presently, all the media cares about portraying is spectacle, because spectacle draws viewership, which brings in money. And who are the Christians who give them that? None other than Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, and Terry Jones and his ridiculous Koran-burning stunt.
Is that fair? No. Is that just? Definitely not. Is that an adequate portrayal of where modern Christianity is at in its relationship to politics? My chosen extended family of progressive Christians and I would say absolutely positively not. But it’s business, and it’s the reality we’re up against.
So, if my earlier speculations are correct and progressive Christians are, in fact, as many as if not more than fundamentalist Christians, why doesn’t the media care about us and what we have to say? Because we’re not ridiculous enough for them, because we won’t bring in enough viewers for them, because we won’t make them enough money.
So I would like to invite outsiders to the progressive movement to re-reclaim Christianity from fundamentalism to enter into conversation with progressive Christians to find out where we’re already at in our struggle. Because our lack of presence in the media isn’t necessarily a lack of work on our part, but largely due to the media’s skewed priorities. So rather than believing the lack of what the media has to say about us, enter into dialogue with the source – the folks on the ground who know what’s going on and would be glad to cue you in.
And if you don’t know where to find us, you’re in luck. Because the networks of the progressive and queer communities are vast and intricate, and the likelihood that you know someone who knows someone who knows an involved progressive Christian is incredibly high. Or you can start with any of the IOW writers, myself included, who have shown our stripes as progressive, queer-loving or queer-identified Christians. Because while none of us can give you all the answers for all progressive Christians everywhere, we can at least give you a start.
We welcome your solidarity, and would greatly appreciate whatever help you are willing to give us, should you dare to enter into the work of “the Christians.” (We aren’t scary, I promise.)
In fact, you can start right now! You can sign this petition urging MSNBC to stop inviting the Family Research Council, an ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian group so extreme they have been listed as a hate group, to represent Christianity, as the group is not representative of Christianity as a whole and using them consistently mars society’s understanding of Christianity.
It’s not the be-all-end-all of the work, but it’s a start. There are many other ways that you can continue to be in solidarity with us, and if you want to continue beyond the petition, all you have to do is ask. As you may realize, there is much work to be done, and we can use all the help and support we can get if we’re going to change the media’s treatment and society’s perspectives of Christianity for the better, if we’re going to re-reclaim Christianity.
Kara Johansen Crawford is a graduate of DePaul University, with a BA in International Studies and Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies. Kara has been actively involved in activism and community service for much of her life and is particularly passionate about labor justice, queer issues and engaging faith communities on social issues. Kara is currently serving as a Mission Intern with the United Methodist Church at the Centro Popular para América Latina de Comunicación, based in Bogotá, Colombia. Follow Kara on Twitter @revolUMCionaria and on her blog.
Oh wow, another “reclaiming Christianity, only liberal Christianity is correct and Jesus is love” kind of crap.
First, I’m bothered by the notion that “fundamentalists” can’t build solidarity with the nonreligious, even though I know that isn’t the case. I’ve met very nice people who really think homosexuality should be condemned as a sin, who really believe in the truth of the Bible as God’s Word, and who have no problem living side-by-side with atheists.
This is also just another example of blaming external factors (like the media) for the real harm that is caused by religion. I am not impressed that “progressive” Christians take their religion a la carte, but don’t take responsibility for promoting a culture of “faith” (i.e. irrational, nonevidential disreasoning) that enables people to follow the Bible seriously. I am not impressed with the implication that somehow you represent “true” Christianity, and other people who read the Bible and believe what it says don’t.
Also, your use of facts bothers me.
“56% of Mainline Protestant Christians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted.”
Sure, pick and choose the most liberal subsection of Christianity and the best you get is 56%? What about Mormons, or evangelical Christians, or Black Protestants? To be prematurely proud of your statistic is to insult our brothers and sisters who are working every single day to fight religious bullying in this “Christian” culture.
—
Should Christians and atheists work together to build a better world? Of course. Should there be more dialogue and debate and mutual respect? Yes. But I detest the false dichotomies and the intellectual dishonesty.
Wait a minute. What are atheists, according to your Dorothy Day quote?
“We want [people] to love one another. We want all [people] to have what is sufficient for their needs. But when we meet people who deny Christ in His poor, we feel, ‘Here are the atheists.’”
