Posted by Mike Clawson in Pastor Mike here again:
Many of you may already know that I consider myself part of the “emerging church” - a movement within Christianity that is fed up with many of the same problems that you all have often pointed out regarding religion, and that wants to re-imagine “a new kind of Christianity”.
That phrase, “a new kind of Christian” was coined by my friend Brian McLaren, who is one of central influencers of the emerging church movement and was listed by Time magazine as one of the “25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America.” Brian was recently asked to guest blog at the progressive political site TPM Cafe. His opening post was entitled “Christianity as a Global Threat” and he starts by referencing the “new atheists”.
There’s a lot of talk nearly everywhere these days about the dangers of radical Islam. In some settings, people express similar concerns about Christianity, especially the dangers of a right-wing theocracy here in America. Whether the warnings come from “the new atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens or from secular-political voices on the left, the prospective villains are usually described as the Religious Right, Evangelicals, Christian Fundamentalists, and so on.
But largely under the radar, there’s something else going on in the Christian community in the US and world-wide, and it’s a change worth knowing about. Many of us who are involved with this emergence of a new thing would describe it as a deep shift (don’t forget the “f”), even a kind of repentance. Growing numbers of us Christians are ashamed of the ways that we Christians have behaved in recent decades – from Evangelicals backing unjust and unwise wars to Catholics covering up priestly abuse, from Prosperity Gospel televangelists getting rich by ripping off the poor to institutional religious bureaucracies fiddling around in carpet-color-committee meetings while the world is burning, or at least warming dangerously.
We have been arguing about the origin of species while an unprecedented extinction of species occurs on our watch; we’ve been fighting endlessly (and unproductively) about unborn children while achieving precious little for the already-born children in Darfur or Congo or Malawi or downtown Cincinnati. These stale expressions of bad faith have left many of us gasping for the fresh air of good faith.
So along with facing up to our current and historic failures and atrocities, we’re engaging in a hopeful re-imagining of what Christian faith can be, become, and do in the future.
Brian’s has both harsh and hopeful words for religious people. He continues:
Our world’s religions are failing to provide a story strong enough to inspire enough of us to deal effectively with the first three crises [of dysfunctional systems of prosperity, security and equity]. In fact, all too often our religions provide destructive narratives – I call them framing stories – which reinforce our solution deadlock and drive our social machinery all the more recklessly and passionately toward suicide. To put it starkly, there are figurative religious suicide bombers as well as literal ones, and they are armed with stories.
It’s at this level of framing stories that I see both the ugliness and hope of our religions, including my own Christian faith, which currently counts about a third of the world’s population as its adherents.
On the one hand, our religions can fan the flames of holy-war narratives –whether expressed in terms of terrorism or counter-terrorism, jihad or crusade. On the other, our religions can inspire us with framing stories of reconciliation and peace. On the one hand, our religions can foment stories of scapegoating and vilification, but on the other, they can inspire us toward compassion and understanding through stories of reconciliation and grace.
In this Brian is echoing an argument that I have made here on several occasions: that the best remedy for bad faith is not no faith but good faith. I offer this not as an argument for or against the truth of religion in general, but simply as a pragmatic reality. Let’s face it, despite their best efforts, it is unlikely that atheists will ever convince the majority of religious people around the world to de-convert. So if we really are concerned about making this world a better place, and putting an end to all the evils and injustices caused by religion (a goal which Brian and I both share with many atheist friends) then we must seek to transform the world’s religions into forces for good rather than simply opposing all believers (even the moderate and progressive ones, as Sam Harris would have it) simply on principle . As Brian suggests:
A new kind of Christianity fueled by this kind of story could turn out to be a global threat after all – but not a threat to progressive values like democracy and otherness and diversity and sustainability. Instead, it could pose a powerful challenge to injustice, greed, war-mongering, environmental plundering, vilification, cold-heartedness, racism, bigotry, violence, torture, and fear.
You can read the rest of the article here.
Brian also follows up with several more articles that I think will also be of special interest to atheists. His next one is on “Finding Common Ground” between progressive, emerging Christians and skeptical secularists who view religion with suspicion, in which he also explains his personal reasons for not giving up on religion altogether yet.
He then has a two part post on “Faith in the Public Sphere” (Part 1 & Part 2), as well as an imaginative transcipt of a speech that President Bush could have given following 9/11 (but unfortunately didn’t), which hopefully illustrates a more positive way that faith can engage with public life.
Any comments, reflections, or rebuttals here are more than welcome.
Finally - another Christian (or two, if I count both you, Mike, and Brian McLaren) that I can agree with!!!
It makes me happy to see moderate Christians FINALLY start to speak out against idiots giving them a bad name. Keep fighting!
