Reply #224: My two cents' worth here [View All]

[okasha]

Truth in packaging: I'm an ex-Episcopalian Pagan, with a family background that includes Episcopalians, Southern Baptists and traditional Native American spirituality. I was educated by Marist Brothers and Ursuline nuns, with the odd Jesuit thrown in for good measure. I still read Christian theology, and I have a good many progressive Christian friends, including clergy.

Three points, it seems to me, get lost in the kind of Christian-bashing we've seen on DU. (And it's not just DU; I've seen it on other bbs, too.)

1. The Bible does not define the reality of God. The Bible is a history of human perceptions of God , and those perceptions are colored by human culture. The god who orders the slaughter of whole populations in Joshua, and in the now lost Book of the Wars of Yahweh, is a war god for a warrior society, the same sort you find in the conquering cultures of Assyria and Rome. There was a time when Yahweh was one among many gods worshiped by the proto-Israelites, and during this period of conquest, it seems, he beat out the competition. Yet by the time we get to Micah, the rudiments of faith have become far more humane. "What doth God require of thee, oh man, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Then there's Isaiah's Peaceable Kingdom, where the "lion and the lamb" lie down together. (In quotes because it's not an exact quote, just a very arresting image that's stuck with us for centuries.) The ministry of Jesus of Nazareth grew out of those later readings, not the kill-em-all bloodthirst that went before.

2. Christianity is not monolithic. There are churches that not only do not rely solely on the Bible--the Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Churches all add tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers (and Mothers) to make up the three pillars of faith--but actually encourage scholarly and historical perspectives. Those churches do not interpret the Bible literally. Look up "form, source and redaction criticism" one of these days; read some of it. Scholars in these churches, and many of the laity, are quite comfortable with discussion the "Christian mythos." Randall Terry does not speak for the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church who does not speak for my friend the Baptist evolutionary biologist. When you lump all these people together, and then lump them again with rigid fundamentalists, Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists, you not only do them a disservice but obscure the danger represented by the latter.

Progressive and moderate Christians can and do criticize fundamentalist attempts to force their theology on everyone. But the Methodist Church, say, has no way to "root out" the bad tree of Dominionism except by persuasion and through alliance with others who see the danger. These "mainline" churches don't get a lot of attention in the media, unfortunately, because they are inherently not sensationalist. If secular progressives, or atheist progressives, continue to bash them uncritically, then each group loses a useful ally and is correspondingly weakened.

3. The "Christians" who want to take over the government of the United States and make it a theocracy are specifically those Dominionists, Reconstructionists, and their kissing cousins in the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movements. They're the enemy, not your average Presbyterian or Methodist or Quaker. If you look at the history of this country, Christians and their Churches have been at the forefront of many of the movements for social justice, from Abolitionists in the 1800's to the struggle for gay and women's rights today. They remain at the forefront of the social justice struggle in Latin America. It shouldn't be difficult to acknowlege or honor those facts. They're on record and easily available.

And, on a personal note apart from the above,

4. I find the level of most of the Christian-bashing here downright puerile. Sneering is not attractive or persuasive. Of course there are similarities between elements of Christianity and elements of Paganism. Of course the Church, as a powerful, political institution, has had periods of horrific corruption. Of course the Church is only now emerging, in part, from oppressive patriarchy. This is old news, and its presentation as sudden revelation says far less about the Christians on this board than it does the bashers.