Should Christians Apologize?
Over at the Justice and Compassion blog Pam Hogeweide posted her thoughts on the Seeds of Compassion event. While I continue to be amazed at the resistance in the Christian community to even talking about compassion with others, I was intrigued by a sub-conversation that arose in the comments to that post. One commenter in particular expressed her opposition to the idea that Christians should be apologizing for evil done in our collective past. The reasons for her opposition are summed up as follows -
1. People of other religions are jerks too. Why should Christians apologize if others are not expected to as well. She wondered why “Christians [are] the only ones groveling around and begging forgiveness for the disrespectful behavior of only some of the members of their religion?”
2. Christians really haven’t done all that much that is bad. Or at least all the good we have done outweighs the bad.
3. People shouldn’t have to apologize for stuff they were not personally involved in. She wrote, “if YOU have not partaken in toxic Christianity, then I am not sure you need to apologize for something you didn’t do. It is not YOUR fault that others calling themselves Christians have acted like jerks.” For her, “an apology implies some personal culpability.” As an example she wrote, “As a white person, it is not my fault that black people were treated unfairly a century ago. I would take that further even and say that as a white person growing up in the SOUTH, it is not my personal fault. I do not owe black people an apology. (actually, the government is still trying to weasel it out of me via affirmative action: I said I am sorry with the fact that my law school admission doesn’t count as much as if I was certain minorities, whether I wanted to or not).”
Of course others on the thread attempted to engage with her often to no avail, but her perspective haunted me. While she didn’t cross into MD territory and say that we need to be jerks for Jesus, the utter lack of ability to expression compassion for the other surprised me. Her first objection, revealed more of a sense of entitlement than love. Sure I can admit that other religions have done evil as well, but I will not refuse responsibility for my own religion until I feel like other people have taken responsibility for theirs. If I always waited for others to seek forgiveness before I forgave, would I really be extending forgiveness or just gloating in their groveling? I though similarly about her second objection. I don’t think evil is graded on a sliding scale. No amount of good negates the need to take responsibility and apologize for wrong actions. The call for an apology (or the act thereof) is not intended to silence or ignore good done. I’m not a fan of “yes, but” apologies (from my toddler or from adults). Trying to evade responsibility and escape needed amends by attempting to paint oneself in a better light cheapens the apology. There is a time and place for lauding accomplishments, just not as a means of avoiding an apology.
But it is the third excuse that really bothered me. Even if it is true that someone is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, the group they have chosen to associate with is not - and that is how those who have been hurt by that group (or just outsiders in general) will view that individual. Either that individual can act arrogantly and deny responsibility or they can accept what full membership in that group entails - both the good and the bad. Christianity’s main themes are those of mercy and forgiveness. We are willing to accept the “unfairness” or original sin, but are too prideful to accept the unfair baggage our religion carries. It just doesn’t make sense, especially not to the outside world curious about who we are.
That said, I find it hard to believe that any individual Christian can ever truthfully claim to not have partaken in wrongdoing or toxic Christianity. (just like no white person can ever truthfully claim to not have participated in racial injustice in some form or another). Beyond the fact that just the act of denying responsibility for Christianity’s evils appears as self-centered toxic Christianity to many, most Christians today are living the benefits of Christendom - benefits that came at the expense of others. American Christians are living with the wealth and resources of “Christian” operations like Manifest Destiny and attempts to “Christianize and civilize” other nations (mostly as an excuse to rape their land of it’s resources). The denominations and doctrines we bicker about exist because they were the ones willing to slaughter and torture dissenting viewpoints. Ministries and churches are built (and get rich) on messages of hatred - give money to help Israel kill those Palestinians, or to make sure our students don’t know gay people exist, or to support the IRA, or even fund corrupt dictators and conflict diamond schemes in Africa. It’s hard to be an American Christian and not be connected to some group involved in such things. So even if you have never Bible-bashed, manipulated someone to say a prayer, or burned someone at the stake most Christians are receiving the benefits of toxic Christianity. There is no out of sight out of mind excuse than can work. The connection to wrongdoing is there and if we have compassion at all for those we have hurt, we will take responsibility to apologize if not make amends.
