Why I am pursuing a life, professionally and personally, of Christian Virtue
I promised @chocobean that I would talk about my recent turn to Christianity, so here goes.
The short, trite answer is that I’m taking a leap of faith on a few mystical experiences, and because I’ve run out of spiritual options. Everything else I have tried to do with my life has come up short. A lot of this outcome results from a traumatic early childhood formed, perhaps ironically, in part from Christian religious abuse. In some way perhaps I am trying to synthesize and re-narrate that experience. But also, I really want to go to a Church that is fun, fulfilling, challenging, and does progressive good in the world. There just ain’t a lot of those to choose from, so I figure I need to start my own. For a little more detail, read on. You can skip to the last two paragraphs for a little more reasoned “why Christianity here and now,” independent of my experience.
I was born into a fundamentalist family. Lots of rules, hell, purity, that sort of thing. Very traumatic, and I mean clinical trauma. I left the church in high school thanks to drugs and some smart people, but I maintained a kind of love affair (infatuation?) with good preaching. Something deep inside me responds to the gospel message. I cry when I listen to Jesus Christ Superstar, and a passionate preacher with a good heart, and great gospel music. This is likely tied to suffering-religion at its best helps us grieve and carry on, find joy in a broken world.
One time in college, after a psychedelic party, I found myself unable to sleep, a common side effect I experienced from LSD. I turned on the local gospel station, and suddenly was struck with the urge to go to church. This was black folks gospel, and so I wanted to go to a black church. There was one I knew about, and I have no idea how it was in my consciousness. It was called Life Community Church in Durham, NC. I put on my best suit, tied my tie, and with dilated eyes and doughy disposition I set off. I arrived at precisely 10:30, the service time identified on the marquee.
You may be familiar with black folks time, which is often most evident at church. Black folks time is about moving when the spirit moves you. When I arrived, on white folks time, the church was half-full. It met in an old movie theater, the kind with hundreds of seats. I was ushered to a seat, which was basically the next available seat, they were filled sequentially from the front. This was different from other churches I attended, where members generally seat themselves in their customary location, a respectful distance from others.
There was a large, energetic gospel ensemble delivering the real gospel goods. Large choir, lots of electric instruments, percussion. Everybody dressed better than I was. And I did my best to keep up, clapping hands and shouting and grinning. I was all in.
After a while, the pastor came on stage, a 6’8 Nigerian native. He made a few comments, and invited us to pass the peace. In a white church, this takes a couple minutes, and you politely smile and shake the hands of the people around you. At Life Community, however, everybody left their seats and wandered around giving hugs and smiles and lots of time to each other. No idea how long we were at that, but I did notice that space was now standing room only.
Then the preacher was joined by his 5’4 (at most) Guatemalan wife, who greeted us cheerfully before the pastor began his sermon. It was all mostly about leading a decent life, strong families, moderation, godliness, fairly conservative socially. I was riveted to every word, I clapped and shouted and prayed.
When everything was finally over, and I had been repeatedly and warmly welcomed and invited to come back, I finally made it to my car and noted the time: 3:30 p.m.! And I knew then, this was what I wanted to do with my life-bring this kind of joy, and be a channel of this kind of power.
I didn’t have any real religion then, however, wrongly thinking that was some kind of requirement, and so I left the dream on the table. I went on to become a drug addict, get clean, get married, have kids and begin life as a lawyer.
When the kids started to get mobile, their mom and I decided we ought to go to church, that it would be good for the kids morals, provide community, that sort of thing. I was buddhist/atheist/soft new age, not really in on the Jesus thing, but it seemed right. We found a church with a great garden out front and a pride sticker on the door, and headed in. Compared to Life Community Church, the preaching was good, but not as passionate, though the message more closely aligned with my values.
The best part of the experience was Sunday school, however, and I even taught a couple classes, really enjoyed doing the bible study part of it. I started paying more attention and getting more involved. We brought in Nadia Bolz-Weber as guest preacher one Sunday. Nadia is a powerful preacher, and her work in Colorado was very promising for a time. While she was preaching, I had a mystical experience, a feeling of lightness and an urgent awareness that I should be up there doing that same thing. My (now Ex) wife was surprisingly into the idea, and so were the pastors. I went and toured a seminary in pursuit of the call. But at the seminary I was like, there is no way I can spend three years with these people, and I still wasn’t really a believer, so I let the moment pass. It’s one of the few regrets I have in life, following the call then may have led to my marriage having a very different outcome. Alas for life choices.
Come forward a few years, the marriage has dissolved bitterly, I have come out of denial about how awful my childhood was and how dysfunction of a human I had become, and how much my kids suffered as a result. Among my many ongoing efforts to remedy this, I found myself at a spiritual retreat in what is known in some circles (mainly Quaker) as a “Clearness Committee.” It’s a space where someone with some kind of intractable problem becomes the subject of a conclave of caring folks. I was there to figure out career transition. There were some q and a, some breathwork, and in the middle of a silent spot someone asked the shockingly straightforward question, “what do you really want to do?”
