Posted by Helen on: 11.24.2006 /
Note: the current sidebar poll goes with this blog entry
Andrew recently expressed some concerns about Conversation at the Edge on his blog, Moved Mountains. Andrew specifically mentioned the comments discussion on Giving God a second chance as concerning him. Here’s part of what he wrote:
[M]ost of my struggles with OTM relate to the stuff being “dealt with” at “Conversations”. I think I understand what is being attempted there, but I guess some of the postings really do just grate against my good ol’ conservative background. It is easy for me to forget that there is a whole lot of life and interaction and talking and thinking going on beyond the posts I read on the blog. But I seem to find myself worrying, at times, that in some places the gospel ends up falling through the cracks in an effort to accomodate “everyone’s” views. And this concerns me because I am concerned for those who might get the wrong end of the “relativity” stick and be “graciously” encouraged down a path that leads away from relationship with Jesus rather than toward it.
Comment by: Helen
1I responded on Andrew’s blog with:
And Andrew answered:
I think these are two different things: 1) God allows people the free will to choose hell; and 2) God allows people to be misled by others.
I was saying I don’t think the second is true and hadn’t commented on the first.
The problem I have with the first one, for what it’s worth, is that people sometimes want nothing to do with evangelicals and their ‘gospel’ for reasons which, according to the Bible, God would empathize with. Someone who is disgusted with Ted Haggard’s choice to deceive lots of people resonates pretty well with God’s views in Psalm 15. So, imo, there’s something wrong with the picture that everyone who says “no” when someone who reminds them of Ted Haggard says “I have good news for you!” has freely chosen hell.
One other thought I had is: one of the discussions which concerned Andrew is Giving God a second chance. But, by its very nature the context of that discussion is that we’re onto plan B. Plan A: “I believed what evangelicals told me and tried to be a good evangelical” didn’t work. So, doesn’t that mean we need to try something new and different? There’s a quote I like which goes something like: “The definition of insanity is: doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.”
Comment by: Revolution Conference Blog » Blog Archive » I’m a questioner by nature
2 11/24/06 4:27 AM | Comment Link |[...] Are we “graciously” encouraging people away from Jesus? [...]
Comment by: Paul M
3Maybe this is one the effects of modernity surfacing here… we have lived in a mechanistic age and often used machine like methaphors to describe life and our interactions in life. A mechanistic/modern interpretation would therefore say this is the way the universe works and therefore if God is in control, sitting in his control booth, then there can only be one plan/way etc…
What would happen I wonder if we think of say control/free will in a different context – to the ancients maybe control/free will would look more like the sort of power a farmer has growing crops, a shepard tending his flock or parents trying to raise children…
In all these contexts, it seems to me, that control/free will has a different emphasis – it is no longer mechanical plan A… so what happens say if we raise our kids the best we can and they rebel against our values and go and rob banks – who are we gonna blame, the parent or the kid? What happens in this analogy if the kid decides after some failed experiments with painful consequences that maybe his parents were right about some things and decides to try something similar?
This helpfully explains to me that there is a lot of leeway than just one fixed path and a one time offer to be on that path…
Comment by: Helen
4Thanks for those analogies, Paul!
So is this the upshot of what you are saying: you aren’t worried that conversation here is going to irrevocably lead people away from Jesus? Or are you somewhat worried about that?
Comment by: Helen
5By the way, if anyone thinks the conversation here will lead people away from Jesus and you see that as a good thing, feel free to share that opinion too.
In fact I just posted a poll that goes with this blog entry – go check that out in the sidebar.
Comment by: Paul M
6Well Helen, no I am not worried that the conversations here will lead people away from Jesus – sometime I worry if the crass things I say will do that but heh my ego is coming to realise that maybe there is room for something bigger than it in the universe :)
More than that though I think I already have many experiences of people’s thoughts here leading me closer to Jesus – the holy spirit does not just hang out in the churches and as the creator/giver of life something I often here being echoed in the wisdom and gentleness of other posters here…
Comment by: Paul M
7Could I have an option to vote on saying this blog could lead people (including me) to Jesus? It would be my vote/preferance.
Comment by: Helen
8Sure, Paul. I’ll go edit it…
Comment by: Paul M
9You’re too kind, thank you very much
Comment by: Helen
10No problem – it was an excellent suggestion!