I almost dismissed this post because of the title, but I’m very glad I didn’t. I’m one Christian who wholeheartedly agrees with everything McLaren says here. Just an FYI to those not in the loop, though — this type of thinking is far from new. My own church (a Methodist congregation in the Washington, DC area) has held this type of philosophy and been active on these issues for at least fifty years. Maybe that’s why we have deists, agnostics, and even a few self-proclaimed atheists among our active membership.
Please don’t forget about us open-minded, free-thinking, non-Christian-Right Christians. We may be quieter of voice than the fundamentalists, but we’re here, and we’re the strongest allies that exist for those who don’t believe in the separation of Church and reason.
Yes indeed Arlen. The mainline churches often get overlooked in these debates. Their long history of engagement with social justice and progressive values has too often been overshadowed by the extremism of the Religious Right. In many ways (though not entirely) the emerging church is a movement of evangelicals finally awakening to the kinds of things your church has been concerned with all along.
Christianity is just not true, so I don’t see why any flavor of it is worth spending time on. I care about what’s real and true, not what is traditional or what makes some people feel warm and fuzzy.
This article from Daylight Atheism basically says what I think about liberal Chrstianity:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/12/instruction-manual-or-chronicle.html
writerdd, is it okay if I ask you a few questions in response?
Which do you suppose is more important: that everyone in the world come to agree with what you think is “real and true”; or that people learn to work together to make the world a better place despite their disagreements about what is “real and true”?
Do you think it is even possible for the first option to ever actually happen (i.e. that we could ever all be persuaded to agree on such matters)?
And if not, what is the next best alternative for creating a world of justice, prosperity, and peace for all people?
What the heck is good faith? Arriving at the right answer by luck instead of arriving at the wrong answer by luck? How is that preferable to just reasoning from the evidence?
Let’s face it, the reality that this can be done has been demonstrated in several European countries.
Such a ‘new kind of Christianity’ would just continue the piece by piece rejection of Biblical Christianity that has occurred over the last few hundred years. Without the things on the list, the Bible is what, 10 pages long?
Now, off to read the links…
Mike, great post. I have yet to read anything by McLaren that isn’t refreshing.
I have to say that this is the kind of posting I like to see on this website. Let’s not forget the name, people, this is FRIENDLY ATHEIST DOT COM.
Ben and writerdd, I feel like you’re missing the point of the post. Mike is right, faith will never die. It’s far more productive to turn “bad believers” into “good believers” that to attempt to turn “bad believers” into non-believers who in all likelyhood will continue with the same bad behaviors!!
Is it deja vu or did I read this last year…seems like it was around Xmyth season too?
So the pendulum begins to swing the other direction. Isn’t society cute? At least it didn’t swing so far this time that they were burning people at stakes, we’re just refusing to teach the next generation proper science. On the bright side, the pendulum is slowing which means eventually, it will stop entirely.
You people talk like you’re not interested parties, like you’re neutral. You don’t believe in objective reality, you don’t think that evidence is important, you think that a belief can be “true for me, but not for you”.
Why not stop, let the moderates take over?
a) It would be a giant betrayal of the truth and humanity.
b) We’re not harming your cause against harmful religion, you’re harming ours. The more atheists in a country, the larger the proportion of moderate religion in religion.
c) You just want more faithheads from our ranks, you don’t care about harmful religion, you just want to protect your beliefs.
d) We’re growing fast among the young, we’re the future, not you. Man can lose faith, as can be seen in Europe. We should be telling you to give up.
Move out of the way, stop protecting harmful religion as Harris writes.
This wasn’t directed at me, but I’m going to answer anyway.
When people have disagreements about what is real and true, they often also disagree on how to make the world a better place. Let’s say my atheist group wants to do an AIDSwalk to raise money to fight AIDS. How do I convince someone who believes that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality to help? They would view our actions as making the world a worse place, not better. Same for any number of other issues.
Where we agree, I will definitely work with anyone regardless of beliefs. At the aforementioned AIDSwalk, both the Humanist society and Catholic charities had tables, and I witnessed no sniping between the two. When the topic comes up, we will still pull no punches in saying Catholics are wrong where we think they are wrong. But when it comes to doing things, sure, I’ll work with just about anyone and everyone.
The “New Atheists” are not calling for some kind of ‘don’t work with religious people on anything.’ No one condemned the lawyers at the Dover trial for calling Ken Miller as a witness. In discussing Martin Luther King, no one condemned non-religious activists for working with him. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is headed by a Reverend. The point is not to ostracize the believers or to further divide ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The point is to hold religious beliefs to the same rules as other beliefs - no free passes.
B. But I really don’t think that is possible with people beleiving all kinds of made up and ridiculous things called religion. As long as there are holy books that are honored like people such as yourself — who may not take the books literally but still hold them in a place of honor and reverence — there will be extremists who take those books to heart literally and cause all sorts of evil and pain because of their beliefs. I just don’t see any way around that. I wish I did.
