Tongue in cheek it was. I began by adding a smiley, but removed it because I thought it would be more fun/interesting. As an atheist (or a sceptical agnostic, if you will), I found it interesting to point out what the controversy probably would be about if Christianity was not as accepted as it is.
What exactly is a ‘modern secular Christian’? How are you a Christian, and not believe Christ ‘woke the dead’ or was resurrected himself?
Apparently it’s pretty common practise. Sweden is pretty secular, yes, but most people here still regard themselves as Christians. I look at statements from our largests bishops and most of them are pro gay marriage, don’t believe in miracles (not even from Jesus), or in imaculate conception. Religion is becoming secular, as strange as it might sound. I would guess the trend is the same in US?
In my experience, the pastors set the tone. I know of people who have stayed in a church they weren’t satisfied with because of, say, a good childrens program, but if you were to ask them about the preaching, they’d tell you they didn’t like it. And in some cases, I’ve known of parents who go to one church and their kids to another, or parents who don’t go at all but send the kids to sunday school — because the childrens/youth program is good, but they aren’t particularly interested in the message coming from the pulpit. I don’t know, though, how many of those were strong theological-type disagreements, I think they were more of a “style” not suiting someone’s taste (i.e. it’s not sometihng they feel particularly ministers to them, but they’ll stay because it’s good for the kids… if there is a huge moral/theological problem with the leadership of the church, though, I can’t picture them wanting their kids there)
When my family had problems with church, at least the ones I can remember, it wasn’t one particular preacher, but more an attitude overall that the church was headed toward (a change in doctrine) In 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head, it manifested itself in the guest speakers that the leaders thought important/appropriate to bring in — the church that was once good for us was changing to a direction that we didn’t believe we should go. In another example, it was a case of a doctrine of the church that only became more evident the longer we stayed — I don’t know that the church necessarily changed so much as we became more aware of what their real message was.... of course, there was in that case also a change in the head pastor, so that could have been what made the problems more evident/less ignorable.
Generally speaking, when faced with one or two comments once in a while that one of us found iffy, it was just a matter of talking about it/sorting it out amongst ourselves, but when it became commonplace either from the pastors or from guest speakers, we left.
So, you can make of that what you will. But I will say that the odds of having a head pastor who is that strongly outspoken not have his message work its way down through the lower levels of power in a church seem fairly low to me. The only time I can think of where perhaps you couldn’t judge by the head pastor was when his personality was such that he was letting other people run the church. I can’t picture someone like Rev. Wright letting that happen, though. (Oh, and the pastor in that case was not the one doing the nutty things, he was the normal one)
Also, something my mom reminded me of when we were talking about this the other day— never underestimate the ability of a preacher to find a way to bring up a topic that he/she wants to talk about regardless of what the initial context of the sermon is.
We used to joke about this one preacher at a church we went to that got on this “Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays that we shouldn’t celebrate” kick. She managed to find a way to work that in to every single freaking message she preached! It was almost comical. Me and my sister (who were like 12&15;at the time) used to jokingly bet how long it would take her to bring it up each week… and seemingly without fail, there it was. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t particularly christmas or easter time, it didn’t matter what the message was about… it always seemed to come up.
So, anyway, I’m not saying that happened with Wright, but I just thought I’d throw it out there — if he felt just that strongly about black people being held down by the man, I wouldn’t be surprised if he found some way to work it in to every message he preached.
Thanks for sharing - it’s always very interesting to get some detailed experience on an issue (especially when it’s outside my experience). And it all sounds reasonable to me (I can only guess how I would feel, not being a church goer). More food for thought.
I guess the other thing in my mind is that this church is unashamably about “black liberation theology”. So I guess it’s only fair to view it in that context (and no, I don’t believe that context justifies racism, just as I don’t believe supporting mass murderers is justified by it). But presumably the sermons are always going to be far different to what you’d hear in your church on a Sunday morning?
From the church website:
Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.
We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves.
To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.
That seems to be consistent with his speeches where he criticises the dominant power structure etc.
Interesting to read that white people have attended and are, apparantly, “enthusiastically welcomed”.
I guess it’s one thing to have a massive issue with a church that is based on that theology because you believe it is just plain wrong, and it’s another to accept it and acknowledge that the whole ‘black experience’ is outside your experience (as a non-black). When I say ‘you’ of course I mean any person. Could a person going to that church come away with certain values and ideals that are not racist? Is the church racist, or was Rev Wright prone to make the odd crazy comment? Which specific comments from Wright are the most offensive (in your eyes) in terms of them being racist?