Comment by: JG
11Quick observation for time being. I don’t agree with the idea of being onto plan B. In one sense I believe there is only one plan – plan A and that does not vary. Plan A is not up for negotiation.
BUT and it is a big but. What is up for negotiation and discussion is the question of what plan A is and seeking a true understanding of what it involves. I can only express an opinion which may or may not be right or helpful to others.
So what Helen refers to as Plan A, I would refer to as her interpretation of the opinion of other people as to what Plan A is. That can be rejected without rejecting Plan A itself.
Comment by: Helen
12JG, I see what you are saying.
Comment by: JG
13Thanks. I would add that in my view, your insights and discussions generally on CatE are really helpful in gaining a better understanding of what the true Plan A is.
Comment by: Makeesha
14There is so much that could be said about this issue but let me just echo what has been said – I believe that “salvation” is both predestined and available to all, involving our choices. I believe we have to choose but we can’t choose without the Holy Spirit. Because of this theological view, I don’t “fear” leading people away from Jesus or confusing them or whatnot. I would be more concerned about feeding people my ideas of theological “truth” and allowing them to regurgitate those truths without relationship with Jesus before I would be concerned about a generous orthodoxy leading people astray. In other words, God is a big God and nothing can be done without his Spirit anyway.
Having said that, I do believe that this is a super important issue for those of us “postmoderns” to wrestle with and make sure we have worked out because we need to work WITH moderns/conservative evangelicals in this new era. Esp. those of us who are working within a modern structure.
Comment by: Helen
15Makeesha wrote:
Makeesha I love how you articulated that! That’s what I’ve been thinking but wasn’t able to put into words nearly as well as you have.
Comment by: Helen
16Makeesha wrote:
I agree.
Comment by: Karen
17I think we’re all adults here to encourage open discussion aimed at understanding each other better.
Whether deep thinking and honest discourse leads people to Jesus, away from him, or doesn’t affect their viewpoint doesn’t really matter to me, because I’m not here with any particular agenda.
Comment by: Helen
18Thanks Karen.
Comment by: JG
19Karen, I agree. Hopefully not just those who participate in the discussion but through that discussion, better understanding other people around us.
And I think understanding ourselves better as well. Seeing ways in which we do things or says things can be interpreted by others – and realising how unhelpful some of the things we do and say can be to others.
Going back to Helen’s point about plan A and plan B. Whilst I believe there is only one “plan” I strongly believe that each individual has their own experience of that “plan” – so just because one person has a Damascus Road experience doesn’t mean everyone else has to or that is the only valid experience.
Comment by: Andrew
20I finally made it here! Haven’t got long but will talk about what Helen said – pasted above ….
I said over at Moved Mountains that I don’t accept the fickle God of conservatism – and I think this statement assumes that way of thinking. I think the actions of Christians are often (perhaps too often) used as an excuse for not looking to God. In other words Christians who fall or set bad examples become convenient fall guys.
I had this same conversation with some non-Christian friends once. They said they didn’t want to be Christians because all Christians were, in their opinion, hypocrits (of course we know their right!). So I said “what about us?”. And they said – oh no, we don’t me you, just all other Christians!
Now I know I am a hypocrit. Many times I have failed to “practice what I preach” so, in many ways they were right. But what these guys and most people who use Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart or the crusades or anything else as a reason for not following Jesus are saying is “I don’t want to conform to your way …” (or their perception of the “Christian” way) “…of doing things and so I will keep just living my life my way”.
Now there are obviously two sides to this argument. In most instances the “Christian” way is confused with the way we “do” church or with blatant hypocrisy and it is these things and not Jesus Christ they are actually rejecting. And this is good because it means there is still room to move – still room to introduce them to the real Jesus and their rejection of sin in the actions they are condemning is legitimate.
But the other side is that there are those who do reject Jesus and do use these kind of statements as their excuse – when really what is going on is they have made a decision to do things their own way, to live their own way and “to hell with God and anyone else who says I should do things differently.” Now I don’t think these people are “lost” – I was one of them myself for a long time, but the point I am trying to make – in a rather convoluted fashion – is Ted or me or whoever, is simply an excuse that often flies in the face of other fantastic examples of what Christianity is really about – the compassion and love and empathy that exists within the church-at-large and does reflect Jesus Christ, alive and well in this world.
