Questioning the 'Survivor' Mentality of Some Christians
by Julie Clawson 12-03-2008 | 3:01pm
First a confession
Get E-Mail Updates
Related Stories
Resources
Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!
Onan, the son of Judah, and the younger brother of Er, did not masturbate when he was with Tamar. He practiced the first Biblically known version of birth control by the early withdrawal method. Yes, Onan did have sexual intercourse with Tamar.
So, Biblically speaking, "Onanism," is the practice of coitus interruptus.
Merriam-Webster is not a Bible dictionary nor is it a dictionary of theology.
The only definition which applies to what actually happened is "coitus interruptus.
Modern dictionaries have decided to redefine the words "pedophile" to mean "adult has sex with children" and "pedophilia" as "sexual abuse of children." But, sexual activity with children is actually "pederastia" and an adult who has sex with children is a "pederast."
The "-philia" suffix of "pedophilia" means the action of normal human friendship/family love, no sex involved.
I defer to your self-assigned clear superiority over myself as linguist, theologian, sex educator and ideologue.
Next time I won't use a polite euphemism such as "onanism" but will bluntly state, as you demand, that by soaking ourselves in TV watching we might just as well all be sitting around jacking ourselves off.
Coutesy Random House Dictionary:
Verb phrase
29. jack off, Slang: Vulgar. to masturbate.
Idiom
Wow. You make too much sense. This is a mindset that we have to confront that has permeated American Christianity for years. It also has roots in traditional reformed thinking in relation to the state of mind. We hear much about the depravity of humanity, but very little about male AND female being created in the image of God.
I feel that my early instruction as a new Christian in Calvinism (or the doctrines of grace) really hampered and stunted my growth as a Christian from this perspective: how you look at someone influences how you relate to them. If we only see non-believers as evil and polluters of society, we will always keep them at arms length. We need to function as a holy virus, infecting the world with God's love and grace.
I remember Leslie. She was definitely one of those "public Christians" (by virtue of being 1) on a well-known TV show and 2) being unapologetically Christian) who made me embarrassed to be a Christian, myself. Survivor has had a few other Christians who didn't make me cringe so much, but I also have to confess that I tend not to remember them so well.
I wonder what that says about me, and about Christians as a rule?
I'm really curious about why she would even apply to be part of a TV show if indeed her views are to "vote off the island" those who are nonChristian. Either there is a disconnect in her own life, or there is a disconnect with the Leslie's philosophy being presented here. Probably a mix of both. I'd love to hear Leslie's thoughts on this entry.
My Tivo killed this episode, so I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but I believe she fled when asked to participate in the ceremony. The ceremony could be seen as an act of self-worship and a rejection of God. This is a defensible position, I suppose, though I think common sense would simply prevail upon Leslie to calm down and go through the motions.
Some of the other ceremonies on the show involve sacrificing animals to pagan Gods and the like, which would be much more troubling.
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating "
Churchy myth? It's in the Bible. To the degree that Christians have not been oppressed, it's becaue we have compromised with the world. A watered down Christian message. There is also an angry God that will send non-believers to hell. That's in there too.
Leslie is a lousy messenger, but the message is accurate.
Off topic, but has anyone considered why we reflexively criticize reality television? I don't see anything wrong with it. Why is it inherently worse to watch John and Kate plus Eight than Two and a Half Men?
If we're on a downward spiral, from where are we spiraling? The golden era of television? Dobie Gillis? ALF?
Talk about churchy. "I hate x, but I have to admit I watch x from time to time." As though professing your dislike of something somehow validates your patronage.
It is quite possible that there are actually things on TV that are worth viewing. I'm about ready to find out as I make the transition from "rabbit ears" to one of the other methods of receiving transmissions (cable, satellite, or FIOS). My aim is to select an option that provides some quality programming but does not include a lot of garbage. So while what I hear about the History Channel, National Geographic, and others offer a lot of appeal, the 24-hour televangelists and shopping networks turn me off.
I certainly agree, though I think I can see what Survivor's attraction is for some people. But wasteland is right. I avoid television of any kind as much as I can. About the only thing I ever watch would be sports events that I'm interested in, and that's rare. There are simply more important things to do with my time (such as write blog responses?).
'Her basic message of 'good Christians stand up for their faith and go against the flow"'
That basic message is the exact same message trumpeted by Sojourners and every blogger at this site. How that basic message is fleshed out in detail differs, but the treatment in rhetoric given to fundamentalists and conservatives differs little from the approach "Leslie" represents for progressive evangelicals and liberals. We certainly feel that fellowship when blog entries trumpet that a vote for Obama is a vote for hope and a vote for McCain is for hate.