In a way this is about getting over “me-centered” Christianity. One’s faith isn’t just an individual thing, disconnected from history or the rest of the world. We are part of a community of believers and (like it or not) we need to be willing to fully be a part of that community. Recognizing the faults present there is a necessary first step to helping make things better and to understanding why others view us the way they do. Sure it can be uncomfortable when someone lays the blame of say the Crusades or hurtful statements by Dobson, Robertson, or Driscoll fully on you. But it seems more in line with the way of Christ to admit such things are wrong and apologize for them instead of getting angry and attempting to defend yourself or them. Of course, I haven’t always done a good job at this, but it is a habit I am attempting to develop. I’ve discovered that choosing to identify with a community can be a struggle, but it also is vital to growing a deeper and more holistic faith that focuses on loving God and others and not just myself.
Julie Clawson
May 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
People of other religions are jerks too.
They can be, yes. But Christians (or anyone else) shouldn’t be making decisions about how to act based on the lowest common denominator of (bad) behavior.
This may be a semi-off-topic example, but I’d liken it to a young adult who is attempting to break the cycle of abuse. Yes, it was wrong for that individual’s parents to abuse them….but being abused is no excuse for abusing your own partner or children as an adult.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I get a bit overwhelmed by these issues. More than a bit.
The thing is, when I do something lousy, I’m supposed to apologize, make amends to the extent possible, and generally reform. This makes sense. I can wrap my mind around it.
I have a harder time understanding the appropriate response to historical wrongs.
It was awful that Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Jews out of Spain in 1492. Absolutely dreadful. I am against that.
But I generally think of apologies as carrying some measure of personal responsibility. What would it mean for me to APOLOGIZE for something that happened almost 500 years before I was born? And how exactly am I supposed to be making amends and reform my ways when we are discussing centuries-old wrongs. Are we perhaps in danger of watering down the notion of apology and responsibility? Replacing the idea of metanoia with “generally feeling bad in some vague and undefined way”? That could be very dangerous indeed.
Often I feel as if I’m expected to wear a hair shirt for the rest of my life, huddle in a corner and never bother anyone about matters religious (and believe me I am the last person to buttonhole folks with “if you were to die tonight do you know where you’d spend eternity?”) in atonement for the sins of the Knights Templar. This cannot be right. (And of course I don’t get credit for Dorothy Day, just condemned for the Knights Templar.)
I struggle with ideas of corporate sin. Of course no one is an island and I benefit from sinful systems and structures, many of which I am not even aware of. The Christian life is not just about me and Jesus. Of course.
And yet … I would never consider it appropriate to hold Muslims as a whole accountable, in any way shape or form, for the wrongs recently committed by a handful of their coreligionists. And I would be baffled by the idea that the conquests of a thousand years ago are in any way shape or form relevant to my relationship with a Muslim today.
So why would it be appropriate to take on the moral guilt of all the rotten things Christians have done over the centuries? Especially when I can’t do a blessed thing to change what happened however many centuries ago? Crushing guilt with no way to do anything about it is a bad combo indeed.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Kristen you fear that the nature of apology may be compromised if it comes to be used as more than direct personal expression of responsibility. It is easy to get mixed up in semantics here, but in all truth that personal sense is just a part of what apology means. The very idea of an apology meaning an expression of regret or remorse for having wronged another wasn’t the common use of the word until the 18th century. And even since then we often use the term apologize or say “I’m sorry” for actions we have no direct personal responsibility for. When we hear of someone having a death in the family or developing cancer we say “I’m sorry.” We did nothing to cause their pain, but we sympathize with the fact that they are feeling pain. It doesn’t cheapen the term, but strengthens our connections with others by acknowledging that we care about them. How much more then can we say that we are sorry for pain caused by groups we choose to be a part of. Instead of telling people we care so little about their struggles that we won’t address the issue, we selflessly acknowledge that we regret the wrong done and are sorry that the group we are committed to caused others pain by it. It is this act of sympathy and humility that is needed to help make amends and bring healing. Aloofness, superiority, and denial won’t ever accomplish those things.