So, I don’t think that anyone who says “no” when weighing up the “good news” against “Ted” is neccessarily choosing hell. But I do think that, at the end of their days, if they are still saying “no” and still using Ted as an excuse the story may be different.
Hope that makes sense – am in a bit of a hurry – but I will be back to, hopefully, clarify if need be!
Comment by: Helen
21Andrew, thanks for coming by to respond to what I wrote here. I appreciate you taking time to do that.
Andrew wrote:
What you wrote here concerns me. It sounds as if you are making assumptions about these people. How many questions did you ask them? You said on your site “I am a questioner by nature”. I hope you ask people who aren’t Christians lots of questions so you can understand in depth why they are saying they don’t want to be Christians.
Have you spent time talking with these people and being with these people to see what their lives are really like? Are you sure that ‘their own way’ is a selfish way? Are you sure it doesn’t incorporate ‘loving their neighbor’? I’ve run into plenty of people who ‘reject the gospel’ who live very unselfish lives and are out there helping their friends, family and community rather than living self-indulgent self-focused lives. There are more than these two options: 1)”I live my life for God” or 2) “My life revolves around ME and I don’t care about anyone else”.
Again it feels to me like you are making assumptions.
In my experience, Christians do this a lot. They have their ‘set of reasons’ why people who aren’t Christians reject the gospel. Where did these reasons come from? Often they came from other Christians and are second-hand information. Rather than being first-hand information from the people who know best: those who aren’t Christians.
What we are about here is letting people speak for themselves. In order to facilitate that we want to maintain an environment where we don’t tell other people what’s true of them. Instead we listen and let them tell us, so we can learn from them.
In a group where people disagree over what the truth is, I think it’s rude to assert “this is the TRUTH”, as if being dogmatic and persistent is somehow going to wipe out all the carefully thought out reasons various people here have for not agreeing that it is the truth.
Andrew, you seem like a great guy. How do you present what you believe is true to people who don’t believe it, without being rude?
Comment by: Andrew
22Helen wrote:
Firstly – I am generalising not talking in specifics. Secondly, I think you are making some assumptions of your own about me.
I actually spend 98% of my time with non-Christians. I work with young people who are caught in drug and alcohol abuse and with their families. I spend my days listening to non-Christians, loving them and helping them to find a better way through life – either with Jesus or without him – that is their choice.
I think you also misunderstood my first comment. I was actually agreeing with what you were saying earlier in questioning how God could send anyone to hell for rejecting a message associated with deceit, as in the Ted Haggard case. What I was trying to say was that it is my experience (and again a generalisation) that people often aren’t really rejecting God, what they are doing is rejecting a way of doing things that they associate with people who say they belong to God.
I know many people who believe in Jesus Christ but who do not go to church or live the way “we” would expect them to live if they were a part of our traditional congregations. These same people may not call themselves Christians, because they have rejected the “christian” way of doing things, but they have by no means rejected God.
Helen wrote:
Yep – loads of time. And most of the time their way is the best way they know how to just get by. In my work I see every side of the human condition. I see community among drug addicts that doesn’t exist in most churches I know. I see people who’s lives are falling apart at the seams taking the time to take in another hungry, homeless mouth, even though it will put them over the edge. I see parents willing to give up everything in order for their child to get off drugs. I see, I believe, what God means when He said we are created in His image – there is a glimmer of goodness in most.
But I also see pride, and anger, and pain being inflicted on others. I see a dog-eat-dog attitude and a selfishness that at times makes me cry. Things done that go beyond a simple battle to survive. People making bad choices. Even good people making bad choices. And at the bottom of the vast majority of the bad choices is … selfishness, in one way or another.
My wife is calling me now – it’s getting late and I think I had better make a “good choice” :)
But before I go, I have to answer your last question:
That one is the easiest of all to answer – by loving them! Not that that is always easy to do – but I find that through prayer, God gives me a taste of the love he has for the lost – an unconditional love (not saying that mine is quite that altruistic – I find a lot of personal reward in loving the people I work with) that is deeply spiritual.
I’ll get back to your other comments tomorrow. Thanks Helen!
Comment by: Jeff
23Helen,
In the first comment above you said:
It seems to me that you have applied this perspective when your ministry through this website is being questioned but have chosen not to approach Mark Driscoll’s ministry from the same perspective. Why is this? Does God allow people to inflict eternal harm on others or not?
Comment by: Helen
24Thanks Andrew. I’m sorry if I made wrong assumptions about you.