Kevin:
Yes, you are correct, the scriptures do talk extensively about persecution and oppression. However, I think there's a big difference between the kind of opposition Jesus talked about (e.g., Matthew 5:11-12) and that the early Christians experienced at the hands of the Romans on the one hand and the kind of paranoid "the whole world's against us" mentality that's characteristic of American fundamentalism on the other.
The early Christians were bold to proclaim the Gospel even in the face of persecution, and they counter-intuitively maintained a positive--even joyful--attitude even though they had to meet for worship secretly, were always subject to official crackdowns, were stripped of their employment and forced to leave their homes, or even when they were led to the lions. The "world's against us" modern American Christians, by contrast, live in peace, are able to worship freely and openly, have good jobs and nice homes (for the most part), yet their outlook on life is decidedly negative. I've experienced this attitude first hand. American Christians have no idea what real persecution is like. This siege mentality is what Julie is speaking of here.
I have mixed emotions on this article. On one hand, I agree with you, Ms. Clawson, that events like this are at best a waste of time and worst reinforce a kind of Christian isolationism.
On the other hand, I feel like a variant of this sort of message is what so often frustrates me about Sojourners (in between moments of blinding inspiration). So often, I feel as I read Sojo's stuff that there is a relentless attempt to define ourselves over against other parts of the body of Christ: "Please, I'm not THAT kind of Christian" or "THAT kind of evangelical."
Not sure if a blog post that (kindly and with requisite erudition) condemns and disassociates from Leslie is any more worthwhile than Leslie's blunter, perhaps less refined condemnation and dissociation in the Texas ballroom.
And if it's patently obvious that Leslie will never win Buddhists by condemning and dissociating, is it any surprise that we have trouble winning fellow Christians?
When television first came to the little town where I grew up, it was vehemetly opposed by the ministers for two reasons:
(1) Because it represented "moving pictures" which was already on the forbidden list.
(2) Because people were tempted to skip the Sunday night and Wednesday night services plus any special revival meetings.
The problem for church people was that they could not disguise their ownership of these sinful devices because in order to receive a signal, one had to purchase a huge antenna, place it in the tallest tree and run a wire to their homes.
When confronted with their violation of church fiats, their standard response was that they only turned the TV on to watch Oral Roberts and the news.
In defense of the TV programming of that era, I think it was far superior to that of today. Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball were classics. I offer no defense of ALF, but that came much later.
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating from that world"
To fight the myth, how could we state what the message should be?
"the world does not comprehend sacrificial love, but they must stand up for their faith by sacrificially loving their fellow humans while trusting God to protect them from brokenness."
Your concern is a valid one. At the same time, I think Clawson is correct in arguing that a segment of the American church seems trapped in a victim mentality, even though it's been an extremely powerful cultural and political force for the past 30 years.
So how do we avoid the victim mentality and other not so attractive aspects of other Christians, and yet remain humble? Lots of prayer I guess, and frequent self-reminders that we are all sinners saved only by God's lavish grace.
Wonderful article. Thanks for this.
mecyssne - I hear your point. Not to answer for the author but I would say that there is precedent for having a "family squabble," so to speak. Jesus reserved his harshest words for members of his own "tribe" which was part of a very long, ancient, prophetic tradtion of hashing out matters of faith within one's own family.
What I didn't hear in this article, and perhaps you did, was judgment. I didn't hear Ms. Clawson calling these women heretics or lost sheep. However, I think it is quite right for someone (in this case, Ms. Clawson) to speak up when something appears awry and perhaps bring a word of correction (rebuke) to be heard.
To the larger issue: I just finished reading Thurman's Jesus and the Disinherited. Wonderful book. In his treatment on love he talks about how any group who feel they have their backs up against the wall (the disinherited), which apparently these conservative Christians feel would depict their "plight," that the way out of this is through love - the sort Jesus embodied. This was a love that did not disassociate with the powers that oppressed them or hate them or demonize them but rather prayed for them and showed them compassion. It is the sort of love and witness that Israel was always meant to be: Open to the nations and not closed in upon itself. This Survivor group is not modeling that sort of openness, IMO.
peace.
Chad
That's right -- it all depends on your attitude toward your "persecutors." The problem arises when we become so full of ourselves that we think we have the automatic right to have our views heard, let alone to shove them down everyone's throat. Bottom line, one thing that American "fundamentalists" often lack is humility, the idea of "but for the grace of God..."
That to me was the genius of the civil-rights movement, which succeeded not by browbeating the opposition but by making it look stupid while never putting it off. MLK Jr. said, "One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory."