(Note: some of the above isn’t directly in response to anything you’ve written)
You’ve just hit the nail right on the head and I’m not even sure you know it! ;)
The subject of his speech was race relations, perhaps… but was that really the source of the controversy he was supposed to be addressing?
The real issue was Obama’s long-term relationship with a pastor who we find out spouts bigoted and conspiratorial whackjob statements on Sunday morning to the cheers, Amen’s and Hallelujah’s of his congregation.
When the issue arose, Obama responded by first giving a few lame denials/excuses and then gave a speech about “race relations.”
Ok I’m going to try and have a look at his comments between the controversy rearing it’s head and that speech.
That’s kinda my whole point — he was diverting attention away from the issue of his relationship with Wright/Trinity and attempting to downplay it by generalizing the issue.
You don’t think that the wider issue is relevant, or adds relevant context, in addressing the specific controversy of his relationship? How was he diverting attention when he specifically addressed his relationship right in the middle of the speech. He even starting ruminating on the fact that he recognised that for some people his explanation wouldn’t be good enough. And that it would be much easier to cut they guy off completely (and presumably start back-tracking on the ‘mentor’ type descriptions of their relationship.
In his speech, he makes it seem like “Hey, we all have people in our lives who say things we don’t agree with, right?”. This is what I mean by downplaying. You know what Barack? No, I actually don’t know anyone who spouts off things like “The white man created HIV to kill poor black people” any more than I know anyone who says “Them black folk is a bunch of savages, we should put them on a boat and send them back to Africa!” I mean, I’ve heard of people saying those things, Im fully aware that they do exist out there somewhere, but I have no close friends, mentors or even family members who say anything remotely as ignorant or bigoted as that.
The HIV comment, as whacked out as it is, seems to me to be another version of his criticism of the dominance of the ‘power structure’ (which is kinda what the church is about). It just happens to be a perverted example. Whereas “Them black folk is a bunch of savages, we should put them on a boat and send them back to Africa” would be something quite different. It is saying ‘That race is inferior’. It would be the perfect example of a racist statement.
Are you personally offended by the HIV comment? Is it as offensive as the savage/boat example? I wouldn’t agree that it is, because one (the latter) is a plain racist comment, whereas the first is more conspiratorial and is based on a theory that a certain race is being ‘kept down’. I might even strongly disagree and think that (as you say) it’s bigotted and ignorant, but is it the same as saying something straight-out racist?
The ‘US of KKK A’ thing - again, to me, this is not attempting to say that white people are inferior, or smell funny, or are all idiots. It’s another (rather strong) comment about how he perceives the balance of power in America. But does it assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior? I don’t think so.
The reason why we can’t find an equivalent on the white side is that no white person can get up and talk about how the black people are holding down the white people, and have been doing so since the whites were bought from Africa.
Again, this points to either Obama a) intentionally trying to change the subject/downplay or b) Obama being out of touch and truly not seeing what it was that was so offensive/wrong/racist/bigoted/ignorant about Wrights actions.
I guess people will either have a problem with this or they won’t. There is nothing Obama can really do to change that. I don’t see what he could say to resolve the issue for you (you’ve suggested he could have completely disowned Wright, but that would seem to me to be the most cynical move of all, particularly when he doesn’t think it’s necessary). Your issue seems to be what he has done (attended a church for so long and had a certain relationship over that time with a guy that is on record as saying some crazy things). He’s explained it, but (as he himself suggested) the explanation doesn’t cut the mustard as far as you are concerned.
I guess you’re simply not his constituency. He obviously believes (and it’s borne out by the fact that he still has support) that there are sufficient people out there that do accept his explanation for having attended the church, and having formed a close relationship with Wright.
It makes it worse to actively chase someone’s endorsement (and praise them to the point where you are making it obvious that you have no problem with their attitude, or to turn around 180 degrees and decide that someone wasn’t an ‘agent of intolerance’ after all). That seem to me to be far far more cynical.
Cynical, perhaps.... but what it also is is transparent. Again, I have no comments on the for/against McCain and whether his actions are acceptable. I know his actions, I know what they are, he’s a weasel trying to get votes.
Obama’s motives aren’t so clear....