It sounds like you are out there living out your faith in practical ways – I have great respect for people who do that.
I think I like your answer to my question, that ‘loving people’ is how you present what is true without being rude. Forgive me for saying I’d need to see this in practice to see how you interact with people. No offense – it’s just that I’ve had too much experience with Christian definitions of ‘love’ which don’t seem like ‘love’ to me.
I understand what you mean about the rewards of being kind to others.
So…how can I ask this: does what your belief system tells you determine how you think about people; or does what people tell you determine your belief system?
See, it’s a subtle thing – I used to listen to what people said; but then I would filter it through my conservative Christian beliefs and figure out what it really meant.
And so I wasn’t taking what they said at face value.
I do agree that people make bad choices and are mean. What I find, though, is that this happens inside and outside Christian community. I have not found evidence that conservative Christian belief makes people significantly better in character than people who don’t have those beliefs. I think it is supposed to since they supposedly are uniquely indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But my eyes and ears indicate to me that this isn’t working consistently enough to substantiate the doctrine. I’m aware Christians have explanations for why it isn’t, but it seems more likely to me that there’s something wrong with the doctrine.
Comment by: Helen
25Jeff – the protest (which I am not associated with, by the way) is not about eternal harm. I don’t want Mark to inflict temporal harm on people.
Comment by: Jeff
26No, I don’t mean the protest. From the many different comments I’ve read about Driscoll, it seems to me that the majority of those who have issues with him do indeed think he is inflicting eternal harm, at least potentially. If this is not so, I do not understand the links to sites about recovery from spiritual abuse, for example. If he is spiritually abusing people then it would appear to follow that this abuse has temporal and eternal consequences if it is indeed spiritual in nature. In light of certain doctrines regarding salvation, I agree with you. No person can ultimately thwart God’s intentions for someone. But, hypothetically speaking, if it were true that this site was graciously encouraging people away from Jesus and Driscoll is ungraciously encouraging people away from Jesus, the result is the same if the person is “away from Jesus.” This is why I was wondering why “if God is in control, is it possible that he’d let us inflict eternal harm on people? It doesn’t seem to me that a good God would enable that to happen.” would apply to this site but apparently not to someone like Driscoll. I would think that the reactions to him would be a little more balanced if a similar attitude were extended to him. I understand that this thread is not about Driscoll and that whole situation so feel free to let this part of the discussion drop if you want.
Comment by: Helen
27Jeff wrote:
Jeff, I reposted it here so we can discuss it without taking this discussion too far afield:
Mark Driscoll and this blog: do the same rules apply?
Comment by: JG
28Helen, I accept what you are saying and understand where you are coming from. As I have shared with you, I have had very painful experiences of Christians acting in an unloving manner and I know that there are things in both my past and present and no doubt my future where I think, help, how could I have done that or said that etc.
But I think it is very difficult to make generalisations and comparisons of large groups of people ie “Christians” and “non Christians” – BTW how do people of other faiths fit into this?
I think it is fair to say that some people are more caring than others. Some people are more concerned about MTWABP than others. With caring – some people are very caring towards those they relate to eg family & friends but can be very cruel towards those outside their group. For example someone could be actively involved in the community, very caring towards middle class white people but have no time for the unemployed or for “illegal immigrants” – a topical issue in this country.
In some churches AND in any other type of group or community you are fine so long as “your face fits” – if it doesn’t, you can be left out in the cold or given a really rough ride.
Often you are accepted so long as you abide by the “rules” – written or unwritten, spoken or unspoken. I think this is true in a blogging community as much as anywhere else.
I think it can be difficult to compare/contrast different groups/ communities unless these factors are taken into account.
Just because one person feels loved and accepted in one community and not in another doesn’t mean that other community is less loving than the first one. Merely that, that person fits in better to one than the other.
So at Mars Hill, the fact that many women feel valued and appreciated by and within the church does not take away from the fact that there are, it seems, a significant number of women who have been deeply hurt by their experience of the church.
The fact some have been hurt by the church does not invalidate the experience of those who are very happy there.
These things are subjective.
I agree with you 100% that there are many people who have no religious faith but who care deeply about other people and about the world around them.
But there are also people who appear to be very selfish and who
think only of themselves.
Why do you think there is this difference? What makes one person more caring than another? What makes one person care more about MTWABP than other people?