That also is why the early church was effective -- it never sought its own authority and was content with knowing Christ and making Him known. Nothing else mattered.
We certainly feel that fellowship when blog entries trumpet that a vote for Obama is a vote for hope and a vote for McCain is for hate.
I was recently run off a Christian blog where it was just the opposite -- in fact, it openly wondered why any Christian would vote for Obama, and the owner posted a lot of anti-Obama entries under the general category of "Obamanation." I could feel the hate and directly challenged it -- and he and other participants didn't appreciate it, to say the least. (Interestingly, it had little actual good to say about McCain.)
Anyway, the blog had a Calvinist bent to it and, unfortunately, Reformed culture often sponsors that kind of entitlement. (I too come from that background.) The difference between that and Sojo is that the other took the tack, "How dare anyone disagree with us!" Sojo entries often just state a position and lets the chips fall where they may.
"To hear a woman say that she did the right thing by refusing the hospitality of the Buddhists and that God wanted her to remove the evil influences of unbelievers from her life is the epitome of the stereotyped mean Christian Leslie doesn't think exists"
I struggle to see how you can not consider that to be judgemental. The problem with any conversation that labels someone as judgemental is that is it inherently judgemental to call someone judgemental. It's like saying I'm proud of my humility.
Merriam-Webster is not a Bible dictionary nor is it a dictionary of theology.
The only definition which applies to what actually happened is "coitus interruptus.
Modern dictionaries have decided to redefine the words "pedophile" to mean "adult has sex with children" and "pedophilia" as "sexual abuse of children." But, sexual activity with children is actually "pederastia" and an adult who has sex with children is a "pederast."
The "-philia" suffix of "pedophilia" means the action of normal human friendship/family love, no sex involved.
I defer to your self-assigned clear superiority over myself as linguist, theologian, sex educator and ideologue.
Next time I won't use a polite euphemism such as "onanism" but will bluntly state, as you demand, that by soaking ourselves in TV watching we might just as well all be sitting around jacking ourselves off.
Coutesy Random House Dictionary:
Verb phrase
29. jack off, Slang: Vulgar. to masturbate.
Idiom
Wow. You make too much sense. This is a mindset that we have to confront that has permeated American Christianity for years. It also has roots in traditional reformed thinking in relation to the state of mind. We hear much about the depravity of humanity, but very little about male AND female being created in the image of God.
I feel that my early instruction as a new Christian in Calvinism (or the doctrines of grace) really hampered and stunted my growth as a Christian from this perspective: how you look at someone influences how you relate to them. If we only see non-believers as evil and polluters of society, we will always keep them at arms length. We need to function as a holy virus, infecting the world with God's love and grace.
I remember Leslie. She was definitely one of those "public Christians" (by virtue of being 1) on a well-known TV show and 2) being unapologetically Christian) who made me embarrassed to be a Christian, myself. Survivor has had a few other Christians who didn't make me cringe so much, but I also have to confess that I tend not to remember them so well.
I wonder what that says about me, and about Christians as a rule?
Oh, and I agree with "celebration" that I was a little scattered that night. There were some personal issues going on in my life at that time and I allowed some of it to effect my speaking. Since then I've learned so much - we are all imperfect but I'm continuing to improve and will continue to share the Truth of Jesus with others.
Wow! It's been about a year since I spoke at this event and I'm just coming across this article. I am sick in the pit of my stomach and so terribly sad that Julie walked away from that event with those thoughts. I truly am blown away by her disdain for me and the message I gave. I'm also a little surprised, honestly.
I wanted to address some of the accusations Julie made against the things she heard last year at this banquet.
1. "She laughed at her critics and their fear of Christians because, in her opinion, what they fear (pushy, Bible-banging, judgmental Christians) doesn't really exist." I never laughed at my critics. I said I understood why they feel the way they do because of the stereotype Christians have. I never said Christians like that don't exist only that TRUE believers who follow Christ's example are not like that. If we are walking in the Spirit of God, we will not behave in that manner. It is not biblical to act that way - and certainly not Christlike. But everyone is capable of messing up sometimes.
2. "Since she's apparently never met a mean Christian, those that think they have must just be delusional. To back that up she told the group that people will actually like you better if you act different and stand up for what you believe." You better believe I've met some mean people who claim to be Christians! That's exactly why I ran from God for 20 years. I never said people would like you better if you stand up for what you believe. I said that they respect you more when you stand up for what you believe, whether they admit it or not. When you say you are a Christian, people expect you to be different. I encourage people to be true to their beliefs, not to be intolerant.