Do you think all religions (and the lack thereof) are equally valid ways of finding peace and living in the world? Or are you wishing that everyone would become a Christian? I just can’t — from my own background — get away from the feeling that all Christians are secretly wishing I would convert, and have conversion as an alterior motive behind every charitable work that they do.
Donna
How do you know? I certainly hope that is not true. But since we can’t see into the future, we can’t know. Faith is not a virtue and I hope that someday humanity outgrows the need to believe in invisible agents and saviors and that we learn how to save ourselves.
It wasn’t directed at me either, but regardless of the fact that I don’t believe there was ever a historical Jesus, this doesn’t mean there isn’t anything within the text that could give other people comfort for whatever reason. I do not have a problem with people believing the religious stories, but I do have a problem when they insist I have to believe it is true and must abide by it.
As long as they do not hit me over the head with it or try to start Arma gettin’ outa here, we’re fine and I think that is what MikeC is trying to get at with this post. Religious texts don’t have to be true for people to get along and strive for peace. In fact, IMO, the X-ains who strive for peace, instead of that insane Rapture crap that isn’t in the Bible to begin with, are worthy of the time of day, esp if they don’t try to force you to believe the Bible. The reason they are worth the time of day? They are striving for the same thing as those who are not religious strive for- reason and compassion for their fellow human.
Yes, I know, some may think there is no reason in belief, but take the belief out and many liberal Xians are reasonable people; not Religious Reich loons.
This, I think, is the whole point of Mike C’s post.
I have heard this before, but it doesn’t make sense to me. Move where? Get out of the way of what?
I read McLaren’s article, and while I agree with most of it, I admit I got squeamish when his alternate-universe Bush got out the Bible and started reading the Sermon on the Mount. In our alternate universe, can’t we imagine a secular leader opting for peace for secular reasons? I would be most comfortable in a world where religion creates non-violent counter-cultures, like the Mennonites, Cathlic Workers, etc, instead of taking over the government.
The flippant answer might be, why not both?
The less flippant answer would be that it would be very difficult to do the second without some degree of the first. Assuming that making the world a better place involves solving problems, and assuming that solving a problem requires identification of the problem and identification of a solution that will solve the problem, the first is, to some degree, necessary. Identifying a problem requires knowing that a problem exists - knowing that a problem is real. Identifying a solution requires knowing that the solution is real, that it will work.
I think it is certainly worth it for people to learn how to identify what is and is not real. Just as it is worthwhile for people to learn to work together despite their disagreements. It is mostly a question of which is more needed, I would think. From my perspective the first is more needed than the second - but that is mostly a guess. The dividing question would be whether or not we have trouble determining what we should be headed towards, or how we should get there? With the problems that I tend to pay attention to, I would say the second is the more pressing question. YMMV.
Mriana said:
What you are talking about really has nothing to do with religion, it’s about being a decent, thoughful person and a good citizen of the planet. I don’t know why people insist on framing that in a religious context (no, never mind, I actually do know), but it’s not really central, no matter how much some of the religious may insist that it is.
What I find most interesting is the side-stepping of whether it’s true or not. Sorry if I seem a little harsh here, but trying to change the argument from truth to pragmatism seems like a desperation move, a classic “I’m losing this argument so let’s change it” kind of thing. As AJ pointed out, secularism is winning in Europe and among the young, I hope this country can catch up soon.
Still, in the interest of saving the planet and retaining a free society, some pragmatism might be in order, but how much is safe? If some people want to use a new religion as a motivating tool to organize, all that does is make religion a useful evil. The problem is that as long as the evil is still there, as long as belief is considered more important than anything else, it can go bad without a lot of warning.
The biggest problem I have with the article, though, is that this emerging church seems like a lot of talk without much action. Sure, some folks who belong to these churches may do some of the same kinds of good things that some churches have always done, but what I want to know is, what real concrete things are they doing about the religious right and the problems caused by religion? Shaming them seems nice but not very effective.
If they really want secularists and maybe even some atheists on their side, it’s not all that hard. Just a) stop trying to convert us, b) come down really hard on the fundamentalists is some practical fashion, and c) do some serious work promoting the separation of church and state. How’s that for some pragmatism?
Hi Mike, thanks for posting this. I’m finding myself more and more taking up the cause of opposing literalism. I still hold to my atheism, but for believers I think getting rid of literalism and fanaticism is about the best I can hope for.
I recently went back to my old church (CUT, where I used to be a minister) and interviewed several members and ex-members. Many have become far less fanatical than they used to be, though they still have some vestiges of belief. I think this process of questioning and setting aside some of their beliefs has made them into better human beings.
I also met with the current church presidents. One of the biggest issues they are dealing with now is the balance of power between their board of directors and the council of ministers. As you would expect, the ministers take the spiritual teachings more literally, which puts them at odds with the pragmatists.