Leaving faith aside, scientifically, how does this difference arise? And how does this difference link in to evolution?
I’m asking these questions generally, not just to Helen.
Comment by: Helen
29JG, these are great questions which merit their own discussion. I’d like to post them as their own blog – soon.
Comment by: Karen
30Andrew:
Hi Andrew, glad you’ve joined us! This is a unique (as far as I know) conversation that attempts to bring together people from widely disparate viewpoints on religion who can hang out, learn from each other and talk over various issues and ideas without one side trying to evangelize the other. I think you’ll enjoy participating.
Your statement, above, makes me curious: It sounds like your work puts you in touch with people who are having a lot of troubles. It’s great that you are working to help them. I wonder, though: Have you spent time with atheists and agnostics who are happy, healthy, well-adjusted and have taken a great deal of time to think through religious issues? I ask because your earlier comment:
… sounds to me more like the stereotypes of atheists I used to hear in churches, when I didn’t actually know any real atheists. (I was a born-again evangelical for 30 years before scrutinizing my religious beliefs and eventually discarding them about six years ago.) I don’t know any real, live atheists who use scandals in the church as an “excuse” to say, “to hell with god and everyone else.” Atheists don’t believe in god, for one thing, so that attitude would be nonsensical by definition! ;-)
Anyway, glad you’re here and I hope you stick around and get to know all of us.
Comment by: Andrew
31Karen says:
Much time. I work with people who would generally fit into these categories and have friends and aquantainces that would also generally fit the bill. Though I have to say that I am yet to come across anyone who is, in reality, well adjusted. Everyone who I have ever come across has their hang-ups and struggles and weaknesses.
It is a stereotype – as I said in my earlier response to Helen, I am talking in a generalised way. Also I am not trying to say that everyone has thought it through in exactly the terms I used, they were intended to illustrate an attitude rather than provide a verbatim report of “things I have heard atheists say”.
Most people I know who fall into the category you describe do, in my conversations with them, tend to quite regularly point to people like Ted and others and use them to justify their reasons for rejecting the notion of a loving interventionist God. At the end of the day it is often (though not exclusively) the point they come back to, not science, not philosophy not really even church.
One part of Jim’s book AKA Lost that really appealed to me was the concept of becoming “spiritual advisors” for our non-Christian friends. This is a role I have found myself in time and again and I really enjoy it. But in that I don’t compromise my beliefs. But I don’t ram them down anyones throat either. As a result I have good relationships with people who would describe themselves as atheist or agnostic – some of them even ask me to pray for them at times (now there’s an ethical conundrum for you – atheists asking for prayer). You see it is very rare for a human to act fully consistent with their beliefs, particularly where their beliefs are based on faith alone. I believe God has put eternity in the hearts of men (anthropomorphically speaking!). And for this reason, we are regularly drawn to thinkg about the great existentialist “what ifs?”. Even if that becomes, through practice, only at times we feel we have no other course of action to take.
Comment by: Andrew
32Helen wrote:
That’s a shame. It’s also something I try not to do (although I think we all do still do it at times). I think you did it with me earlier on – filtered my comments through some kind of “conservative Christian” filter and came up with the wrong assumptions/conclusions. But that is OK – as I said, we all do it. At the end of the day we only have our own experience to rely upon – that is why I see the Gospel as so important – it breaks into the repetitive cycles of our own experience and gives us something new and fresh – it creates a detour or a road block in our lives and allows change to take place.
Well that’s were we have a problem! And I guess that’s also where discussion stops then. If the only way you will believe that I am capable of “loving” someone (and even in that “love” must fit your own personal definition of love) is to see me in action, you are never going to believe that I am capable of doing it. And in truth, I may not be capable of doing it in any way that would satisfy you.
I struggle with this myself – am I loving them (the people I interact with) in the way Jesus would want me to? And the only way I know to answers this is “do my actions align with my understanding of His word? And, is their fruit or weeds as a result?”. Thankfully I have been blessed with fruit – the fruit of friendships that endure with people who are all at different places in their journey towards God. Some of them, I know, will never make it. Some of them are not even going to make it in this life, they are unable to break free of the chains that bind them (drugs, crime, bad relationships etc. etc.). But even in that, I have relationships with them and am blessed by that and hopefully, they are too.
