Are we going to sit here and take it?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

Every time I come on DU or look in the newspaper or turn on the TV if I hear a story about Christian values it's always about some perverted interpretation of Christ's teachings being spouted by some hatemonger. And almost always that hatemonger acts as though he's speaking on behalf of all Christendom.

Are we going to keep letting this happen?

I for one am sick and tired of letting these bigots steal our name from us and use it to preach their anti-gay, misogynist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-humanist, anti-science false teachings. Christ warned us about such false prophets and instructed us to resist them. In our heart of hearts we have done so, but it is not enough.

Christ charged us with the task of spreading His truth - a message of love, peace, equality, and radical freedom, not of hate, exclusion, and persecution.

Let's get to work.

[shimmergal]

1. Bravo!

Suggestions?

[Kajsa]

2. Thank you,LL!

I fight the Fundy hate mongers when and where I find them.

I turn the tables on them, called them heretics
because they do not spread Christ's message of forgiveness,
love,peace,equality and freedom.
They are indeed false prophets.

Thank for posting this.

:)

[Sanctified]

3. Christian Values don't sell newspapers or advertisement.

The media wants to make a buck so they use Phred Phelps as the face for Christian Values, unfortunately I see no way to change how we are portrayed by the media but we can just openly live our lives as Christ taught and people will see for themselves that there is more to Christianity than what the Media would lead them to believe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. I think we are the majority nationwide

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

This threw evangelicals into a tizzy. After all, the Bible makes it clear that heaven is a velvet-roped V.I.P. area reserved for Christians. Jesus said so: “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” But the survey suggested that Americans just weren’t buying that.

The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?

So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them. . .



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opinion/27blow.html

[Celeborn Skywalker]

5. That's my experience.

Even many evangelical/fundamentalist people hold this view. Many people here who attend Southern Baptist services, in particular, do so out of tradition and don' really understand the theology and fundamentalism of their church (thank God). I bet many of those would say other religions lead to heaven also.

[54anickel]

6. That part about ignoring the basic tenet of their faith in the very last sentence bothers me.

I cannot agree that they are ignoring but rather questioning the general interpretation by "the Church". What does it mean to follow Christ? What's all this talk about Good News if it's so exclusive? Is that really what Jesus meant? When you delve into the narratives in the Bible in their context, it's hard to come up with that exclusive notion. I think their are a whole lot of people out there reading the likes of Borg, Crossan, Butler, Young, Spong, etc. We just don't hear as much about them in the media. Perhaps because they aren't as caustic as our fundamental brethren. :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Right, the New Testament is full of stories that argue against exclusivity:

the healing of the Syro-Phoenician woman's daughter, the healing of the Roman centurion's servant, the meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well, Philip's conversation with the Ethiopian eunuch, Peter's vision of the unclean animals...

Both Paul and Luther suffered from the same phenomenon: being brought up in religious traditions that demanded perfection and adherence to hundreds of picky little laws. Both knew that they could never measure up, and the discovery of God's grace was extremely liberating to them. However, even Paul left an "out" for non-believers (Romans 2:12-15), living as he did in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.

Luther, on the other hand, grew up in a society where almost everyone was Roman Catholic, except for a few Jews, while Muslims were just a distant rumor. Not many people know that he was originally favorable to the Jews, believing that their resistance to Christianity was due to what he saw as the unacceptable aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine. When they still didn't convert after he got rid of such practices as indulgences and prayers to the saints, he was furious. Here all they had to do was accept Jesus as their Savior, and they refused to do so! Hence his regrettable diatribes.

Luther was brilliant in many ways, able to translate the entire Bible into German, a skilled musician and debater, but he was definitely an anger junkie and a black-and-white thinker.

About St. Augustine, I once attended a Lenten study program on his writings, and while I enjoyed reading his Confessions, I couldn't get over the way he treated his mistress. (Sending her away across the sea at his mother's request after fifteen years and a son together, and then getting all dramatic over his struggles with chastity. There's no hint of pity for his ex-mistress, who faces a grim future and is separated from her only child, who would die a couple of years later. It's page after page of how HE struggles with chastity.)

[54anickel]

8. There are so many things I love about Paul, others that I can't stand. But it's

in studying all of his works in context where the beauty of his words can be found. A literal reading void of an understanding of the society he was in is where so many get the caustic view of him. I think it's that way with reading all the early church fathers as well. Augustine certainly had his share of sexual hang ups he managed to pass on. With regards to Luther, I found myself on quite the emotional rollercoaster when studying the Augsburg Confession. One minute I was thinking "that's the most beautiful thing I've ever read" and the next "what sort of arrogant ass wrote this".

I think the historical, cultural and societal contexts are so important when attempting to interpret scripture. Of course recognizing your own social location and "where your head is at" also plays a crucial role, and that's where I believe the notion of community comes into play. I really don't think you can proclaim the "good news" to yourself no matter how "intellectual" you are.

Thank you for your examples of stories that argue against exclusivity - love the "out" in Romans.