The answer in my mind was immediately, “I want to preach.” And almost as immediately, a voice came into mind “you can’t do that,” coupled with a profound fear of saying so out loud. I knew from previous spiritual work this was a sign that I should immediately take the contrary action, and so spoke it out.
Now, this was not a Christian gathering, but as it happened, the person who asked the question was a Christian pastor, and she gave me some names and numbers of people to talk to. As it also happened, she used to work for a guy in my current Church, who, as it further happened, was the past president of a prestigious divinity school. This was my favorite guy in Church, and so I talked to him, and here we are. A lot of yes all in a row.
So, it’s really a gamble on a set of experiences I don’t fully understand about a God I barely believe in. But I knew almost instantly as soon as I arrived in divinity school that I was doing the right thing. I still don’t believe, but I have made a decision to act in faith anyway. From an intellectual point of view, I have a strong impulse to do something, anything, to try and bring some goodness to the world. And since, in my estimation, for better or worse, America is a Christian nation, it seems Church could be an effective vehicle for that. Plus, I really do want to be a preacher.
I was about to end there because it sounded cool, but I want to say a little more about why Christianity might be especially good for my values, and for the West. More than just custom and tradition, I’m discovering that a lot of the way I think about the existence of the world is really Christian in nature. Most intellectuals since the 18th century or so would point to Plato, or more recently, to chaos as the proper way to order a mind. But in practice, most people are espousing a neo-Platonist Christian kind of justice and morality. In a super short sentence, this is that creation and humanity were made for each other. Ten years ago I would have said, and a large part of me still believes, the truth is more a kind of Manifestatum ex Chao of both together, and perhaps there is nothing particularly special about humanity. However, most people, practically at least, seem to recognize that rational ordering exists uniquely in the human mind alongside a more programmatic animal nature. They also seem to believe in the notion of goodness. Many humanists argue that we can be “good without God,” however, as far as I can tell they arguing about a goodness which is derived from Christian scholarship (love your neighbor). Even if I’m wrong on that, and/or they are right about the uselessness of God for good, most people in the way they act suggest an assumption that true compassion flows from the Christian God. As a result, I think the best way to foment good for most people here where I am geographically is within the Christian religious framework.
Finally, I’m partial to the notion of classical (medieval?) professionalism: a professional is one who professes a noble principle, i.e. clergy profess goodness, educators profess truth, military officers, peace, lawyers, justice, physicians, health, and artists, beauty.
A lot of what you wrote here is stuff I can agree with, acknowledge your experience with, or at least understand your perspective on even as I disagree. But there is one part I feel I need to push back against:
What exactly does this mean to you? Are you saying that people who do not believe in the Christian God do not demonstrate compassion? Or are you suggesting that non-Christians who demonstrate compassion suggest in some way (I'm not sure how and I'd appreciate if you elaborated) that their compassion comes from the Christian God despite their lack of faith in Him? Either way, this way of looking at non-Christians really rubs me the wrong way and feels, ultimately, pretty disrespectful of them.
I was raised in an evangelical fundamentalist Christian environment in the US, and I'll admit I have a lot of trauma from being raised that way that informs my feelings reading your post here. It seems from what you write here that this is something we have in common, at least to an extent. I've tried to set those feelings aside where I can while reading this, since I don't think your post comes from the same place of judgment and hate that permeates the environment I grew up in. You've clearly ended up at a different flavor, at least, of Christianity, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm equating your beliefs with those of fundamentalists. I don't want to derail the post by treating you with hostility. If nothing else, it would be extremely hypocritical to do so in a comment that centers around respecting others' religious beliefs if I didn't offer you the same courtesy.
I understand that your beliefs center the Christian God as the source of virtues like this (because I once believed it myself), but I think statements like these go beyond just expressing that belief and towards a way of looking at non-Christians that feels pretty condescending. It feels like a complete refusal to acknowledge the beliefs of others (and what you write about non-Christian approaches to ethics indicates, to me at least, a very surface-level-at-best understanding of what non-Christians believe and have written about the subject).
I also think this line of thinking becomes more worrying when you start applying it to whole nations, history, and civilization rather than just individuals, which I see hints of in this post. It's the most seemingly innocent version of a line of thinking about those who are different than you that ends in some really bad places.
If nothing else it’s very western-centric. What does that imply for the cultures of the East? Is China and Japan and Korea and so forth fundamentally unable to be moral, and have been for the entirety of their history? Or are they all closet Christians?
It is, and I am. This is not to say that western thought is universally or objectively superior, just that in my time and place, and my propensities, Christ is the best example of love.