I wish I could post the photographs of the people I work with here. It “spins me out” when I think of the place Christ has led me – the people who, on the outside are so tough and dangerous to look at (piercings, tatoos, black clothing, foul mouthed) but who on the inside have the same desires and needs and wants as any other human being anywhere else on the face of the earth. Ultimately that is acceptance. And if I can give them nothing else I will try to give them that.
Comment by: Helen
33Andrew wrote:
Andrew please believe that I’d like to understand you better and that’s why I’m asking questions. I haven’t formed conclusions about you.
My questions, whatever, mean “Help me do that” not “defend yourself or I will form a bad opinion of you”.
I think it’s good to be open to new things and change; I agree that the people you work with who have drug addictions, say, need to make changes.
What I have seen in my life has led me away from believing that ‘the gospel’ produces change that other help/messages can’t produce.
I’m sorry – that isn’t what I intended to convey. What I meant was: I have seen ‘love’ defined different ways, so I don’t know exactly what it means to another person like you. And the easiest way for me to understand what you mean by love would be to see how you interact with people.
It’s like me saying “Wow this blue is my favorite color” and you saying “I like blue too; the easiest way for me to see if we like the same kind of blue is if I could see the blue you like”. Which wouldn’t be a value-judgment but simply a quest for understanding.
You have said how much you appreciate Jim’s book AKA lost. I do too because I think Jim hits upon some ways to ‘love’ people that I haven’t heard discussed a whole lot by other people teaching about evangelism.
If you haven’t given up on me as determined to have a low opinion of you (I hope you haven’t!) then what I’d love to hear is: how has what you read in AKA lost changed the way you interact with the people on the streets?
I love what you are saying about acceptance. At the same time I wonder how they can feel accepted by someone who believes (and perhaps tells them) “You are going to hell”. No offense, but really that is the ultimate message of non-acceptance, isn’t it? If they accept your message then it isn’t, but if they don’t then it is.
Speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem with these things: piercings, tatoos, black clothing, foul mouthed. They are personal choices; that’s all.
Comment by: Karen
34Andrew:
People who don’t have struggles or weakness might better be called “perfect.” I don’t know any of those kinds of people either. ;-)
I understand. I think one of the most useful things I’ve gotten through participating here is the reinforcement that stereotypes are often false and that generalizing isn’t helpful if your goal is good communication.
I’m glad you have good relationships with people who are non-religious, Andrew.
As far as them asking you for prayer, though, that’s not an “ethical” conundrum. Atheism simply means “holding no belief in a god or gods.” There are no specific ethical guidelines that accompany atheism.
However, I would say it’s illogical for an atheist to ask for prayer (if one holds no belief in god(s), obviously there’s no point in praying to them) unless s/he were hoping in some way to benefit you by the request.
It’s not at all inconsistent for an agnostic (one who isn’t sure whether s/he believes in god(s)) to ask for prayer. I could call such a request an example of “hedging one’s bets.” :-)
Comment by: Mike O
35I’ve been out of touch for a few days … Andrew, it’s been a pleasure to read your writing. I’m still catching up on this whole blog, but with the topic of stereotyping that has come up, I’m hopeful that people like you and me and others here will be able to change (or at least soften) the stereotype people have of conservative evangelical Christians.
I’m glad you found your way here.
Comment by: Andrew
36What have you seen to lead you to this conclusion. My experience is completely different. Of all the “practioners” working in my field I have found that it is the programs based on Christian principles that are achieving the most success. That isn’t to say they are all “biblical” approaches, but the same basic gospel-centred/Christian principles form the basis of the model they are using. In fact it is actually the more overtly Christian program’s that seem to have the most success – programs like Teen Challenge.
Anyway – I am interested to hear your experience.
BTW – I replied to your email Helen but it bounced!
Mike O wrote:
Thanks Mike. Me too …
Comment by: Mike O
37BTW Helen, I had an email bounce back, too.
JG said in #28
I think you make good points, JG. One thing I notice here at Off The Map is that the same thing happens here that the church is accused of. People here do the same kind of parsing of people, seperating them into groups that either fit the mold or don’t. Same thing, different mold. Only the “parameters of acceptance” have been changed.
Helen said in #33
And at what point do you accept Andrew “where he is” in his faith walk? I see a lot of people making him justify every jot and tittle of what he believes and that is not very accepting. I mean, at what point do we just say, “Oh, OK. Thanks for that, Andrew?”