I am encouraged by any move toward greater pragmatism and engagement with fulfilling pressing human needs. In terms of personal belief, I recently wrote a piece you might like about cutting out the middleman.
This I have a question about: why is it under the radar? If the answer is that they are hesitant to criticize the established churches, then again, why are they hesitant? Or is there another reason?
Well, that one I heard from someone on Freethought Radio.
I detect some implicit criticism of “new atheists.”
From the “new atheist” perspective, you are creating a false dichotomy between “finding common ground” and “opposing all believers on principle”. New atheists think we can do both simultaneously.
Quoth PZ,
Now, assuming PZ is representative of “new atheists,” I believe many people have been misrepresenting them. The end result is that in the name of unity, they have wrongly excluded a subset of atheists.
What are you basing this assumption on? I’m very connected within the emerging church, and almost every emerging faith community I know of is extremely active in works of compassion, justice, and peacemaking.
Most emerging folk I know would rather convert people to a way of life that includes practices of justice, compassion and love than to a religion - and partner with people who are already practicing the former regardless of their religion.
I’m curious. What exactly do you think this should look like? In what way are we supposed to “come down hard” on fundamentalists beyond the verbal critique that we have already long been engaged in?
Brian also answered a similar question in the comments of “Faith In the Public Square Part 1″. He said:
You also said:
What was your reaction to Brian’s two pieces about Faith in the Public Square where he directly addressed these issues?
Anything but! In fact, I myself have gotten fired from an established church for being too critical. The main answer is that this movement is “under the radar” mainly because it is new and relatively small, and those of us who do speak up tend to get pushed out of positions of influence pretty quickly.
Who is PZ?
I was thinking mainly of Sam Harris and his assertion that moderate and progressive Christians are simply providing cover for the fundamentalists (whatever the hell that means). That doesn’t exactly scream “let’s work together!” to progressive Christians.
Thank you Claire!
Exactly! Be good people and save the planet–what does this have to do with believing in god? As far as I’m concerned, it is your duty as a member of the human race and a tenant of this planet that you do these things. Whether or not there’s a bearded man in the sky or partaking of symbolic zombie flesh has ZERO to do with it.
Kudos to those Xians who’ve started to realize that human decency is more important than dogma. I hope they continue in that direction and one day realize that they can leave the dogma and superstition out altogether.
BTW, re: Europe - Yes, indeed Europe is a largely secular society these days (though oddly most European nations still maintain a state church). However they are generally the exception to the rule for most of the rest of the world, which by most accounts is actually growing more and more religious in recent decades.
Also, Europe’s current secularism has come about as the result of hundreds of years of complex and often bloody social change. Now it may be the case that the rest of the world will eventually also go through a similar transition (or maybe not) but given the immediacy and urgent nature of the global crises we now face, can we really afford to wait that long? Can we afford to wait several centuries for Islam to burn itself out as Christianity did in Europe? (And who else will they burn up with them as they do?)
Personally (and of course this was the main point of my post so I apologize for being redundant), I think a more realistic (and yes, pragmatic) solution is to work for a better Islam in the meantime (as I myself am working for a better Christianity).
Perhaps you won’t believe me, but my own religious beliefs have everything to do with those sorts of things. Part of the point Brian was making (and fleshes out in far greater detail in his book) is that being loving, thoughtful, and good citizens of the planet is precisely what the Christian religion is and ought to be about. (Though you’re right that many Christians have not framed it that way in recent centuries - that is also part of Brian’s critique.)
MikeClawson,
It’s not a complex concept. He has explained it in articles, speeches, and two books, if you would read them.
The Virus of Religious Moderation by Sam Harris
What, the verbal critique where you people tell other people that their beliefs are wrong because they’re not your beliefs? You really do have no idea what Sam Harris was saying. You come down hard on fundamentalists by telling them their beliefs are not justified, a lot of them are counter to evidence, irrational, should not be taken seriously, or respected.
You give comments like that, which seem like you think it’s a completely alien idea, while referencing someone who writes things like:
Ah, so it’s the wigi board, entrails, or hallucinogens then? Perhaps he’s going to “pray”, but what does that mean? To some Christians it means talking to God (i.e.themselves) in their minds. I’m not too worried about that (although I fail to see where the wisdom comes from), but some Christians claim someone talks back.
He spells out why we can’t stop challenging religious beliefs, people can’t leave them out of political decisions:
He might as well have said entrails, or “the voices”.
-
PZ is the great PZ Myers of Pharyngula, a biologist, who writes one of the most popular atheist blogs, one that Hemant has commented on before.
OK, I’m dumb then. I don’t get it. You paraphrased it like this:
Move where? Get out of the way of what? Protecting how?
monkeymind,
Are you serious?