I figure God is like the peak of the mountain, appearing different andd requiring a different approach depending on where one is starting from. From where I am, I see no approach but through Christ.
My wording there was probably not sufficiently precise, but hey, I'm just finishing my first semester!
Let me first be super-clear, I am definitely NOT of the opinion that anyone who has different beliefs than mine is in any way morally inferior, or somehow worth less as a person. I do believe there are some opinions that are problematic, however. I also do believe there is likely a "truth," however I am unsure how knowable said "truth" might be.
What I meant to relay was my observation that most of the folks in the progressive sphere have similar ideas on what a "good" person looks like, and those ideas are pretty close in alignment with the Christ, and from my limited view of history, the ideas seem to have originated in the Judeo-Christian line and don't exist elsewhere. I'm speaking here of unconditional, affirmative love for one's neighbor who might be culturally detestable. I'm not saying that humanists (using this term to stand in for all non-relgious, progressive do-gooders) are secretly believers, I'm just saying their ideals are really similar.
I'm not clear on what you're trying to hint at at that last paragraph. I don't intend to support any kind of state government that sorts people's status based on religious view, indeed I would fight against that. If your fear is something else, please spell it out.
I also don't think anyone's going to get damned to hell for all eternity. If we are God's creation, we are and act of love, created to love. To miss our purpose is to be in hell, but as it is the purpose for which we were created (and are therefore said to have the image of God), we'll all get there eventually.
See also @IIIIIIIIII 's comment and my reply.
“And from my limited view of history, the ideas seem to have originated in the Judeo-Christian line and don’t exist elsewhere.” - I find this line very problematic, and seemingly willfully ignorant.
Is it not your duty to study schools of thoughts outside of Judeo Christianity ? Historically, it is one of the most recent schools of religious thought, and thus the ideas are almost inherently borrowed from many other previous cultures.
I applaud you for finding a purpose and stating it. But it does feel very narrow minded. Even the idea that there is “one single truth, and it is Christian,” is very demeaning to other people.
I hope you continue to grow and find meaning in your studies.
Our recent changes have only been small alterations to what is, at its core, a Christian society. The church and it's followers have enforced those morals on society in the west for 2 millennia. You don't just erase that kind of history simply by no longer being Christian, you'll still be part of the same society. You'll have to introduce new beliefs that conflict with the old before people would abandon the Christian ones and even then it's no guarantee they won't reject the new.
There's also a number of beliefs that progressives dislike that IMO are not Christian but are spouted by people who claim to be Christians, like hating people for being gay or getting an abortion requiring them to nitpick specific areas to reach such a conclusion (while ignoring that they're breaking dozens of rules themselves). Reminds me of a local church that kicked a homeless man out who was just there to pray. I kind of wish the good churches would speak up more against these other ones.
While Jesus was kind to sinners and didn't preach hatred towards anyone, isn't the Bible generally interpreted to consider being gay to be a sin? So while Christians are wrong to be cruel to them, they wouldn't be wrong (according to their rules) to preach repentance and to believe that gay people are going to hell? That doesn't seem very progressive to me.
There are two schools of thought among relatively progressive churches when it comes to being gay that I remember from when I dabbled in being a progressive Christian. One of those schools (the one I aligned with more) is pure acceptance. Either reinterpret the verses that have been interpreted as saying being gay is a sin (and there absolutely are solid alternative interpretations of those verses), or throw them out.
The other school of thought, which appeals to me much less, is that being gay isn't a sin but that having gay sex is a sin and iirc that God is calling gay people to be celibate. imo the "progressive" Christians who believe this are lying to themselves about it being much different from what the fundamentalists believe these days. My impression is that most churches that label themselves as bring queer-accepting take the other approach.
That said, the idea that all the homophobia coming from Christians is somehow divorced from the religion they use as its foundation (which is the sentiment I get from the comment you replied to) is just wrong. Where did "hating gay people" come from in the West if not Christianity -- especially if you're going to credit Christianity with advancing virtues throughout Europe, you can't claim things like homophobia and antisemitism that come from that same Christian hegemony are somehow unrelated to Christianity.
Thank you, this reaponse covers exactly what I was looking for!
I've heard this referenced before, but if you know of examples off the top of your head I'd be interested to hear more about them. A podcast that I was listening to had a religious scholar arguing that the ancient Greek phrase that's been translated to make the passage about homosexuality would be more accurately translated in a way that makes it about pedophilia, but I've only heard it from that one source and it seems rather convenient if it happens to be true.
Even if "True" Christianity would be completely accepting of gay people and relationships, there's still undeniably quite a few problems with gender roles that keep it from being a fully progressive doctrine, but both facets matter.
This source describes what I've seen discussed in the past in regards to Leviticus:
Queer Bible Hermeneutics
I have also seen the argument it's about temple prostitution I think.