WHAAAAT!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!
Mike, I take umbrage at your comments for several reasons.
First, of course this is “another “reclaiming Christianity, only liberal Christianity is correct and Jesus is love” kind of crap.” You know what blog you’re reading. If we’re going to post on religion, that’s the kind of angle we’ll usually take. And obviously religion is important enough to several of the writers to address it pretty regularly. At a blog called “In Our Words” it shouldn’t be a problem to write about topics that are personally important.
Second, I don’t know where the idea that “fundamentalists” can’t be in solidarity with non-religious people came from, but I don’t recall reading it in this post. There is a call for solidarity between progressive Christians and progressive non-religious people. But I don’t think anyone questions whether or not conservative Christians can be allies to non-religious people. That was never on the table.
Third, I don’t think anyone advocates “a la carte” religion. I’ll freely admit that everyone practices, but I think it’s unfair to accuse progressives of taking it “a la carte” as if we’re trying to impress someone and ignoring verses. We do advocate a more nuanced understanding of certain scriptures, and do think certain scriptures are a bit antiquated and don’t really apply to our culture. But we’re not unique in this. try talking to any Conservative Christian about any verse involving giving away one’s earthly riches. You’ll see how “a la carte” they can be.
It seems to me as if you’re not very well acquainted with any movement of progressive “Christians.” We DON’T advocate “a culture of faith.” Those are conservatives. We believe in a separation of church and state. We DON’T participate in religious bullying. Those are conservatives. Often, we are heavily involved in opposing that kind of bullying.
You accused Kara of false dichotomy, but it reads more to me like you’re issuing a false dichotomy. This seems a lot like a “with us or against us” ultimatum, in which you say that to claim Christianity as an identity is to play a role in the failures of all religion. You’re shoehorning us, and YOU’RE offering false dichotomies.
“At a blog called “In Our Words” it shouldn’t be a problem to write about topics that are personally important.”
And it shouldn’t be a problem that I disagree with the writer and express my own view, however critical. Let’s get the discussion going, then.
—
“I don’t know where the idea that “fundamentalists” can’t be in solidarity with non-religious people came from.”
This article talks about “fundamentalists” only in the context of people like Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church, entities which are very hostile to any secular community. This kind of one-dimensional coverage is despicable. What about the other evangelical Christians? What about Black Protestants, who subscribe to a lot of the progressive message of liberal Christianity, but are not at all accepting of homosexuality?
—
“…I think it’s unfair to accuse progressives of taking it “a la carte” as if we’re trying to impress someone and ignoring verses. We do advocate a more nuanced understanding of certain scriptures, and do think certain scriptures are a bit antiquated and don’t really apply to our culture.”
So you do pick and choose based on what you feel to be outdated. Thank you for proving my point.
—
“But we’re not unique in this. try talking to any Conservative Christian about any verse involving giving away one’s earthly riches. You’ll see how “a la carte” they can be.”
Right, Christians don’t follow this crazy commandment or any other nutty thing that Jesus said. But that’s your problem, not mine. All this shows is not my inconsistency but the immorality and absurdity that is prevalent in the New Testament and in Jesus’s teachings.
Also, don’t try to draw an equivalence between liberal Christians, many of whom believe the stories of the Bible (and even the Resurrection) to be merely mushy “metaphors”, to Christians who actually believe the Bible is the Word of God. A Google search for
“liberal Protestantism” will easily show how far these “Christians” stretch what the Bible says: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Liberal-Protestants-Believe.aspx
—
“We DON’T advocate “a culture of faith.” Those are conservatives. We believe in a separation of church and state. We DON’T participate in religious bullying. Those are conservatives. Often, we are heavily involved in opposing that kind of bullying.”
Ha. Right, back to that statistic. If 56% of Mainline Protestants (the most liberal subsection of Christiant) accept homosexuality, that means that a whopping 44% do not. That’s not a clear distinction at all.
Liberal Christians don’t advocate a culture of faith, of believing in things without evidence? Come on. If you publicly identify as a Christian and you believe that there is a supernatural, unverifiable entity in another realm that sent his Son down to Earth, then you are advocating that we believe in things without evidence, even if you don’t have the intellectual courage to admit it.
More surprisingly, are you saying that liberal Christians don’t think people should have faith in God?