It’s in the article I posted. In short, stop protecting faith from attacks by rationalists. They protect it by special pleading mostly, “don’t say bad things about deeply held beliefs that are very important to people”, talking about “respect”, immunity of “belief”, and “it’s comforting to them”. They promote faith as desireable, they’re all for teaching children that it’s good to believe things without evidence, thus insuring faith lives on in future generations.
So when they talk about giving up because we’re not going to “de-convert everyone”. Why should we listen to them? We never said that we think our final goal is possible in the near future. We never said that until our final goal is reached our progression is worthless, 50% rational is better than 25%. They’re actively trying to stop us, is it wise to take their advice? They’re not promoting pragmaticism at all.
I was going by the article, which mentioned no examples of any of those, but maybe that wasn’t the right place to look for them. However, as the rest of the paragraph in my original posting tried to make clear, that wasn’t what I was talking about. I will try to make it clearer.
Really? What verbal critique? Before you get defensive, I don’t mean no one has been doing it, I mean I haven’t heard about it. Sure, I’ve seen and heard 8000 pieces about “The Golden Compass” and how evil it is, but not one word about this. This thought isn’t finished, it goes on after the next quote.
As someone pointed out, the Catholic League is one guy with a typewriter. In this day and age, positions of influence are what you make them. Anyone determined enough can get a message out. Being small shouldn’t stop you, but being quiet will make damn sure you vanish without a trace.
Back to the thought above - if they really want to distinguish themselves, instead of attacking the defenseless and working hard to defend society from non-existent evils as the fundies do, attack the powerful. That would be, hey, the big fundies! The religious right! They have the money, they have the power, go get’em!
There is an enormous difference between attacking the weak (or inventing dangers), and attacking the powerful. If the guy who wrote that can’t see that or can’t put it across to other people, then he’s not the right person to do it, but someone else might be.
The article was right about needing to be ashamed, but I’m not sure how he meant it. Is that ‘ashamed’ as in “we’ll try not to do that any more and in the meantime we’ll just pretend it didn’t happen, or maybe simply refer to it with a mild regret” or it is ‘ashamed’ as in “we are not going to do this any more, and we will make it a priority to to fix the damages done”? If anyone wants some of the tarnish taken off the christian religion, it had better be the latter. And THAT is what I meant by all talk, no action.
Who is this mysterious “they”?
Is Chris Hedges one of “them” because he disagrees with Harris, even though he wrote a hard-hitting book about Christian fascism? Is Scott Atran one of “them” because he dares to challenge Harris’ claims about suicide bombers with actual data, as opposed to Sam’s caricature of it based on reading the Koran in translation, along with mainstream media headlines?
“Move out of the way” - yeah, right that’s how the democracy works.
Miller quoted PZ Myers:
Is there another way to work on common causes that’s sustainable?
That, right there, that’s the problem. So answer me two questions: if you woke up tomorrow, and your faith was gone, you would immediately stop being a decent person, stop caring about other people and the planet?
And here’s the bigger question: if that’s what make you good, why doesn’t it work for other people? There are bazillions of assholes out there that share your faith, and they are not decent people. If your faith makes you good, why doesn’t it make them good?
My answer - you believe what you believe because of who you are, not the other way around. It’s not the faith that’s doing it.
Good point, AJ. They aren’t going to convert everyone, either. So, if we should give up because we can’t succeed, doesn’t that mean they should, too?
Yup, we’ll quit when they do.
Who is asking anyone to quit?
monkeymind,
I told you who I was talking about, religious moderates if that terms means anything to you, some of the things they do, and posted an article about them. If you can’t be bothered to read my post, don’t quote and respond to them. If you’re suggesting I should write “religious moderates” instead of “they”, quote with edits if you’d like to do the extra typing.
Scott Atran as far as I know is not a religious moderate, he’s an atheist. He does believe in belief, but his opinion I heard, and the opinion you mention, doesn’t have a lot to do with the subject I was refering to. I’m not going to be drawn into an unrelated argument, especially when you’re going to make those type of statements. You’re talking about Harris having caricatures when you frame his argument like that? What, you’re saying that what he thinks is in the Koran, isn’t in it at all?
Why do you bother to post when you can’t be bothered to read? It’s right in Mike’s original post.
Yes, I did read it Claire. I guess I don’t see how having more religious people who think that it’s possible for atheists to be good moral people, who don’t feel existentially threatened when someone disagrees with them about the existence of God, is incompatible with the goals of atheism. A world where people can discuss religion calmly? Yeah, that would be bad.
Well, if you take away the supernaturalism and emphasize being loving, thoughtful, and good citizens of this planet you have Humanism. Come on in, the water’s fine!
After reading post one, with phrases like:
There doesn’t seem to be any truth-claims here. He seems to be talking about making up stories. If the emerging church = the equivalent of Bokononism, and doesn’t claim any of the stories are true, where’s the problem? There isn’t any conflict. Just do like Vonnegut did and start with:
“All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies.”