I can't speak to the blog specifically but that's about typical for the discussion. I have seen similar discussions about the lines in Romans, Corinthians, etc. but the gist is typically that a broad statement about consensual adult sexual relationships is being implied by language which is actually (allegedly as I don't speak Biblical Hebrew or Ancient Greek) very specific terminology for very specific activities happening in that time and place.
The thing is, that both progressive and conservative Christianity are still "true" Christianity in the sense that they're subsets of the larger whole even if they disavow each other. It's rarely helpful to argue that "they" aren't real Christians because "they" just say the same about "you"
The thing I was hinting at in the end of my last comment was a belief that non-Christian cultures are entirely lacking or incapable of expressing virtues like the compassion you describe. Another reply to my comment rightly pointed out that this is Western-centric. The belief that certain virtuous beliefs much originate in Christian beliefs implies that non-Christian societies (such as Eastern cultures or traditional African cultures or the native people of the Americas) are morally deficient, or at least were prior to Christian contact, and this very belief has been used to justify colonialism and other atrocities against these people groups.
I think it's presumptuous to tell even me, someone with an obvious Christian religious background, that my morals and virtues stem solely from Christian thought (fwiw, Jews tend to hate it when Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian," so I'd recommend replacing it in your vocabulary with either just "Christian" or "Abrahamic" when you truly want to be broad) but I think it's downright dangerous when Christian virtue is framed as a trait of "the West," as it seems to in the book recommended by the linked commenter. It's no longer just a religious belief at that point -- it's ethnocentrism.
For what it's worth, I never got the vibe that you believe in eternal damnation from your post, and I have no problem with you believing truth exists (I also believe truth exists). You're definitely a far cry from the fundamentalists I grew up with in many respects, and I think you have a lot of interesting insights. But I think this belief in the superiority of Western culture due to its Christian foundations is very much what those fundamentalists believed, and it brings me back to being forced to watch videos about the white supremacist Great Replacement theory in history class at my Christian high school. That's why I think that line of thinking is so dangerous.
Thank you for the touching and meaningful writeup. I felt how much you have been through and how many things you have tried and felt like they haven’t worked.
As somebody who is not particularly religious, I thought I would take some time to encourage and express why I have a lot of respect for religion, including Christianity.
First, churches are one of the few places you can find a community outside of family and work (the “third place”). They also provide a total supportive community, which is actually quite rare in modern urban society. Many people in cities and suburbs rely on just their immediate family and closest friends, which puts stress on everyone when problems arise. A church (or other larger communities) is a much larger supportive network. These are sorely needed in today’s world (people are lonely!), and if secularism continues to grow, I expect some secular solution to this issue to become popular within my lifetime. For now, churches are one of the best places to find a community.
Second, religion encourages belief in a higher power or greater plan. Religion and science are not irreconciliable, but the belief in a greater plan and the belief that the world is fundamentally chaotic are. In particular, scientists that believe in a chaotic world often conclude that humans need to solve their problems with technology to reach utopia. Religion provides an alternative perspective; as I understand, Christianity teaches that the world offers hardships and with strength through God, we can face those hardships with goodness and then reach heaven after life. I think the latter is a much more healthy way of emotionally coping with the injustice, unfairness, and cruelty inherent to our world. Obviously, there are problems we can solve, but not everything is within our control.
Finally, belief in God or something greater is one of the most straightforward paths to true humility. I find the Abrahamic characterization of human as simply creation oddly powerful. It also allows people to believe that we are placed somewhere for a reason; regardless of the truth of that, for me, it makes it way easier to find meaning in my circumstance instead of becoming angry that things aren’t the way I might want.
I hope someone enjoyed reading this. In a positive discussion of religion, I wanted to contribute some of the things I really like about religion and think the secular world could use more of.
Thanks for your insight and response. I'll add, everything you said can be true even without an afterlife. Augustine promoted the idea that we are created as an act of love, and with the purpose to love. It's a very present moment kind of proposition: our happiness is found in fulfilling our purpose, and is independent of circumstances.
Sounds like you're finally heeding the Call that had been happening for a while!! I'm very excited for you! I mean, anybody making that kind of pivot as an adult is commendable, but taking a leap of faith as you said, can be much harder. The whole thing would feel more insane and scary except for how right it feels I bet.
Treasure the fervor - this may last for a long time or a little shorter, but don't worry when it subsides a bit. Once you've had a glimpse of your True Country, everything else is fine tuning and pausing to pick up its trail again before the next burst.
There are a few things I've held on to from my Protestant upbringing, and this is one of them: love for your spouse isn't a feeling, it's a set of actions you decide to do anyway even when you don't feel like it. This is true faith (I think).
[Edit- from the liturgy of St John Chrysostom - "We have seen the True Light! We have received the Heavenly Spirit! We have found the True Faith! Worshiping the Undivided Trinity, Who has saved us." The act of worship itself is the faith, not some hazy wishful feeling.]