3. "To hear a woman say that she did the right thing by refusing the hospitality of the Buddhists and that God wanted her to remove the evil influences of unbelievers from her life is the epitome of the stereotyped mean Christian Leslie doesn't think exists." I never said this at all. I said that I walked out because I love the Lord and have a relationship with Him and that I did it out of a personal conviction, not to make a big scene. I said that bowing to that Buddha and praying to Jesus would be like me making out with another man and telling my husband I would think about him the whole time! I also never said God wanted me to remove evil influences of unbelievers in my life. I said that when I first became a believer i had to stay away from the lifestyle I used to live but eventually as I became stronger in my faith, those relationships are now better than ever. He did ask me to remove evil behaviors, but not people.
Julie, my heart breaks that you got this out of that message. I wish, as the bible instructs, that you would have come to me with your complaints. We could have worked through this. I would have loved to talk through this with you personally. I wish the very best for you and have no hard feelings at all - I just wanted to set the record straight and give my side of this.
On a personal note, I agree with you completely that we need to be out there, loving and serving and sharing Christ's love with others. Holy huddles are helpful but they are not meant to be a place where believers stay and hide away from the world. If I truly believed the way you say I said I believe, why would I ever go on a show like Survivor? I believe Christians are to be in the world and not of it.
I think the problem here is what they are doing in the ceremony. Just because the host says, "Then they throw a coin in the bin" doesn't mean that's not, in their culture, actually a gift to a god. (That's just an example, not something I particularly remember from the episode.) I would have been very careful in that ceremony, and remember feeling uncomfortable watching it, wondering what I would do.
I would not want to bow before a little Buddha -- even if it just seems to be going through motions. I would always try to be polite, but I think we all have lines we wouldn't cross. That's not a bad thing.
I agree Kevin. I know a lot of people who recommend reality television -- watch The Apprentice to learn about business, Supernanny to learn about raising kids, and Dads who watch the Bachelor with their daughters, because it's a safe place to talk relationships etc. I even enjoy the people element piece of it. I don't watch it for a car crash, but to see a victory.
Ace of Cakes is considered a reality show. Just watching a bakery in Baltimore make amazing cakes and how the people involved do it. I don't watch if often, but I'd watch the same epsode twice before I watched a Two and a Half Men episode.
I'm really curious about why she would even apply to be part of a TV show if indeed her views are to "vote off the island" those who are nonChristian. Either there is a disconnect in her own life, or there is a disconnect with the Leslie's philosophy being presented here. Probably a mix of both. I'd love to hear Leslie's thoughts on this entry.
My Tivo killed this episode, so I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but I believe she fled when asked to participate in the ceremony. The ceremony could be seen as an act of self-worship and a rejection of God. This is a defensible position, I suppose, though I think common sense would simply prevail upon Leslie to calm down and go through the motions.
Some of the other ceremonies on the show involve sacrificing animals to pagan Gods and the like, which would be much more troubling.
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating "
Churchy myth? It's in the Bible. To the degree that Christians have not been oppressed, it's becaue we have compromised with the world. A watered down Christian message. There is also an angry God that will send non-believers to hell. That's in there too.
Leslie is a lousy messenger, but the message is accurate.
Off topic, but has anyone considered why we reflexively criticize reality television? I don't see anything wrong with it. Why is it inherently worse to watch John and Kate plus Eight than Two and a Half Men?
If we're on a downward spiral, from where are we spiraling? The golden era of television? Dobie Gillis? ALF?
Talk about churchy. "I hate x, but I have to admit I watch x from time to time." As though professing your dislike of something somehow validates your patronage.
I certainly agree, though I think I can see what Survivor's attraction is for some people. But wasteland is right. I avoid television of any kind as much as I can. About the only thing I ever watch would be sports events that I'm interested in, and that's rare. There are simply more important things to do with my time (such as write blog responses?).
Amen. There are some really great, thoughtful things written here. And then there are some commentaries (and commenters) that are just dripping with superiority and sanctimony reveling in how certain Christians are better than others. I've heard more bashing of "fundamentalists" here than on any Bill Maher highlight reel. I'd forgive someone for thinking after reading this blog that the real threat to our society isn't sin but Christians who don't see things eye to eye with the writers here.
Chad,
I don't have a problem with a word of correction. Christians should hold each other accountable. Perhaps Ms. Clawson discussed this with Leslie at this event or spoke up at that time. But what she's doing here isn't trying to correct Leslie or help her see things differently. She's publicly holding her up as an example of "what Christians shouldn't do". She's not interested in changing Leslie's behavior or teaching her the error of her ways. She's just pointing a finger at her and saying "bad".