I know this will be unpopular, but I think that if Muslims had taken this approach after 9/11 it would have helped bring reconciliation. Of course I am not naive enough to think that they caused the tragedy personally, but acknowledging that one’s religious brothers have the capacity for evil, committed an evil, and that they deeply regret such a thing was done in the name of their religion might have helped. As much as I try to separate myself from certain sects of Christianity, I will never be fully separate because we both claim the name of Jesus. If I apologize for their words and actions it is honestly less about assuaging my own guilt and more about helping heal those who have been hurt who need those words of apology from a representative of Jesus.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Excellent words, Julie!
I was a part of that original conversation, and i saw it taking a turn for the worst. I’m hesitant to say it, but I put myt ail between my legs and ran away rather than getting really steamed.
Was it the right thing to do? I don’t know. Part of me wanted to defend myself….but I thought it best to just let it go.
Brad
May 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Regardless of the historical meaning of the term, in my mind the current usage of “apologize” usually has to do with asking forgiveness for a wrong that I have committed or am somehow responsible for. If my underage child for whom I have direct responsibility wrongs a neighbor, that’s different than if my older, adult sibling several states away wrongs someone - and the words I would use to express regret and sympathy to the wronged person would be different, as would the degree of personal responsibility and guilt that I would feel. And both of those situations are different than if I personally committed the wrong.
I agree with Kristen that the broader sense in which you are using the word “apologize” seems to weaken rather than strengthen it. The colloquial “I’m sorry your dad died” is an expression of sympathy. If you mean I should feel sympathetic toward people who have been wronged by other Christians and express regret that such a thing happened, and embarrassment that those who did it identify with the same group as me, then I agree.
But I wouldn’t call “acknowledging that one’s religious brothers have the capacity for evil, committed an evil, and that [I] deeply regret such a thing was done in the name of [my] religion” an apology.
I’m not sure it does much for either the wronged person or me, if I apologize in the deeper, repentance-oriented sense of the word when I wasn’t the wrongdoer - and to call both of those actions (”I am sorry you are feeling pain because someone else wronged you” vs. “I am sorry that I wronged you”) apologies, just seems to add confusion rather than clarity.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
All throughout scripture there is a sense of historical and communal identity, and hence a sense of historical and communal guilt. We are “in” Adam in his sin. Daniel repents for the sins of Israel, even though he himself is a righteous man. The Jewish leaders of Jesus day were connected their ancestor’s rejection of the prophets. And of course Jesus takes upon himself the guilt of us all. Ancient, biblical cultures, it seems, have a much more thoroughgoing sense that we are all connected, and that we are all responsible for each other, than our Modern, Western, individualistic culture can wrap its mind around.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
This is a really interesting conversation. Of all people, I have many compelling historical reasons to claim that I am not liable for (as an example) the sins of slavery in this country. My family ancestors are entirely in Maine and Massachusetts. I have a rich family history rooted in abolition and in fighting as leaders in the Union Army. Somewhere in a dusty trunk is an invitation to my great-great grandfather for President Lincoln’s second inaugural ball.
And yet … so much of this country’s history is bound up in not just the meta-narrative, but sub-text. The meta-narrative is that we have no classes and people are free to move about the country. The sub-text is … emmmm … not so much if your skin is brown.
Much of this philosophy has to be laid at the feet of patriarchal Christianity. It was and is the dominant ethos driving public culture for much of our history. Over on Sally Coleman’s blog she had a great quote the other day:
“Underlying patriarchal hierarchialism is exclusivism. There is one superior race: white Europeans. There is one exclusively true religion- Christianity- and one right kind of Christian: a born again evangelical Protestant. There is one right family model: a heterosexual monogamous marriage with a male breadwinner and a female housewife.” (Radford Reuter 2001. p. 206 SCM Press..)
This is the root of the evil that has befallen us. This sense of separation from others. So while I don’t need to wear a hair shirt or curl up in a corner or permanently feel badly, it does mean I need to approach life with a sense of humility. I need to understand that I am in a position of power and that I need to share it whenever possible. I need to look around and find ways to build bridges with those who are not like me … who are other than me.
So an apology can take many forms. It can be a formal, “I’m sorry.” But it can also be the working out of actions that build bridges across the sub-cultures that exist within our meta-culture. It can be actions that work to change the sub-text that says people with brown skin have less value than people with light skin in our culture.