Do you want to preach to Tildes in a regular thread maybe? We might not be the most receptive crowd but I wonder if we could benefit from hearing from someone who feels this passionately about something.
That would honestly be awesome. It would be filterable and I'm sure there would be some great conversations.
Just some food for thought, if this is going to be normalized on the site: in the event that a Protestant, Conservative, KJV-only Biblical-Literalist or a Catholic, Conservative, Latin-Rite Dominionist take to Tildes to likewise preach their own views, what criteria should the mods use to determine what is or is not appropriate for the site? How should it be handled in a way that is fair to all parties, religious and non, without alienating anyone? What doctrinal criteria would be considered on or off limits while still treating the various faiths of different preachers fairly? For example, anti-abortion is a critical part of the two aforementioned groups' social doctrines; should this be allowed to be preached? Is requiring others to filter it out a reasonable expectation on behalf of Tildes and it's mods?
I feel pretty opposed to the idea of preaching here. And your example is great... and yet you only listed Christian faiths. And there are certainly far more extreme Christian faiths than even the ones you shared.
What about Islam? Asatru? Hinduism? Wicca? Many people might like to learn more about those faiths, but that isn't the same as being preached to or taught or proselytized to. Will folks feel as kindly to preaching when it isn't the umbrella faith they share, even if a different denomination. Christianity is a religion that specifically believes in recruiting people to the faith. And that makes me quite uncomfortable with Tildes being that platform. People sharing threads like this one, or blog posts they write, etc. I think is different. Add in that many people who grow up in Christian cultures have religious trauma from Christianity and preaching can create a Very unwelcome space for some queer people for example.
If preaching is allowed and one wants to go on a sermon about homosexuality citing quotes from the bible and teaching their faith, will that be permitted? If they're saying these sinners go to hell they're saying that I'm going to hell. And I'd be marking that malice immediately. But I don't like the idea of opening that door. There is absolutely space to talk about faith and beliefs without preaching.
It's a hard no from me, I don't miss having to deal with Christians and their faith at all since leaving the US (honestly it's one of the huge benefits that I frequently overlook).
If someone wants to preach online, start a YouTube channel, please don't bring it to such a small forum as Tildes.
Oooor, just filter out humanities.religion or some preaching tag. I did that for politcs stuff.
But I'm interested in religion and I do want to read about it, just not in the form of preaching specifically. I enjoy analyzing it and learning about it, I don't want to filter those opportunities out. I just don't want to see sermons on Tildes.
Oh I definitely agree with you on all points. I was intentionally being over-specific with my examples, so thank you for additionally capturing more general example groups to demonstrate the problem from other angles.
I feel like Tildes users would be more accepting of those than any type of Christianity, to be honest.
And I think it's pretty clear what kind of preaching would violate the asshole test. For example, you can preach that abortion is wrong without being an asshole about it. And if you think that being in people's faces calling them names for killing babies isn't being an asshole, then, frankly, you should be doing that all the time if you really believe what you say, just like you would if we were out here killing children--which means that only being an asshole about it when preaching makes you a hypocritical asshole.
Plus, Tildes has filters. For the people who don't understand filters, we could just require those types of posts to start with a disclaimer on how to filter them out.
I think you may be missing the fact that you are responding to a Tildes user who is voicing their preference that Tildes not be used to preach at them from "those" groups in addition to "any type of Christianity".
To restate for clarity, while you may feel like Tildes users would be more accepting of being preached at from members of Islam, Asatru, Hinduism, and Wicca, a real-life Tildes user is telling you that they would not be, which is an actual, demonstrated counter to your assumption. On the other hand, in addition to you, the person who started this comment chain would also like to see Christian preaching on Tildes, which (in lieu of any other input from them) appears to further counter such an assumption.
Based on this, the implied train of thought that Tildes users might be more accepting of preaching from those other religions and therefore Christian preaching should be permissible, is problematic given that no one yet has demonstrated such a preference for other groups over Christianity.
It is also actually not clear what kinds of preaching would pass the "asshole test." For example, one could preach that 'even a ten-year-old girl who commits infanticide through abortion is still loved by our god and will be forgiven if she confesses her sin.' Such a statement could be found to be fabulously
offensiveassholish. It is possible that you too might find such a statement to not be as soft as you envisioned above. However, a more conservative preacher may argue that such a statement is not intended as ill-willed "being in people's faces", but was intended to underline their god's love and forgiveness for all.Yet, people do take issue with being called sinners for making deep, personal, life-changing decisions such as abortion. For you and everyone else reading this, is the filter system really enough to keep preaching that could be interpreted as slanderous of other members within the realm of civility on Tildes?