If the goal is to understand where people are coming from, hasn’t that been accomplished about 15 posts ago? To me, it seems like now it’s time to make him justify it somehow, only because his experience hasn’t been yours. I sense a lack of trust because he doesn’t “fit the mold.”
I know nobody is relegating him to hell here, but really how different is how Andrew is being treated than this accusation made against Christians? No matter what he says, he’ll always be who he is. Is it possible for a conservative Christian ever to measure up to the Off The Map mold?
I think so. But you’ve got to let us shake the stereotype. As much as you want Christians to stop stereotyping (which we do), non-Christians need to do the same.
The funny thing is, stereotypes are usually generally true. That’s why we do it. But when you get down to specific people, let’s not be afraid to seperate them from the stereotype we thought they fit. Maybe Andrew’s different than the rest. Maybe I’m different than the rest. And maybe Helen and Karen and whoever else here is different than the stereotypes Christians have for non-Christians.
Comment by: Helen
38Mike, what I wrote wasn’t intended to be an accusation; Andrew, I apologize if it came across that way.
Maybe I’m not saying it very well but what I am trying to say is “I don’t understand how it’s possible to say “You’re going to hell” and convey acceptance. Please help me understand that”.
I don’t want this to be a place where conversative Christians are so brow-beaten just for having the beliefs they have that they don’t want to stick around. If I’m pushing things in that direction, I apologize to all the conservative Christians who are still here and haven’t given up on this blog yet.
Comment by: Helen
39Thanks for asking, Andrew.
First I’d like to say, I do believe you when you say you are seeing lives changed more by Christian practitioners than others.
My own experiences have led me to suspect it’s not the gospel/Christian message per se which produces effective change but rather what goes along with it when Christian practitioners minister to people.
If you see better results from Christian practitioners then a) I wonder if they are doing some other things better as well as having a different message and b) I wonder if we both have the same definition of ‘better’. To some extent I’m sure we do because I want to see people freed from harmful addictions just as much as you do. But I don’t care whether they become freed atheists or freed believers.
My own disappointments with conservative Christians led me to think that character-wise, conservative Christians are not necessarily better than other people. They are not necessarily less fearful, more gracious, more friendly, more kind, etc. And as I may have already said, while I understand there are Christian explanations for this, I find the simpler one to be that the belief system isn’t quite right. This is just my opinion and I respect that it isn’t yours.
*sigh* Thanks for telling me. I have been having problems with my own e-mail address lately. Could you cut-and-paste it into the feedback form? That goes straight to me via a different address which seems to be working ok.
Comment by: Helen
40One of my hopes for CatE is that it can help us move beyond our unhelpful stereotypes. I want to thank everyone who has come up against a negative stereotype of themself here and has responded by patiently attempting to help others move beyond it. I know that’s a difficult situation to be in – especially if you’re in the minority and other people seem to be agreeing with each other and reinforcing the unhelpful stereotype before your very eyes.
Comment by: Helen
41I’ve reposted JG’s questions from comment #28 here:
What makes one person more caring than another?
Comment by: Mike O
42Thanks, Helen! When opposing views come together, there is undoubtedly going to be initial stereotyping. And that’s not even a bad thing … it’s a conditioned response. Right or wrong, non-Christians have learned how to respond to Christians, and vice versa. All I’m saying is, let’s give people the chance to break free of the stereotype if it’s not true of them. I think we all want that.
I used to work for a boss who couldn’t let go the mistakes people made. I was trying to give a guy who reported to me a promotion, and my boss fought it tooth and nail because of perceived issues that didn’t even exist. She had labeled him. And if the label ever was true, it was several years prior because the accusations had not been true even once in the two years he reported to me. But I fought for the promotion, and finally was able to peel back the label – break the stereotype – and got his promotion.
Labels are sticky things. And quality labels are really sticky. Conditioned produces make for really sticky labels. I just want both “sides” (for lack of a better word) to take the time to peel back the labels and see if it’s really true for that one. And if it’s not, then say “OK.”
Stereotypes keep us safe and at a general level, they tend to be true. But at an individual level, maybe I’m asking people to trust first and suspect foulness only when there’s good reason.
Comment by: Helen
43Mike wrote:
I’d want to be very careful and say – stereotypes sometimes have some truth in them, in the sense that some things probably happened to encourage their development.