And again, there’s the difference between the personal and (opportunistic) political relationship.
Actions speak louder than words. McCains actions scream “political ploy.” Ok, fine, he uses positive words in a speech — talk is cheap. Did McCain mean that? I don’t know, what does the evidence say? There isn’t any evidence of personal relationship that I know of, just one word one day and other words another. I don’t know that I can draw anything from his comments other than that he’ll say whatever (which I already kinda knew about him)
Obama’s relationship was long-going and personal. Now, sure, this could have also just been political opportunism, but I can only look at the evidence that I have… and that evidence points to a long-going personal, private relationship between Obama/his family and Wright/Trinity.
About the difference, let me put it this way, I can sit here and refer to you as my bestest friend EVAR and say all kinds of nice stuff about you (a person I don’t even know).... does that mean that a person reading here can then compare my connection to you with someone elses connection to a person they’ve known for nearly 20yrs?
But anyway, you still seem to be trying to somehow prove some point to me about McCain but I don’t really care right now. I’m not in this thread to talk about McCain, I’m here to talk about Obama.
(didn’t I say I was leaving? ugh)
I guess my question goes to the ‘compartmentalising’ thing brought up sometime earlier. Is it possible that the mentoring relationship was able to take place outside the fiery sermon asepct of Wright’s involvement in the church? Or do we have to assume that Wright took his fiery sermon attitude into all areas of his involvement in the church?
To me (again not someone with a lot of experience in this, so by all means correct me if I’m wrong based on your experience) I would have assumed that the pulpit is an entirely different place/situation than any other function or role he played in the church. Whether it was marrying people, baptising people, bible class, bible school, basic fellowship meetings, etc.
In my brief experience, as a young teenager at my Dad’s church, the person I saw and listened to give the service seemed quite different to person making light-hearted jokes over a cup of a tea afterwards. They were in a different role.
I know that is of very limited value in terms of experience, but is there any merit in the point?
I’m gonna say something that will make some heads assplode, but I don’t even think his comments are that offensive if taken in context. There, I said it.
Well that’s what I tried to point out a while back, but it was one of many things I’ve said (when trying not to ignore questions from others) that has been ignored.
Again, I get the feeling that there are a lot of people who were just waiting on something like this, and they are sure going to make the most of it. Although I do recognise that there are others with legitimate personal concerns.
I went through the Wright comments that I could find and I have to to conclude that the majority of them are simply strong personal opinions about a dominating power structure (percieved or real). I found nothing to suggest things like all gays are evil or that white people are idiots, are lazy, and can’t drive, or should all return to England. He might believe that society operates in a racist way, but that in itself doesn’t make him a racist.
In terms of using stereotypes (because that is generally where people can slide into racism in my experience): I think there is a difference between doing that in racist way, and talking about how society operates in a general sense.
Tongue in cheek it was. I began by adding a smiley, but removed it because I thought it would be more fun/interesting. As an atheist (or a sceptical agnostic, if you will), I found it interesting to point out what the controversy probably would be about if Christianity was not as accepted as it is.
Anyway, back to being friends. :)
A smiley woulda’ been a good idea. Even with one, I wouldn’t exactly find what you said funny, but at least I’d know that you were attempting to be. If you don’t have a faith in God, you might find such things funny. For those of us who do have faith in God, we generally find such comments offensive. On the flip side, I find a belief that there is no God to be absurd in the extreme, but I don’t normally express my contempt for such an absurd position unless/until provoked.
I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, so the AIDS statement is way over the top. But then I came to think about things. Sure the conspiracy is unlikely. But it’s still a gazillion times more likely than the normal crap that’s preached in most churches. Guys parting the Red Sea. Manna raining from the sky. People waking the dead. Talking burning bushes. 5000 year old humanity. A world created in six days. A boat holding all animals of the world. Hippies fighting lions. It just goes on and on and on, doesn’t it?
I say that the real outrage should be that Obama is Christian. Not that his preacher displays anti-americanism (TM). How’s that for showing judgement? “God damn America”. Pfffft. Is that really any better than “God bless America”? What should bother people is the God part.
I want to see Obama explain his version of Christianity. If he’s one of those modern secular Christians I might let him get away with it. But if he believes that mankind is 5000 years old, or if he believes that Jesus actually woke the dead, then he’s a tool.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see that you’re still open-minded and non-judgmental. Yes Kim, atheists can be hypocrites, too...