I’ve got no problems with Foma.
OK, I guess I can see how you could read Mike’s post as “quit”. I just think we can acknowledge that whether we’re atheists or believers is largely dependent on contingent circumstances, and work together on some of the pressing problems of the world. And that it’s possible to work on proximate goals without giving up ultimate aims. If the next century holds the collapse of civilization as we know it, it’s kind of back to the drawing board on the whole question.
What I am suggesting is that both sides ought to stop trying to convert one another altogether, and instead focus on things that actually matter. I’m suggesting that conversion (and de-conversion) are the wrong goals in the first place.
So yes, in that regard I am saying we should “quit”, if only so that we can then spend our collaborative energy on more significant matters.
From monkeymind
from Mike
So, back to my original point: why bring religion into it at all? If someone shows up to plant trees, fill sandbags, or rally in support of anything good, I’m not going to ask why they are there. I know why that person is there, he or she is there to help. I’m not going to ask them about their religion, and I don’t expect to be asked about mine, because it’s not about religion, it’s about making the world better. Bringing religion into it creates controversy and division, so why not just get on with helping and leave religion out of it?
Since making the world better is going to be a lot of hard work, maybe adopting workplace rules would help. Don’t talk about religion or politics, just get the work done.
Mike, I feel as though you bring up this Sam Harris thing at least once a month, which I get, because he is basically critiquing you and yours. I really feel him on this issue, though, because here is how I look at it.
You have this book which is important to you. You can read it, apply a little history, a little understand of metaphor, and a big helping of modern interpretation, and come away from it with a desire to build schools in Third World nations. Hazzah! Unfortunately, the president reads it, and understands it as saying to him: blow up brown people using undereducated boys from America. A friend of mine from college reads it and understands it as saying, lie, cheat and harass women in front of abortion clinics for Jesus. Another reads it as, God thinks men are smarter than women, so I don’t have to take your opinions seriously.
With your book, there is so much room for interpretation. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it certainly makes literature more interesting. The problem is that people use it to base their lives on, and there is a lot of stuff in there that is pretty damn easy to turn war, harassment, and general religious snobbery. I read the book, and I can totally understand where fanatical beliefs based on things we didn’t know 2000 years ago come from. I am not sure we can have this book exist wherein all the people that read it can only come away from it with “the good stuff”. As long as this book is believed by some to be the word of a god-figure, people are going to read it and become suicide bombers, crusaders, and in-the-closet Republicans.
I am not sure why I should take your opinion in what the Bible says more seriously than Bush’s opinion. I am not sure Bush’s power could thrive in a world where only a few people had religious faith, and they were all jerks. By throwing the not-crazies in with the crazies, it boosts his power, and his numbers. Look at America, the pollsters say, we are a majority Christian- ignoring the nuance of ChrEasters vs. Mikes vs. Bushes. Also, the more people believe (or at least check off the box on forms) the more is allows those crazies to do stuff in the name of our majority religion, including many things that violate the separation of church and state.
In short- by promoting a religious worldview- including that religion cannot be seriously dismissed as a reason for acting a certain way, and including the idea that religious beliefs are some sort of sacred thing, and unable to be criticized, you are allowing those of the religious right to thrive.
Mike, I apologize for not explaining earlier. PZ is PZ Myers of Pharyngula, the biggest atheism and biggest science blog there is. You can count on him to agree with Richard Dawkins on pretty much everything, even when Dawkins says some pretty stupid stuff. Whenever I hear “New atheists”, I always think of him.
I’ve found from reading Pharyngula that “New Atheists” indeed are willing to work with people they disagree with for common causes, and they are respectful in their own way. All of that goes under the radar, and it’s partly their own fault. Also, they tend to think Christians like yourself are a myth.
As for Sam Harris, you may be right. Maybe it’s me who is misrepresenting, and most atheists actually think like Sam Harris. I hope not.
Excellent point, Claire.
Interestingly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks the same “where the hell are the moderates?” of Islam in an excellent op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Islam’s Silent Moderates”:
Why bring religion into it? Well, because, like it or not, religion is a motivating factor for many, many people. So if you want to motivate them to do all those good things, it makes sense to appeal to them by way of their core values and convictions. You will get a lot more accomplished if you can convince people that their religion actually has a lot to do with serving the poor, helping the oppressed, caring for the creation, etc. than if you think your first task has to be to get them to give up their core convictions and replace them with your own.
Hey Jen, interesting perspective. A few responses:
I’m not asking you to. What I’m concerned with is convincing people who agree with Bush’s interpretation of the Bible to switch to my interpretation of it instead. I happen to think that this will be a far easier task then convincing them to throw out the Bible altogether. So my appeal is not to you (as an atheist), it’s to them (as fellow Christians).