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Wow. You make too much sense. This is a mindset that we have to confront that has permeated American Christianity for years. It also has roots in traditional reformed thinking in relation to the state of mind. We hear much about the depravity of humanity, but very little about male AND female being created in the image of God.
I feel that my early instruction as a new Christian in Calvinism (or the doctrines of grace) really hampered and stunted my growth as a Christian from this perspective: how you look at someone influences how you relate to them. If we only see non-believers as evil and polluters of society, we will always keep them at arms length. We need to function as a holy virus, infecting the world with God's love and grace.
Wow. You make too much sense. This is a mindset that we have to confront that has permeated American Christianity for years. It also has roots in traditional reformed thinking in relation to the state of mind. We hear much about the depravity of humanity, but very little about male AND female being created in the image of God.
I feel that my early instruction as a new Christian in Calvinism (or the doctrines of grace) really hampered and stunted my growth as a Christian from this perspective: how you look at someone influences how you relate to them. If we only see non-believers as evil and polluters of society, we will always keep them at arms length. We need to function as a holy virus, infecting the world with God's love and grace.
I remember Leslie. She was definitely one of those "public Christians" (by virtue of being 1) on a well-known TV show and 2) being unapologetically Christian) who made me embarrassed to be a Christian, myself. Survivor has had a few other Christians who didn't make me cringe so much, but I also have to confess that I tend not to remember them so well.
I wonder what that says about me, and about Christians as a rule?
I remember Leslie. She was definitely one of those "public Christians" (by virtue of being 1) on a well-known TV show and 2) being unapologetically Christian) who made me embarrassed to be a Christian, myself. Survivor has had a few other Christians who didn't make me cringe so much, but I also have to confess that I tend not to remember them so well.
I wonder what that says about me, and about Christians as a rule?
I'm really curious about why she would even apply to be part of a TV show if indeed her views are to "vote off the island" those who are nonChristian. Either there is a disconnect in her own life, or there is a disconnect with the Leslie's philosophy being presented here. Probably a mix of both. I'd love to hear Leslie's thoughts on this entry.
I'm really curious about why she would even apply to be part of a TV show if indeed her views are to "vote off the island" those who are nonChristian. Either there is a disconnect in her own life, or there is a disconnect with the Leslie's philosophy being presented here. Probably a mix of both. I'd love to hear Leslie's thoughts on this entry.
My Tivo killed this episode, so I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but I believe she fled when asked to participate in the ceremony. The ceremony could be seen as an act of self-worship and a rejection of God. This is a defensible position, I suppose, though I think common sense would simply prevail upon Leslie to calm down and go through the motions.
Some of the other ceremonies on the show involve sacrificing animals to pagan Gods and the like, which would be much more troubling.
My Tivo killed this episode, so I'm not sure of the exact circumstances, but I believe she fled when asked to participate in the ceremony. The ceremony could be seen as an act of self-worship and a rejection of God. This is a defensible position, I suppose, though I think common sense would simply prevail upon Leslie to calm down and go through the motions.
Some of the other ceremonies on the show involve sacrificing animals to pagan Gods and the like, which would be much more troubling.
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating "
Churchy myth? It's in the Bible. To the degree that Christians have not been oppressed, it's becaue we have compromised with the world. A watered down Christian message. There is also an angry God that will send non-believers to hell. That's in there too.
Leslie is a lousy messenger, but the message is accurate.
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating "
Churchy myth? It's in the Bible. To the degree that Christians have not been oppressed, it's becaue we have compromised with the world. A watered down Christian message. There is also an angry God that will send non-believers to hell. That's in there too.
Leslie is a lousy messenger, but the message is accurate.
Off topic, but has anyone considered why we reflexively criticize reality television? I don't see anything wrong with it. Why is it inherently worse to watch John and Kate plus Eight than Two and a Half Men?
If we're on a downward spiral, from where are we spiraling? The golden era of television? Dobie Gillis? ALF?
Talk about churchy. "I hate x, but I have to admit I watch x from time to time." As though professing your dislike of something somehow validates your patronage.
Off topic, but has anyone considered why we reflexively criticize reality television? I don't see anything wrong with it. Why is it inherently worse to watch John and Kate plus Eight than Two and a Half Men?
If we're on a downward spiral, from where are we spiraling? The golden era of television? Dobie Gillis? ALF?
Talk about churchy. "I hate x, but I have to admit I watch x from time to time." As though professing your dislike of something somehow validates your patronage.
I certainly agree, though I think I can see what Survivor's attraction is for some people. But wasteland is right. I avoid television of any kind as much as I can. About the only thing I ever watch would be sports events that I'm interested in, and that's rare. There are simply more important things to do with my time (such as write blog responses?).