I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, so the AIDS statement is way over the top. But then I came to think about things. Sure the conspiracy is unlikely. But it’s still a gazillion times more likely than the normal crap that’s preached in most churches. Guys parting the Red Sea. Manna raining from the sky. People waking the dead. Talking burning bushes. 5000 year old humanity. A world created in six days. A boat holding all animals of the world. Hippies fighting lions. It just goes on and on and on, doesn’t it?
I say that the real outrage should be that Obama is Christian. Not that his preacher displays anti-americanism (TM). How’s that for showing judgement? “God damn America”. Pfffft. Is that really any better than “God bless America”? What should bother people is the God part.
I want to see Obama explain his version of Christianity. If he’s one of those modern secular Christians I might let him get away with it. But if he believes that mankind is 5000 years old, or if he believes that Jesus actually woke the dead, then he’s a tool.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see that you’re still open-minded and non-judgmental. Yes Kim, atheists can be hypocrites, too...
I’ve had my cockles removed.
It shows.
Anyway, many people believe that they’re Christians but they’re not. I would include many pastors in that camp, though I don’t know the heart of specific men. But I’d have to guess, by their actions, that Wright (and it seems even the new pastor based on last weekends “sermon"), Jimmy Swaggert, Benny Hinn and others probably are not as in tune with Christ as they ought to be, and in that sense they might not believe in the real Christ. I believe that Lewis said it best. You can only believe that Christ was a liar, lunatic, or exactly who he said he was/is. That’s where secular Christianity falls apart. You can’t be a Christian and believe that Christ isn’t God. Secular Christianity is just another variation of the increasingly popular Buffet Christianity/religions. “I’ll take a bit of this, a little of that, but no immaculate conception please...”
Tongue in cheek it was. I began by adding a smiley, but removed it because I thought it would be more fun/interesting. As an atheist (or a sceptical agnostic, if you will), I found it interesting to point out what the controversy probably would be about if Christianity was not as accepted as it is.
Anyway, many people believe that they’re Christians but they’re not. I would include many pastors in that camp, though I don’t know the heart of specific men. But I’d have to guess, by their actions, that Wright (and it seems even the new pastor based on last weekends “sermon"), Jimmy Swaggert, Benny Hinn and others probably are not as in tune with Christ as they ought to be, and in that sense they might not believe in the real Christ.
Yep. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"(emphasis mine)
crichton - 26 March 2008 01:21 AM
I believe that Lewis said it best. You can only believe that Christ was a liar, lunatic, or exactly who he said he was/is. That’s where secular Christianity falls apart. You can’t be a Christian and not believe that Christ is God. Secular Christianity is just another variation of the increasingly popular Buffet Christianity/religions. “I’ll take a bit of this, a little of that, but no immaculate conception please...”
I’ve always referred to that as ‘Cafeteria Christianity’. It’s a sorry and inadequate substitute for the real thing.
This was some interesting vieweing, better than I expect from Fox I must admit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiIK8jh3ZCE
Having the discussion on air is too their credit.
In Judaism the similar group to “secular Christians” is “Jews for Jesus”. As my yiddishe wife says “There already is a name for Jews who believe in Jesus...Christians”.
You don’t have any friends that say crazy stuff that you disagree with?
I know people I disagee with, people I disagree strongly with, but no, I don’t have anyone I am that close to who says anything like that. It’s a matter of degree.
Here, I’ll just quote from my post above the one you quoted.
blahduck - 24 March 2008 08:16 PM
In his speech, he makes it seem like “Hey, we all have people in our lives who say things we don’t agree with, right?”. This is what I mean by downplaying. You know what Barack? No, I actually don’t know anyone who spouts off things like “The white man created HIV to kill poor black people” any more than I know anyone who says “Them black folk is a bunch of savages, we should put them on a boat and send them back to Africa!” I mean, I’ve heard of people saying those things, Im fully aware that they do exist out there somewhere, but I have no close friends, mentors or even family members who say anything remotely as ignorant or bigoted as that.
Furthermore, if there was anyone I was close to who started saying things like that, it wouldn’t be long before I was no longer that close to them.
I understand why someone like Wright, who was born in 1941, might think that the government would give blacks a disease. The fact is that the government basically experimented on blacks with the Tuskegee horror until 1972. If that had been done to my people I bet I might have some other strange beliefs.