—
“This seems a lot like a “with us or against us” ultimatum, in which you say that to claim Christianity as an identity is to play a role in the failures of all religion.”
I’m saying that one should take responsibility for what we advocate by putting on an identity. For example, if I were to call myself a Marxist, I should be willing to take intellectual responsibility for the words and writings of Marx. If you call yourself a Christian, then you should be willing to do so with the Bible (and perhaps much more so because the Bible, unlike the writings of Marx, is supposed to be inspired by a God!)
Saying that you don’t hate gay people, that Jesus loves the poor, and that Christians in the past did progressive things does not excuse the horrors of Hell that Jesus preached in the Bible. It does not make your superstitious beliefs true. It does not help you avoid or erase what is actually printed in your holy book. Saying you love humanity while holding on to this ghastly religion does not let you escape the fact that your religion is man-made (as you’ve admitted) and a mind-forge manacle.
Faithlessly yours,
Mike
First of all, I think we should just clear this up. You can scapegoat Christianity for all the ills of society (obviously, because you’re doing it right now) but I would say it’s a mistake. Yeah, Christianity has caused a lot of issues, but the real problems we have is that there are so many assholes in our society. And those people can use Christianity to be an asshole, or they can use secularism. And they have used both. Plenty of times. But, since Christianity tends to have more political capital in our society, it gets used by plenty of people who use it to their own gain. Case in point, the GOP is often seen as the religious party, even though Jesus was clearly a pacifist (which I would not say is one of the “nuttier” parts of his ministry. In fact, it’s gained a lot of support). Does that mean we should fault the religion, which clearly teaches the opposite of what is espoused, or we should fault the people who warp that theology to achieve their own ends? Your call, but I certainly don’t think we should fault the folks who are attempting to save that theology from being warped.
as far as Kara’s ideas about fundamentalists, I would say you’re reading your own bias into that statement. I would say that the fact that she characterizes fundamentalists as WBC and Pat Robertson, and not evangelicals or Black protestants, and I think this is appropriate because different approaches should be taken with each group. There’s little chance whatsoever of us convincing Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps of becoming gay-affirming or the least bit progressive, so we should distance ourselves from them, and make it clear that Christianity is not necessarily as hateful as they make it out to be. This robs them of their weapon. If Christianity in this country could mean something different, then they would have much less room to make claims that we MUST hate queers.
But we could feasibly make allies of less conservative Christians and so there’s no need to disown them.
I find it offensive for you to say that progressive Christians “pick and choose.” This term implies that they decide, based on personal preference. Some people do this. I would even say most people do this. But not all, and you’re stereotyping. The fact that people believe some things to be relevant and other things not to be says nothing about what makes certain things irrelevant in their eyes. I don’t know the motivation, and you don’t either, but it’s certainly rude to assume that religious people “pick and choose” rather than studying and interpreting cultural context.
I have no idea whatsoever where the idea of “immorality” in Christian texts comes from, but I would ask you to show your work, young man.
And as far as calling redistribution of wealth absurd, it’s rude to criticize people’s beliefs.
as for your argument that claiming an identity means one has to identify fully with that identity, I find it somewhat disturbing. One, it leaves no room whatsoever for intersections, or if it does, there would necessarily be contradictions in certain identities. After all, if you identify as a Marxist, does that also mean you have to assume responsibility for the atrocities committed by Joseph Stalin, who, after all, was in charge of a Socialist state? Cause, unless you’re willing to take the blame for that, I don’t believe I should have to take responsibility for every wrong committed in the name of religion. I wasn’t alive during the Crusades. I never backed slavery. And I don’t bully gay kids to death.The fact that someone used a philosophy I believe in to carry out terrible things does not make me responsible for those things. People used philosophies for awful things all the time.
And yes, I do assume “intellectual responsibility” for the bible. But I also believe in interpretation, and I never claimed it was the “word of God.” For you to insist that either one must take responsibility for every word in the Scripture or dis-own it entirely is creating a binary where there should be, and is, a spectrum. And that simplifies a lot of beliefs and a lot of identities.
Also, just so we can get this clear for a second, Jesus never talked about “the horrors of Hell” as they’re presented in our society. He rarely mentioned an afterlife. When he talked about Hell, he used the phrase “Gehenna”, which was essentially a garbage dump. Most reasonable readers would conclude he was using it as a metaphor for the Hell one’s life becomes when he acts with disregard for others. This is why interpretation is important.
anyway, I’m really sorry that you’ve seen enough negativity come out of religion that you think nothing else is possible, but I see things differently. and I would ask you to respect that.