I certainly agree, though I think I can see what Survivor's attraction is for some people. But wasteland is right. I avoid television of any kind as much as I can. About the only thing I ever watch would be sports events that I'm interested in, and that's rare. There are simply more important things to do with my time (such as write blog responses?).
'Her basic message of 'good Christians stand up for their faith and go against the flow"'
That basic message is the exact same message trumpeted by Sojourners and every blogger at this site. How that basic message is fleshed out in detail differs, but the treatment in rhetoric given to fundamentalists and conservatives differs little from the approach "Leslie" represents for progressive evangelicals and liberals. We certainly feel that fellowship when blog entries trumpet that a vote for Obama is a vote for hope and a vote for McCain is for hate.
'Her basic message of 'good Christians stand up for their faith and go against the flow"'
That basic message is the exact same message trumpeted by Sojourners and every blogger at this site. How that basic message is fleshed out in detail differs, but the treatment in rhetoric given to fundamentalists and conservatives differs little from the approach "Leslie" represents for progressive evangelicals and liberals. We certainly feel that fellowship when blog entries trumpet that a vote for Obama is a vote for hope and a vote for McCain is for hate.
Kevin:
Yes, you are correct, the scriptures do talk extensively about persecution and oppression. However, I think there's a big difference between the kind of opposition Jesus talked about (e.g., Matthew 5:11-12) and that the early Christians experienced at the hands of the Romans on the one hand and the kind of paranoid "the whole world's against us" mentality that's characteristic of American fundamentalism on the other.
The early Christians were bold to proclaim the Gospel even in the face of persecution, and they counter-intuitively maintained a positive--even joyful--attitude even though they had to meet for worship secretly, were always subject to official crackdowns, were stripped of their employment and forced to leave their homes, or even when they were led to the lions. The "world's against us" modern American Christians, by contrast, live in peace, are able to worship freely and openly, have good jobs and nice homes (for the most part), yet their outlook on life is decidedly negative. I've experienced this attitude first hand. American Christians have no idea what real persecution is like. This siege mentality is what Julie is speaking of here.
Kevin:
Yes, you are correct, the scriptures do talk extensively about persecution and oppression. However, I think there's a big difference between the kind of opposition Jesus talked about (e.g., Matthew 5:11-12) and that the early Christians experienced at the hands of the Romans on the one hand and the kind of paranoid "the whole world's against us" mentality that's characteristic of American fundamentalism on the other.
The early Christians were bold to proclaim the Gospel even in the face of persecution, and they counter-intuitively maintained a positive--even joyful--attitude even though they had to meet for worship secretly, were always subject to official crackdowns, were stripped of their employment and forced to leave their homes, or even when they were led to the lions. The "world's against us" modern American Christians, by contrast, live in peace, are able to worship freely and openly, have good jobs and nice homes (for the most part), yet their outlook on life is decidedly negative. I've experienced this attitude first hand. American Christians have no idea what real persecution is like. This siege mentality is what Julie is speaking of here.
I have mixed emotions on this article. On one hand, I agree with you, Ms. Clawson, that events like this are at best a waste of time and worst reinforce a kind of Christian isolationism.
On the other hand, I feel like a variant of this sort of message is what so often frustrates me about Sojourners (in between moments of blinding inspiration). So often, I feel as I read Sojo's stuff that there is a relentless attempt to define ourselves over against other parts of the body of Christ: "Please, I'm not THAT kind of Christian" or "THAT kind of evangelical."
Not sure if a blog post that (kindly and with requisite erudition) condemns and disassociates from Leslie is any more worthwhile than Leslie's blunter, perhaps less refined condemnation and dissociation in the Texas ballroom.
And if it's patently obvious that Leslie will never win Buddhists by condemning and dissociating, is it any surprise that we have trouble winning fellow Christians?
I have mixed emotions on this article. On one hand, I agree with you, Ms. Clawson, that events like this are at best a waste of time and worst reinforce a kind of Christian isolationism.
On the other hand, I feel like a variant of this sort of message is what so often frustrates me about Sojourners (in between moments of blinding inspiration). So often, I feel as I read Sojo's stuff that there is a relentless attempt to define ourselves over against other parts of the body of Christ: "Please, I'm not THAT kind of Christian" or "THAT kind of evangelical."
Not sure if a blog post that (kindly and with requisite erudition) condemns and disassociates from Leslie is any more worthwhile than Leslie's blunter, perhaps less refined condemnation and dissociation in the Texas ballroom.
And if it's patently obvious that Leslie will never win Buddhists by condemning and dissociating, is it any surprise that we have trouble winning fellow Christians?