When I look at the manner and words that Christ used to announce his ministry (Luke 4:18) and the commands he gave to us demand humility, mercy, repentance. And name pride as the deadliest sin.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Thanks for this great post, Julie. I’ve linked to it over on my blog. Very important stuff.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I am tending to agree with Kristen and Karl that we don’t need to apologize for Christian history, but we should be humble enough to sympathize with those whom we are dealing with to facilitate relationships. This may mean accepting blame, condemnation and / or repenting for those wrongs despite not being a participant like Daniel and Jesus in Mike’s comments.
In response to the comments regarding the third point, I agree that we can choose our groups and will be viewed on that basis. Our commitment to that group means we need to be willing to respond as I stated above. However the issue gets a little messier when we consider race and other attributes that we we can’t choose. I disagree with Julie and believe we can be free from the stigma that we are associated with by nature but we still need to be willing and humble enough to accept the stigma and respond appropriately in love.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I love this post.
For better or worse, Christians are in power in this country, and arguably in the world because of this country. This country has used religion to justify any manner of subjugation and slaughter from slavery to the Native American genocide.
As a white male originally from the American South, I may not be responsible for the racism and slavery that came before me, but I am certainly culpable in reaping all the benefits that continue to trickle down from it, socially and economically.
I would go so far as to say as citizens who continues to benefit from the after effects of this, we as Christians would do well to humble ourselves and to apologize in a personal and corporate sense to the people we have wronged and our brothers and sisters have wronged and who we have wronged by ignoring the reality and injustice others face as a result of this.
And as followers of Christ, I dare say, that we owe people much more than an apology.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Brad
I want to say I’m really sorry that you got scared away from JaC! I hope I won’t be loftily overpositivizing things if I say that things don’t generally get as crazy as they did in that thread. I would totally be open to your feedback on ideas you may have for how we might have handled the thread better to keep the conversation … less scary =). Feel free to email me–It’s Benjamin DOT Ady AT gmail.com.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Historical, communal, cultural identity is indeed all throughout scripture. But what do I do with that?
On the one extreme you have isolationist individualism that just basically says “too bad for you” to people who were hurt by someone else and lacks empathy, compassion and a sense of sorrow for the sin in the world. I don’t see anyone here arguing for that.
On the other extreme, as members corporately of the human race we are all guilty for every sin committed by the entire human race and should simultaneously apologize for and repent of all the ills committed on both sides of every conflict, for every rape, every abuse, every murder, etc. We are all brothers and sisters, after all so every ill that was ever done was committed by a member of my “family.” That’s the logical extension of communal/corporate guilt and in a sense, I think it’s true. But I don’t think it means we need to issue an apology for everything any human ever did to another, to every group that was ever wronged by another group. The question of “when is an apology the appropriate response, as opposed to simply showing empathy, compassion and mercy?” still remains.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I think it is difficult for someone in power (religiously, economically, racially, gender) to say that it doesn’t matter to those who have been hurt whether or not you apologize or not. In fact to say that to apologize to such people would lessen the strength of apologies in general is a huge insult. It makes a huge difference to those who have been hurt. Unless we want to throw out the notion of forgivness and apology altogether, such an argument really doesn’t hold water.
There are a lot of times when my toddler doesn’t feel like apologizing to others, (and when I honestly don’t feel like she should “have to”), but I know that is the only thing that will heal a situation and teach her how to place others before herself. If she didn’t apologize she would be called a spoiled brat. Why would I insist on instill the value of social apology for her and let adults get away with “it’s not my fault, I don’t wanna, so I don’t have to” excuses in this regard?
Like I said before though - most of us actually are responsible for the past and continued evils of Christianity (and other things). Playing semantics games over “what is an apology” really doesn’t matter if we would get over our pride an admit to our involvement in these systems of injustice. The point is not to be consumed with guilt, but to stop insulting those who are hurt with our arrogance and to get to work doing what we can to make things right. If we are not willing to be responsible for our actions and lifestyles, why would we bother to ever help make things better?
May 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I agree David. I think that as long as we are still enmeshed in and benefit from a system that currently oppresses others or is built upon former oppression, regardless of whether we ourselves are directly contributing to that oppression, then we bear some responsibility and it is appropriate for us to apologize to those negatively affected by this system.