P.S. Don’t forget to check out the next season of The Sarah Conner Chronicles this fall on Fox!
“When he talked about Hell, he used the phrase “Gehenna”, which was essentially a garbage dump. Most reasonable readers would conclude he was using it as a metaphor for the Hell one’s life becomes when he acts with disregard for others. This is why interpretation is important.”
Oh my. I must appeal to Greta Christina’s talk titled “Why are You Atheists so Angry?” seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE
First of all, you should definitely watch the whole thing, but starting at about 20 minutes in, she says…
“I get angry that I have to know more about their damn religion than they do! [huge applause]. Really. Believers will say the most bizarre, inaccurate, fucked up shit about their own religion, about the tenets and texts of their own religion, and I have to correct them on it. I have to do the research on it. That night that I spent six hours combing through the gospels finding all the places where Jesus actually did talk about Hell because somebody was arguing on my blog, “No Jesus never mentioned Hell; that’s just an idea they made up later.” That’s six hours of my life I’m never getting back! I have many things to do. I could have been watching Project Runway…”
So since you insist on me doing research that YOU should be doing, here I go:
The idea that Hell is a metaphor for a person’s place on Earth is utter nonsense. Hell is clearly shown in the Bible to be a place that one GOES to after death for eternity.
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment.” 2 Peter
2:4-5.
Jesus painted a sharp dichotomy between everlasting punishment of Hell and the eternal life of Heaven: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
Hell is a place of everlasting fire: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” Matthew 25:41.
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Revelations 21:8
“And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where the worms that eat them do not die,and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:47-48
And so on and so on….
So don’t try this on me again. I’m very busy too. The more you talk, the more you are proving my point that your religion is man-made and chosen a la carte.
I respect you as a person and as a human being who is working to make this world a better place. But I do not respect your beliefs, nor do I have to. I do not respect your religion or the Bible from which you draw inspiration from. I do not respect your intellectual honesty or lack thereof.
Best,
Mike
I don’t have the patience to keep going around like this.
But can I point out that you, an atheist, are currently trying to convince me, a Christian, that Hell exists, as a real place and not as a metaphor?
You wouldn’t be so frustrated if you just considered the possibility that the Bible is just plain wrong.
I’m saying that if you call yourself a Christian, then you are supporting a book and a faith that does say Hell is a real place and that homosexuality is a sin.
Do you honestly think I’ve NEVER considered it? Really?
And I’m saying that you have no right to define my identities for me.
I didn’t even see this post until now!
Kara, I do think that maybe you have me mistaken. I haven’t said much about my relationship with Christianity- but stay tuned for next weeks posts on atheism and Christianity.
It seems my piece is far too long as is so I’m going to just put what I was thinking in a comment. I just wanted to clarify that. I have indeed entered the world of Christians- and its a world that I feel far more comfortable in than with most of my fellow atheists. Perhaps I didn’t make that known in my post, but I didn’t think it necessary to carry on about how much I value religion, how my best friend is a Catholic ethics teacher, how I appreciate Christian mysticism, how I’m kind of a theology groupie, etc. etc.
I went to a conference at a university about a year ago, set in honor of the Catholic theologian David Tracy whose project is aimed at bringing contemporary theology to the public- at a time where the Christian voice is being dominated by conservative fundamentalists. For Tracy, its crucial that Christians- and specifically, theologians- make this side of the faith known to the public, because the burden of providing that voice doesn’t merely rest on liberal believers or the media. Scholars also have a huge responsibility to show the positive side of Christianity, one that is ethical and intellectually rigorous.
As an aspiring journalist I was able to get really valuable feedback from religious thinkers who are concerned about the same thing you are. As a friend to two BRILLIANT theologians- once Catholic and one Southern Baptist- who are frustrated by the same things you are, I know precisely what’s at stake. I never wrote my piece with the intention to ignore all of what you’ve said in your essay- in fact, my essay was meant to carry on the project of this very brilliant, very influential theologian- and my friends- who have had an enormous impact on me as an atheist, a writer, and a reporter.
Hope that makes sense!