As an addendum, while I don't want to be preached at by any, many folks with religious trauma will react much more strongly to the religion(s) that were the source of the trauma. Their response to Christianity may be stronger because Christians are the ones they happened to experience that with whether from growing up in a faith or because no pagan has called them an adulteress. That doesn't mean they necessarily want to be proselytized to by the Hare Krishna, they may just not have nearly as a strong of a reaction to it. Many people in the US in particular grow up surrounded by Christianity, most of us are culturally Christian even if we have zero faith, and I don't mean going to Church on the holidays, I mean assuming that Christmas is a state/federal holiday and that businesses are more likely to be closed on Sundays. (This is also why I think it's very likely we'd see opposition to the preaching of Islam, because it's culturally disdained by many Christian cultures which pending the survey results, I suspect includes most of the Tilderes here.)
But my point is that stronger opposition to Christianity is generally about having received more harm from that faith for the individuals involved and I've rambled a bit.
EDIT: Also "Christianity is especially good... for the West" is something I flag as very concerning from an "asshole test" standard.
Nope. Definitely not missing any of that. But you're definitely missing some of what I said because the logic you think I'm using doesn't make any sense.
Yes. It is clear. If you would think it's assholery if it was being said outside of preaching, then it's assholery when being said while preaching.
Yeah, it is. As with everything else on this site, it's up to the discretion of Deimos. Filters+Deimos make up the logic that is used for everything else posted here; I don't get why you think this one specific thing is any different. I could call someone a c-word for being a fan of a different sports team or for not supporting strong enough emissions regulations or for not supporting my right to run a business however I want. Why is it suddenly so different when people are doing the same exact thing with the topic being religion?
I mean we already had a comment removed as malice. And I think there are some asshole implications in the language used about "The West" for example, in this post.
Proselytizing is marketing, it's a recruitment drive. What is the difference between proselytizing and me starting to sell an MLM here? If that's the door you want to open, I hope you sign up for my downline too.
You're the one bringing up proselytizing. Most preaching isn't proselytizing. I really don't think we would get many posts truly proselytizing. I would expect much more textual analysis and philosophy with a religious bent.
I really just don't get why this is different from all the other times I've seen someone freak out about how awful something would be for the site, only to have people tell them how the quality of the user base, filtering, and Deimos mean that it would never be a problem.
Preaching is proselytizing. That's a fundamental part of it, particularly within Christianity. It's included in the Cambridge definition, and the previous religious definition I provided was even more explicit:
That's just one religious website's definition, but others are in the same vein.
Explaining the meaning of a scripture verse as I understand it or explaining how a particular faith interprets things are different than attempting to make my audience experience God's voice, to invoke faith and repentance in them.
As for why it's different, we just had a whole thread rejecting online images because it was antithetical to the Tildes experience. So, there are apparently some things worth drawing a line on. I'm saying this should be one of them. I'm neither the admin nor a deity so my opinion holds only as much sway as anyone else gives it.
In comparison to sports, people would probably be really annoyed if I made regular posts about how awesome the Chicago Sky are, regular stats about them and why you, you would be welcome into the Chicago Sky fandom. You'd probably not look twice at a single post, but it'd be annoying eventually. Probably people wouldn't invite me to keep posting it. I could talk about the joys of Pampered Chef and how great their products are and how deep and meaningful being a part of their team is for me, but again, people would probably be irritated at the marketing.
(To be clear, I do not engage in MLMs, I'll have to join one just to start getting my marketing on)
Ironically some of the people here who are most against "preaching" tend to "preach" more than most anyone else on the site. Though perhaps not in the traditional religious sense.
You can just talk to me directly instead of indirectly, same with anyone else. But despite you saying "some" I'm well aware I am the loudest person here at the moment. Except perhaps the person who was temp banned.
The religious sense is what I'm referring to being concerned with so I'm not sure it meets the definition of irony, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts on my posting anytime.
As I said, I think people would like to learn about them and be less thrilled about being preached to about them. I think people would be much more hostile to someone preaching Islam, particularly conservative Islam, here than Christianity. I think people can absolutely share their opinions about abortion and other things without being an asshole but "preaching" has a definition of persuading and convincing others, of delivering a sermon. In Christianity that preaching generally means things like "to unfold the meaning of a Scriptural text or theme to people so that they experience God's voice calling them to respond in faith and repentance."
And one can preach that "We're all sinners, but those homosexuals are specifically sinners per Leviticus and Paul and therefore let me talk about how unnatural they are" in a very "polite" way. People used to preach using the Bible about the inferiority of other races (I mean, some people probably still do curse of Ham and all that) and that's still preaching often with a "tone" of care and concern even if the "message" is one we might find asshole-ish.