When television first came to the little town where I grew up, it was vehemetly opposed by the ministers for two reasons:
(1) Because it represented "moving pictures" which was already on the forbidden list.
(2) Because people were tempted to skip the Sunday night and Wednesday night services plus any special revival meetings.
The problem for church people was that they could not disguise their ownership of these sinful devices because in order to receive a signal, one had to purchase a huge antenna, place it in the tallest tree and run a wire to their homes.
When confronted with their violation of church fiats, their standard response was that they only turned the TV on to watch Oral Roberts and the news.
In defense of the TV programming of that era, I think it was far superior to that of today. Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball were classics. I offer no defense of ALF, but that came much later.
When television first came to the little town where I grew up, it was vehemetly opposed by the ministers for two reasons:
(1) Because it represented "moving pictures" which was already on the forbidden list.
(2) Because people were tempted to skip the Sunday night and Wednesday night services plus any special revival meetings.
The problem for church people was that they could not disguise their ownership of these sinful devices because in order to receive a signal, one had to purchase a huge antenna, place it in the tallest tree and run a wire to their homes.
When confronted with their violation of church fiats, their standard response was that they only turned the TV on to watch Oral Roberts and the news.
In defense of the TV programming of that era, I think it was far superior to that of today. Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball were classics. I offer no defense of ALF, but that came much later.
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating from that world"
To fight the myth, how could we state what the message should be?
"the world does not comprehend sacrificial love, but they must stand up for their faith by sacrificially loving their fellow humans while trusting God to protect them from brokenness."
"the standard churchy myth is that the world is out to get them and they must stand up for their faith by deriding and disassociating from that world"
To fight the myth, how could we state what the message should be?
"the world does not comprehend sacrificial love, but they must stand up for their faith by sacrificially loving their fellow humans while trusting God to protect them from brokenness."
Your concern is a valid one. At the same time, I think Clawson is correct in arguing that a segment of the American church seems trapped in a victim mentality, even though it's been an extremely powerful cultural and political force for the past 30 years.
So how do we avoid the victim mentality and other not so attractive aspects of other Christians, and yet remain humble? Lots of prayer I guess, and frequent self-reminders that we are all sinners saved only by God's lavish grace.
Your concern is a valid one. At the same time, I think Clawson is correct in arguing that a segment of the American church seems trapped in a victim mentality, even though it's been an extremely powerful cultural and political force for the past 30 years.
So how do we avoid the victim mentality and other not so attractive aspects of other Christians, and yet remain humble? Lots of prayer I guess, and frequent self-reminders that we are all sinners saved only by God's lavish grace.
Wonderful article. Thanks for this.
mecyssne - I hear your point. Not to answer for the author but I would say that there is precedent for having a "family squabble," so to speak. Jesus reserved his harshest words for members of his own "tribe" which was part of a very long, ancient, prophetic tradtion of hashing out matters of faith within one's own family.
What I didn't hear in this article, and perhaps you did, was judgment. I didn't hear Ms. Clawson calling these women heretics or lost sheep. However, I think it is quite right for someone (in this case, Ms. Clawson) to speak up when something appears awry and perhaps bring a word of correction (rebuke) to be heard.
To the larger issue: I just finished reading Thurman's Jesus and the Disinherited. Wonderful book. In his treatment on love he talks about how any group who feel they have their backs up against the wall (the disinherited), which apparently these conservative Christians feel would depict their "plight," that the way out of this is through love - the sort Jesus embodied. This was a love that did not disassociate with the powers that oppressed them or hate them or demonize them but rather prayed for them and showed them compassion. It is the sort of love and witness that Israel was always meant to be: Open to the nations and not closed in upon itself. This Survivor group is not modeling that sort of openness, IMO.
peace.
Chad
Wonderful article. Thanks for this.
mecyssne - I hear your point. Not to answer for the author but I would say that there is precedent for having a "family squabble," so to speak. Jesus reserved his harshest words for members of his own "tribe" which was part of a very long, ancient, prophetic tradtion of hashing out matters of faith within one's own family.
What I didn't hear in this article, and perhaps you did, was judgment. I didn't hear Ms. Clawson calling these women heretics or lost sheep. However, I think it is quite right for someone (in this case, Ms. Clawson) to speak up when something appears awry and perhaps bring a word of correction (rebuke) to be heard.