That’s an interesting theory. I don’t think I agree, mainly because I don’t think it’s fair of you to just lump all Christians together like that. Being a Christian doesn’t automatically make you a Republican or a Bush supporter. Even by your own logic this doesn’t follow. If we are a majority Christian nation, and yet only about half of the voters voted for Bush, then that means an awful lot of Christians did not support him at all. In other words, we progressive Christians do not “boost his numbers” because we were never part of his numbers; not to mention that “Christians” as whole are not “his numbers” either. He doesn’t own the Christian vote and never has. All he has is one segment of Christianity, and not even that entirely. Any Christian politician who thinks that just because a voter checks the box “Christian” that means they will automatically agree with all of that politician’s policies is just an idiot (which, granted, is not unlikely in Bush’s case
).
See, and this is where I’m not understanding your complaint. Wasn’t Brian’s whole post pretty much a criticism of certain kinds of religious beliefs? Isn’t that how I’ve described the emerging church from the beginning - as a critique of conservative Christianity? And let’s not forget that mainline liberal Christianity - which has been around for well over a century - has long defined itself in opposition to and in critique of fundamentalism. I’m sorry, but I’m just not seeing where you get this idea that progressive Christians are saying that we shouldn’t be able to critique religion. We’re critiquing it ourselves all the time.
For instance, Brian starts his second post, “Finding Common Ground”, with these words:
Where in that do you get the impression that Brian, or any of the other skeptical religious leaders he identifies with, are saying that religion shouldn’t be criticized?
I don’t understand all this defensiveness towards MikeC and I’m a non-theist. He is right though. Some people won’t do something without the motivation of religion, but he’s also trying to say that not all Christians want to pound people over the heads with the idea of conversion.
Also for some people, even Christians, their religion is their identity as well as cultural. Some won’t do something unless their group is doing it. I have heard many comments that go something like, “Oh my church is serving Christmas dinner to the poor. I’m going to go help.” They decided to do it only because the rest of their group was doing it. Any other time they would probably calling the poor indigent, lazy, dirty, bums, which is not necessarily true.
I don’t know, I think if people, regardless of the label, want to be peaceful, non-violent, and compassionate why be on the defensive, esp when they have shown they don’t wish to overtly convert anyone? Maybe I am an unusual non-theist, but if no one is forcing me to convert, I have nothing against what they believe even if I don’t accept those beliefs. What is there to fight back about?
That’s a good question. It depends, doesn’t it? What are my beliefs being replaced with? What new framing story/worldview/philosophy is replacing my previous one?
See, you said
but as an existentialist myself, I don’t quite agree with that. What do you mean by “who I am”? Some kind of essential “soul”? Some preexisting personality apart from the matrix of experiences, beliefs, values, desires, influences, etc. that have made me who I am?
Sorry, but I don’t think any such thing exists. I don’t think I can separate “me” from all those things that go into making me “me” - which includes (but of course is not limited to) my faith. So the question of whether it’s “me” or the “faith” that is “doing it” is sort of nonsensical in my book. Inasmuch as my personal beliefs and values are part of who I am, it is “me” doing it - but you can’t really separate the two out. I can change my beliefs, adopt new ones, but then who I am would be changing as well - so it is still “me” and it is still the “beliefs” doing “it”, both together as a package deal.
Trust me, I used to be highly conservative - both theologically and politically. I was right arrogant asshole to be honest, though I didn’t realize it at the time. Then, over the space of several years, my understanding of my faith changed, and these new beliefs started to change the way I thought about the world and acted in it. They changed “me”. So no, I can’t separate out my beliefs from who I am - when the one changes, the other changes as well, because really they aren’t two separate things.
Because, as I told Jen in my previous comment, you can’t just lump all Christians together as if we all just share exactly the same faith. Part of Brian’s whole point is that we need a new kind of Christianity, a new framing story that actually encourages Christians to be good and not be assholes. It is not the same version of the faith that is producing both. They do share some points of commonality, but some major disagreements too, and those disagreements make all the difference in the world IMHO.
To put it even more simply, it’s not belief in God, per se, that is making people act like assholes - it is belief in a certain kind of God who they think requires them to act in certain assholish ways. My, and Brian’s, contention is that if you change a believer’s conception of God you can change their behavior. What we think about God affects how we live and act in the world (including if we think God doesn’t even exist.)
I hope by “you” you don’t mean me. For me to tell a christian what his or her religion is really about and what her or she should do about it takes more chutzpah than I have on any given day.
Just how is an atheist supposed to phrase that?
“Here’s what your stupid beliefs are really supposed to be.”
“The least you could do is live up to your false beliefs.”
“What your non-existent god wants you to do is help the oppressed.”
“What your outdated and not-even-close-to-divinely-inspired book is telling you to do is to serve the poor (but not in a Twilight Zone sense).”