I don't think this is a space for proselytizing. And if others comment their disagreement, or their distaste for the religion in response to this preaching, are they going to be told to filter it out instead of replying with their own perspective? I'm not personally inclined to filter out topics because then only certain voices will ever be heard on them. Sometimes others need to say that those words are hurtful or that the offer to "pray for healing" is actually offensive. I've been very active on religious forums in the past when I was figuring out my beliefs more actively and even there was a no-proselytizing zone.
Am I the asshole for disagreeing with that sermon?
And I think it really does open a door to Tildes being a place I don't want to be. That may just be a me problem. I don't think I'm the only one who would feel uncomfortable with it and I think that "just filter it out" isn't usually the response to things unless there's no other option (like it took quite a while before politics via ~society got a home because it was being actively discouraged. )
Edited: just for an open parenthetical.
As a now-former Christian minister (still absolutely a believer - we moved for my wife’s career, and I’m more in an admin role now… I was also ready to be done, but that’s a longer thing), I agree that I would not want that.
If something like that is really desired, I’d almost want to frame it more like a book club, maybe in like a monthly thread where the sermons (or other types of writing) are top level comments that get discussed and picked apart.
But yeah, it’s either got to be one voice of many, no voices at all, or somehow not framed in a proselytizing way.
I don't think you're out of line at all here. I never had a bad experience with religion (grew up culturally Catholic, went through all the motions, but I've always been a solid atheist), yet the idea of preaching in this community makes me very uncomfortable.
That's not to say that people can't talk about religion and spirituality, philosophies of religion, history of it, current news going on within various religions, even their personal experiences with it. I don't agree with everything the OP said in their initial post, yet I found it in interesting nonetheless. I like hearing about people's experiences. It's a good example of what should be allowed here.
But outright public preaching, to me, crosses that line. I suppose if someone is seeking spiritual care and guidance from fellow Tilderinos, that's one thing. As a community, we should want to support each other. But maybe take it to private channels. DMs, Discord, phone, etc.
I would certainly hope not. As always, filtering is a way to avoid topics you aren't interested in, not a way for people to request an echo chamber. I don't recall ever seeing people telling gowestyoungman to filter out a topic when he disagrees with, like...everything most of us believe.
Would you be the asshole if someone said the equivalent in a non-religious context?
Honestly, sermons and religious exegeses wouldn't be very different from many of the text posts already on this site. This post is pretty much already a sermon. Perhaps it's one paragraph away from being a complete one--a paragraph that is provided by one of the top comments that ties it all together with a nice lesson.
You're acting like we'd be opening the floodgates to bring in Mullah Omar or Fred Phelps when it's much more likely that we'd just be encouraging people like OP to post more well-reasoned posts on their personal thoughts about concepts they've been pondering lately.
(Also, I promise the em dash in this comment was entirely authentic and I couldn't think of how else to punctuate that sentence so that it would make sense)
Sermons are explicitly religious marketing. They are designed to share religious truths with others. I do think there is a difference between sharing an individual story and being "invited" to preach regularly.
Proselytizing creates a hostile environment for religious minorities. I don't want to normalize that, filter or not. And based on the comments on the survey and the history I've seen of how, for example, gender identity has been talked about here, no, I'm not confident that it's the same as sports fans.
If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible . . .
Oh interesting! When you allude that the KJV is the only true version of the bible, are you implying that the 1611 Jacobean-style Early-Modern English is most holy and authoritative, or the later post-vowel shifted Modern English of the 1769 edition that people use (and call the 1611) to this very day? What is the doctrinal basis for either edition's authority over the other? I have never received a good answer regarding this...
What makes the KJV more authoritative, in your eyes, than the Textus Receptus (of which the KJV is based) or any of the other Greek texts?
EDIT: Elsewhere, you also say, "I think some of the early texts were wrongfully excluded; apparently there some more women-positive texts out around the early first century." However, those texts are not in the KJV. How do you reconcile your belief that they were wrongly excluded from the canon with your belief that anything outside of the canon and format of the KJV is not authoritative?
I honestly long for a Church of Tilderinos. I'll see what I can do.
This is the thesis of the history book Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind. Have you read it? I was very very scepitcal of the thesis going in, but I think the author makes a pretty compelling argument that what I would classify as secular, humanist thought was only made possible by centuries of Christian scholarship.
My own personal opinion is everything was going okay with Christianity until the reforms around 1000 that codified a separate, celibate priesthood, and made up a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the Gospels (which, themselves, were cobbled together oral histories). Up until then, Christianity seemed to be a choose-your-own-path belief system centred around Jesus's teachings.
I know it's hackneyed, but this sentiment rings true for me: "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." That's why I really love it when I meet and make friends with a follower of Jesus who is actually a nice person, and tries to act in a Christ-like manner.