I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, so the AIDS statement is way over the top. But then I came to think about things. Sure the conspiracy is unlikely. But it’s still a gazillion times more likely than the normal crap that’s preached in most churches. Guys parting the Red Sea. Manna raining from the sky. People waking the dead. Talking burning bushes. 5000 year old humanity. A world created in six days. A boat holding all animals of the world. Hippies fighting lions. It just goes on and on and on, doesn’t it?
I say that the real outrage should be that Obama is Christian. Not that his preacher displays anti-americanism (TM). How’s that for showing judgement? “God damn America”. Pfffft. Is that really any better than “God bless America”? What should bother people is the God part.
I want to see Obama explain his version of Christianity. If he’s one of those modern secular Christians I might let him get away with it. But if he believes that mankind is 5000 years old, or if he believes that Jesus actually woke the dead, then he’s a tool.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see that you’re still open-minded and non-judgmental. Yes Kim, atheists can be hypocrites, too...
Yes, the open-mindedness and tolerance of the professing atheist always astounds me too. It especially fun, after a diatribe like Kimpost just uttered, to ask them this: “Hey, Kimpost, why don’t you try giving us a proposed source of all matter/energy and an explanation of the beginning of time, that isn’t absolutely preposterous?” When an atheist comes up with any answer to that at all, I’ve never heard one that wasn’t totally absurd.
[quote author="Diogenes" date="1206479408 Yes, the open-mindedness and tolerance of the professing atheist always astounds me too. It especially fun, after a diatribe like Kimpost just uttered, to ask them this: “Hey, Kimpost, why don’t you try giving us a proposed source of all matter/energy and an explanation of the beginning of time, that isn’t absolutely preposterous?” When an atheist comes up with any answer to that at all, I’ve never heard one that wasn’t totally absurd.
What is absurd about “I don’t know”?
To most folks, it would be obvious that “I don’t know.” is a non-answer. However, for you, I’ll explain. An athiest explicitly believes there is no god. There is no basis for that belief. There can be no evidence to support the nonexistence of a Creator. Therefore, atheism is a faith without any foundation whatsoever. Time extending into eternity past is an absurd concept. Time, and all matter/energy has to have had an origin. If you believe that there is no Creater God, and still have no theories on the origin of time and matter/energy, you have a totally absurd faith.
In Judaism the similar group to “secular Christians” is “Jews for Jesus”. As my yiddishe wife says “There already is a name for Jews who believe in Jesus...Christians”.
There are also Messianic Jews, i.e. people of Jewish heritage who believe the promise of the coming Messiah was fulfilled by Jesus. So yes, they are Christians, but not Gentiles. Becoming Christian doesn’t mean they have to give up their Jewish heritage. They are still distinctively Jewish.
In Judaism the similar group to “secular Christians” is “Jews for Jesus”. As my yiddishe wife says “There already is a name for Jews who believe in Jesus...Christians”.
There are also Messianic Jews, i.e. people of Jewish heritage who believe the promise of the coming Messiah was fulfilled by Jesus. So yes, they are Christians, but not Gentiles. Becoming Christian doesn’t mean they have to give up their Jewish heritage. They are still distinctively Jewish.
My point was that most Jews do not consider Messianic Jews to be members of the Jewish faith. Of Jewish heritage, yes, but of Jewish faith, no. Exactly the way you, I believe, don’t consider Secular Christians to be real Christians.
I was merely pointing out that the phenomena of people trying to maintain a name after changing their ideas away from what the name represents isn’t strictly a Christian phenomena. Personally I agree with you and my wife, People who reject major, generally accepted tenets of a faith really shouldn’t identify themselves as members of that faith.
My point was that most Jews do not consider Messianic Jews to be members of the Jewish faith. Of Jewish heritage, yes, but of Jewish faith, no. Exactly the way you, I believe, don’t consider Secular Christians to be real Christians.
I was merely pointing out that the phenomena of people trying to maintain a name after changing their ideas away from what the name represents isn’t strictly a Christian phenomena. Personally I agree with you and my wife, People who reject major, generally accepted tenets of a faith really shouldn’t identify themselves as members of that faith.
Agreed. There’s a reason they don’t just call themselves ‘Jews’, but specifically ‘Messianic Jews’. I just wish that the ‘Cafeteria Christians’ would come up with some adjective to attach’s to what they call themselves, so that they wouldn’t cause so much confusion about what true Christians are.