I’m just not seeing any of this ending well.
LOL. Quite right. Sorry about that. I meant “you” in the generic sense. In fact, when I first wrote it I used “we” instead of “you” but then the grammar got awkward.
Don’t worry, as I’ve said, I see this largely as my task as a Christian pastor, to help fellow Christians start to think about their faith differently.
I think the two things above to a certain extent tie into each other. The criticism is quiet and understated. If it were a lot louder, people wouldn’t be so quick to lump all christians together anymore.
However, I don’t think Jen was lumping them all together. How I read her post is that certain people, who have a vested interest in this, have lumped the numbers together making it appear that christians far outnumber all others in this country. There is strength in numbers, and in solidarity, and there is strength in the appearance of numbers and solidarity. It’s that appearance that gives Bush and his cronies much of their power and sense of authority.
It’s out there, but it’s not coming from them; it’s coming from the moderates and the mainstream, and providing a smokescreen for fundamentalists, hence the objections which Jen summarized so nicely. This is another reason all christians get lumped together, as you point out, unfairly. If most of the members of a group don’t denounce the jerk-like portion of the group, the assumption is that they don’t really have a problem with them. The occasional eye-roll does not a denunciation make.
Who a person is starts with the personality he or she is born with, is affected by upbringing and experiences, and can be changed only by a personal decision to change, or by the weight of more experiences. That’s what I meant by it.
Of course you can’t, I don’t think anyone can. What I was getting at is that who a person is determines what they believe, among other things. A person gravitates toward a particular religion because that religion fits with who they are. A nice person gravitates toward a nice religion, a control-freak gravitates toward a religion with lots of rules, a greedy or sybaritic person gravitates toward a prosperity religion. So to me it seems nonsensical to say “I do this because my religion tells me it’s a good thing to do” when you chose the religion that would tell you to do that, so it’s basically you telling yourself what you should do.
I kind of agree, but to me, this is just the flip side - they are assholes, they looked for a religion that tells them to be assholes, and they found it.
If this is true, then members of a church that all study the same texts, listen to the same pastor, and share the same values should either be all assholes or all decent people, depending on the version. Have you found this to be true, that all members of a church are either decent or not, depending on the version of their faith?
If so, that’s some evidence for your view, and if not, that’s some evidence for my view. I’ll have to take your word for it, though, for obvious reasons.
I thought the post was good Mike C. I’m glad to see this new Christianity emerging. I hope it continues. Labeling all christians the same is stupid, labeling all of any group all the same is stupid. If you treat a liberal believer the same way you would a fundy, and dislike them just b/c they are not a non believer, why should they work with you on anything? If the fundy treats them better, yeah, they’ll identify with the fundy more. That’s just the way it is-for ANY group. You don’t have to respect their beliefs-but you should treat them with respect as people.
Neither do I. Some of the posts remind me of how I’ve seen some atheists treated on religious sites. To some people, who he is or how he behaves doesn’t seem to matter-what he is is all that matters no matter how he behaves. Which is dumb, b/c that mentality only makes people defensive in turn.
That’s very true.
I agree. If there was a more benign form of religion that stayed out of government, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that what we want? Yet for some people, even that’s not good enough-everyone has to think like them or else they are worthless. Let’s face it, faith and religion will always be around in some form, unless it is forced out by coercion-it’s part of our evolutionary nature and some people will just be more prone to it than others always. Even Christopher Hitchens admits it. The point is to stop religion from having a lot of power where it can hurt people, and to have beliefs that don’t hurt people, and to have people understand that forcing their beliefs on others doesn’t work. If people become more rational in general this will be more possible. But let’s not forget that just b/c someone isn’t religious, that doesn’t automatically make them rational.
As for Sam Harris, even he was surprised after the way his recent speech (which I agreed with) was criticized, b/c he apparently he challenged a “status quo”. He seems to have reversed himself at least in some form. He also says we can have spirituality without being necessarily religious, something he’s been criticized for by other atheists, according to him.
I would say there is definitely more (at least where I live) than the “occasional eye-roll” (check out the progressive xtian response to Mitt Romney and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for one), but I agree there needs to be more.
You know what, Mike comes in here with the most balanced article you’re ever going to see from a Christian perspective. He says he wants Christians and Atheists to work together. And nearly everyone here has jumped on his case about it.
Look, Brian McLaren and people like Mike are the best chance Atheists have at a world where Christians and Atheists live together harmoniously. If you can’t accept that, then it seems to me that you’re just like the fundamentalists who want a world full of Christians and nothing else.
Where did he say that? I don’t see it. He asked for something other than working together:
The impression I get is that he is asking for an exemption from opposition on his faiths’ beliefs. I don’t know how else to read the above. Most of us are saying ‘no’ to that request. If the request is to work with religious people on any specific project, or general goals, the answer will often be ‘yes.’