(FYI the Gandhi quote is likely apocryphal, it has no source and the nearest sourced quote is different and also likely not real. It's likely made up. The sentiment is useful, just not the attribution)
That's useful, thanks. I even did a search to find a primary source for it before I used it - but turns out that wasn't true. Post edited to remove incorrect attribution.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Disputed
Just providing a citation or disagreeing? Agreeing? Sorry just the block quote doesn't give me context.
Just providing some citations. I didn't realize the quote was disputed so looked it up for myself and thought others would appreciate seeing more info about it too in case they were similarly curious. :)
Thanks, sorry as a reply I didn't have vibes :)
I'm not sure that I've ever heard that quote. However, as a lapsed Jew now secular Buddhist, I find that I have the same outlook on my wife's family's Catholicism.
Not making myself out to be some sort of perfect being yet I find that I live closer to Jesus than her family in some ways. I even challenged my father-in-law that his MAGA politics are at odds with his faith. Interestingly, he agreed and seemed confounded by that.
Christianity, at least in America, seems to have little to do with Jesus' teachings, sadly.
"I like your Christ but not your Christianity", indeed.
So-called "Christian Nationalism" is really neither national (more racial) or Christian (most of their practices and symbols are pagan, actually). Bethel Music, a maga-jesus juggernaut out of California, even went so far as to use a teutonic hart as their logo for a brief while.
My own personal opinion is everything was going okay with Christianity until around the Great Schism (1054) where [opinion redacted]. But we have had the 70ish written books agreed upon already for several hundred years already by that point, and a professed Nicean Creed (325) of statements agreed upon since forever. Things not explicitly in the creed was a bit more choose your own adventures for sure: there was a wide variety of paths to sainthood, both for lay people and clergy, domestics to monastics. [Controversial Opinion] Then things sharply declined when the west necessitated Reformation and its leaders refused to rejoin the Orthodox Church.
I'm in the 1040's in my book, you just spoiled the Great Schism for me! 😝
Someone once got mad at me for spoiling something from The Handmaid's Tale TV show >v< which is adapted from a book written during the cold war (1985) .... In my defense it's been enough time....
Let me know what the book says about the Orthodox Church when you get there :)
It just skipped over the Schism :(
I should have read the fine print better, it's a history of the church in the Latin West. It's a bummer, I was hoping to learn more about your church through reading this
I'm slowly reading a history of the Eastern Roman empire and, after Constantine, much of the history seems to be of bitter theological disputes between bishops from different cities. It seems like disunity started very early. Religious tolerance hadn't been invented yet.
You're orthodox I take it? You guys have way better pictures. But we have Julian of Norwich ;-p
Seriously, though, I'm not so sure I agree. A lot of the controversies prior to the Great Schism seem largely pointless to me, and also, problematically, some of them were decided for secular expediency. And, as I said elsewhere, I think some of the early texts were wrongfully excluded; apparently there some more women-positive texts out around the early first century.
That book looks interesting, and I would agree with your restatement of the thesis. Theologically, we might call this "revelation" of God, but it could just as easily be some kind of evoloutionary process. I don't think it takes too deep of an observation to see it, however. Christian philosophy has serious staying power, especially at the level of politics and non-elite circles.
Regarding your quote, my umbrage is that every group has good and bad subgroups and individuals. And every individual has good and bad parts, and the very best of us fall short, and the very worst are still redeemable.
A better assessment in my view is what is the ideal, how attainable is the ideal, how workable are the mechanisms for attaining the ideal, and, in aggregate across history, how successfully has the ideal been made manifest?
Of the majors, Buddha's not bad. But Buddha's love might be unconditional, but it is not affirmative. You have to work to get to Buddha. All you have to do for Christ's love is ask. Also, there's a lot going on in Buddhism that goes right over our head in the West, and I'm not 100% that if we fully understood it, we'd agree with it. Side note, they do have plenty of baddies, ask Pema Chodren why she distanced herself from Shambhala.
I'll push back about the 'round 1000 mark. There was plenty of awful stuff before that (even in the Gospels, also there's Gospels and texts that were, imo, wrongfully excluded), and plenty of awesome stuff since.
Is the requirement of asking not a condition of receiving that love? For it to be unconditional, should it not be offered regardless of whether one asks?
Regardless, you seem to be misunderstanding Buddhism as being a redemptionist religion in the same vein as your Christian denomination, when it is not.
One thing I am not so clear on: many people who live in the West are Buddhists. When you say "I'm not 100% that if we [the West] fully understood it, we'd agree with it," what group do you place Western Buddhists in? Are they either not considered Western in this case, or perhaps not authentically Buddhist?
You might like The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction by Peter Rollins.
I say yay for more talk about religion on tildes. I've also been thinking about writing about my own experiences with religion, be it critical or supportive, and this thread left me with the impression that tildes might not be opposed to such thing, unlike the majority of online English-Dominated platforms which all seem to be filled with unconditional hate for religions, with no room for good-faith discussion.