However, what happened may have been misinterpreted even from the beginning. And even if it wasn’t it, how is it reasonable to apply it to individuals we don’t even know? Which I think is your next point…
That makes sense to me. I’d like this to be a place where that happens.
The process of ‘thinking the best until proven otherwise’ sometimes gets interfered with by how I process things because of my personal experience. I’m aware of that.
Comment by: NCxian
44Helen said:
We had a very similar discussion some time ago on the discussion board. I don’t recall the totality of thoughts on the subject, and couldn’t repeat them all here if I could. However, two things stuck with me from that conversation that may be relevant here.
Several folks involved or otherwise very familiar with 12-step programs suggested that the notion of acknowledging a higher power meant a great deal to some people attempting to overcome substance abuse. It was, they felt, an important aspect of their recovery.
The other thing was, many folks felt like the ability to start over with a fresh slate (to be “born again”, so to speak) was an important element for some people. I guess that is the positive, flip side of “brushing things under the carpet and not dealing with them”. For some people who were a part of the conversation, it was important that they felt like it was possible to have a different life in the future than the one they had in the past.
Both of those things would be fundamental to a Christian recovery ministry. IMO. BICBW.
Comment by: Helen
45Thanks, NCxian.
For those who haven’t seen it on our other blogs, BICBW = But I Could Be Wrong.
Comment by: Andrew
46Hey Helen – I’m back, a little late I know – it’s been a busy week. But I wanted to respond to one of your earlier comments.
You wrote:
I guess hell isn’t one of those things we often talk about. Not at work or in any of my interactions with non-believers. Of course it does come up from time to time and I don’t avoid it when it does.
I guess there are a couple of things that I want to say. The first is that I don’t see the “message” of hell as being the ultimate in non-acceptance. There are many things I talk to my “clients” about that involve me giving them information they may not want to hear. As all of the young people I work with have drug and/or alcohol issues I always inform them of the risks they are exposing themselves to by choosing to live the lives they are living.
I tell them that if they continue to use at the levels they are currently using they are almost certainly go to end up with irreversible brain damage, the high possibility of experiencing psychosis and other mental illness, and of dying of cancer, overdose, or as a result of injuries sustained while intoxicated.
It’s not something they like to hear but it is important that they know the truth about the effects of their drug use. And ultimately that truth is “keep doing it and you will probably die”.
Secondly, IMO, the good news can only be good news because of the bad – not hell in itself, but the existence of sin.
In following Jesus I am faced with having to accept what he has taught. Believe me, hell isn’t something I find easy to stomach or understand. But I believe it is illogical of me to only accept what Jesus has to say about love and acceptance without also accepting what he has to say about justice and judgement. But the justice and judgement has to be understood in light of the love and acceptance.
So when the topic of hell does arise I present it in much the same way I would present the likely effects of continuing to use drugs.
Neither of these “topics” is based on my feelings or acceptence for the people I am working with or talking to. Both are based on the end result of choices they will freely make.
So I guess if talking to them about hell means shunning them or not accepting them, then so too does telling them about the other stuff. And I don’t think for a minute that is the case.
Hope that makes sense! :)
Comment by: Helen
47Thanks Andrew. I’m glad your approach is to point out to people how they are hurting themselves with drugs and excessive amounts of alcohol. It sounds like you’re really making a difference in their lives, which is awesome.
I suppose a significant difference for me is that the detrimental effects of drugs and alcohol are demonstrable; whereas the existence of hell and the likelihood of people who reject the gospel going there are beliefs that can’t be proven.
But I do take your point that if hell is real and if people rejecting the gospel will go there, then warning them about hell makes as much sense (more sense in fact, given that its an eternal, not temporal consequence of their choices) as warning them of the self-destructive effects of drugs and excessive alcohol.
I thought I had to believe in the doctrine of hell as taught by conservative evangelical Christians, but – one day I decided that actually, no, I don’t have to believe it. For one thing, that doctrine doesn’t actually match what Jesus is recorded as saying about hell in the synoptic gospels. I wrote about this at some length a few years ago.
In deciding not to believe it I’m aware that that might have the consequence of me graciously encouraging people away from Jesus by failing to tell the ‘the truth’. If the doctrine is right and I’m wrong and there are no mitigating circumstances such as, what people are rejecting is not actually Jesus but some false caricature. It’s a risk I chose to take and I may have to answer for it one day.