To the larger issue: I just finished reading Thurman's Jesus and the Disinherited. Wonderful book. In his treatment on love he talks about how any group who feel they have their backs up against the wall (the disinherited), which apparently these conservative Christians feel would depict their "plight," that the way out of this is through love - the sort Jesus embodied. This was a love that did not disassociate with the powers that oppressed them or hate them or demonize them but rather prayed for them and showed them compassion. It is the sort of love and witness that Israel was always meant to be: Open to the nations and not closed in upon itself. This Survivor group is not modeling that sort of openness, IMO.
peace.
Chad
That's right -- it all depends on your attitude toward your "persecutors." The problem arises when we become so full of ourselves that we think we have the automatic right to have our views heard, let alone to shove them down everyone's throat. Bottom line, one thing that American "fundamentalists" often lack is humility, the idea of "but for the grace of God..."
That to me was the genius of the civil-rights movement, which succeeded not by browbeating the opposition but by making it look stupid while never putting it off. MLK Jr. said, "One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory."
That also is why the early church was effective -- it never sought its own authority and was content with knowing Christ and making Him known. Nothing else mattered.
That's right -- it all depends on your attitude toward your "persecutors." The problem arises when we become so full of ourselves that we think we have the automatic right to have our views heard, let alone to shove them down everyone's throat. Bottom line, one thing that American "fundamentalists" often lack is humility, the idea of "but for the grace of God..."
That to me was the genius of the civil-rights movement, which succeeded not by browbeating the opposition but by making it look stupid while never putting it off. MLK Jr. said, "One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory."
That also is why the early church was effective -- it never sought its own authority and was content with knowing Christ and making Him known. Nothing else mattered.
We certainly feel that fellowship when blog entries trumpet that a vote for Obama is a vote for hope and a vote for McCain is for hate.
I was recently run off a Christian blog where it was just the opposite -- in fact, it openly wondered why any Christian would vote for Obama, and the owner posted a lot of anti-Obama entries under the general category of "Obamanation." I could feel the hate and directly challenged it -- and he and other participants didn't appreciate it, to say the least. (Interestingly, it had little actual good to say about McCain.)
Anyway, the blog had a Calvinist bent to it and, unfortunately, Reformed culture often sponsors that kind of entitlement. (I too come from that background.) The difference between that and Sojo is that the other took the tack, "How dare anyone disagree with us!" Sojo entries often just state a position and lets the chips fall where they may.
We certainly feel that fellowship when blog entries trumpet that a vote for Obama is a vote for hope and a vote for McCain is for hate.
I was recently run off a Christian blog where it was just the opposite -- in fact, it openly wondered why any Christian would vote for Obama, and the owner posted a lot of anti-Obama entries under the general category of "Obamanation." I could feel the hate and directly challenged it -- and he and other participants didn't appreciate it, to say the least. (Interestingly, it had little actual good to say about McCain.)
Anyway, the blog had a Calvinist bent to it and, unfortunately, Reformed culture often sponsors that kind of entitlement. (I too come from that background.) The difference between that and Sojo is that the other took the tack, "How dare anyone disagree with us!" Sojo entries often just state a position and lets the chips fall where they may.
"To hear a woman say that she did the right thing by refusing the hospitality of the Buddhists and that God wanted her to remove the evil influences of unbelievers from her life is the epitome of the stereotyped mean Christian Leslie doesn't think exists"
I struggle to see how you can not consider that to be judgemental. The problem with any conversation that labels someone as judgemental is that is it inherently judgemental to call someone judgemental. It's like saying I'm proud of my humility.
"To hear a woman say that she did the right thing by refusing the hospitality of the Buddhists and that God wanted her to remove the evil influences of unbelievers from her life is the epitome of the stereotyped mean Christian Leslie doesn't think exists"
I struggle to see how you can not consider that to be judgemental. The problem with any conversation that labels someone as judgemental is that is it inherently judgemental to call someone judgemental. It's like saying I'm proud of my humility.
Top Blog Posts
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Christian 'Exorcism' Leads to Gay Teen's Suicide
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- Racial Jeopardy and American Politics
- Viral: "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- God, PBS and Paul Simon, The "God Chronicler By Accident"
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Defining "Evangelical" and Other Unsolved Mysteries
by Alec Hill 02-08-2012
by David Gibson 02-07-2012
by Nadia Bolz-Weber 02-12-2012
Blog Tag Cloud
Activism
America
Bible
change
Children
Christ
Christian
Church
Community
Culture
Economics
Environment
Evangelical
Faith
Faith and Politics
general
global issues
government
Human Rights
Immigration
Jesus
Justice
Ministry
Nonviolence
Peace
Politics
Poor
Poverty
Prayer
President
President Obama
Race
Religion
Sojourners
Spirituality
Theology
United States
Violence
War
Women
More On These Topics