I still benefit from the fruits of slavery and racial inequalities. I still benefit from patriarchy. I still benefit from American economic and military imperialism. I still benefit from the remnants of Christendom. Thus, even if I try not to directly contribute to these evils, it is not inappropriate for me to still apologize for them as one who participates in and benefits from the system based on them.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Thanks, Benjamin. I guess I didn’t get scared away, as much as I decided I didn’t want to be shot at. I don’t get scared easily, and I rarely get offended. I just didn’t see that there was much chance of having a dialog with the person in question. So, I chose not too. Which may or may not have been the right thing to do.
I just didn’t want to fight.
Brad
May 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
hello, it’s your friendly neighborhood promoter of jerks for Jesus. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I think the person who said one can sympathize but wouldn’t cross the line into taking personal responsibility said it best. You seem to think I am some pompous jerk. It is not my place to share my husbands story but I can bet that he suffered more at the hands of people who purported to be Christians than a good size chunk of people whining about how nasty the church is. He has had many compassionate people sympathize with him. they did not, however, take responsibility for something someone clean across the country did. Perhaps it is the fuzzy theology typical of the emerging movement that enables people to be oblivious of these fine distinctions. I do not have an attitude of “tough on you”. I also do not feel that I have to stand up and apologize. Let me share an instance where I have been “blamed” for my “groups” actions. My husband grew up with a lot of very dysfunctional, bossy and (dare I say it)ball busting women. I have had to take the brunt of some of it. As long as i would sit there and work extra extra hard to prove I “wasn’t like them”, it was almost like agreeing with him that all women have this tendency to be manipulative, castrating bitches like those in his family of origin. One day i had enough and said there was nothing I could do to make up for it and I have always rejected attitudes like those those women held and i was sick and tired of making up for something someone else did simply because we both happened to have vaginas. Something changed that day. One can say “sorry that happened to you” and validate that yes, it is out there without feeling the need to take responsibility for it. I do not feel I need to take responsibility for bad Christianity. I have made a few bits of bad judgment here and there, but have sought out by and large healthy environments. One pastor I do remember was a particular turd to my husband about some petty appearance matter. I don’t feel the need to apologize to unbelievers about this person. If someone shared a similiar story, I could validate that yes, this happens and it sucks, but I don’t feel I need to apologize for Pastor X with control issues.
And yes, I do think affirmative action sucks. You don’t erase years of maltreatment by simply flip flopping it. You see this with women who instead of raising up women find it neccessary to demonize men to raise themselves up.
It is like the parent who feels guilty about their divorce, addiction (plug in your favorite parental misbehavior)now that they have made some changes. So instead of striving for the healthy person they should have been in the first place, they now try to “make it up” to the kid by being extra permissive. They do not really do the kid any favors, they give them an attitude of victimhood and entitlement instead of really encouraging skills that would encourage moving on. Human nature being what it is, we all enjoy strumming that victim card. So shoot me if it really tweaks me that more qualified white candidates get turned down while less capable minority ones get in strictly because of their race. So much for colorblindness. Expend that energy to making minorities more competitive, not simply lowering the standard. Personally, I wouldn’t feel very good about myself if I knew that, in effect, people felt sorry for me and didn’t hold me to the same standard they held nonminority candidates. People are no longer chosen on their merits but to fulfil quotas. how wrong is that? Years ago when I was an undergraduate and thinking about being a vet, we all used to joke that being Mexican(hey, it was California) would up our odds considerably. We used to joke about trying to find some distant Mexican relative we could bring in so we could check that box and instantly, effortlessly raise our chances of admittance into a very competitive post graduate program. Giving people reasons to resent minorities isn’t going to improve race relations. Backlash anyone?
Any institution any of us has been a part of has been colored by sin. Its part of the fall. Every time you go out and buy something for freakin sake there is a taint of sin. Just breathing and eating and pooping pollute the planet. Its all part of the fallen world we live in. I grew up in a very “socially responsible” household. As an adult, I couldn’t do anything without paralyzing guilt because just about everything I did seemed to be “taking something from someone else” or feeding into something. I couldn’t take a badly needed vacation because i was paralyzed with guilt that people across the world lived in poverty. Some of it does help to give one perspective when they are whining about the grocery clerk scowling at them to remember what other people live with. But it is a myth that we are personally responsible for their suffering.A lot of the reasons that people in other countries suffer is NOT because of the US but because of their own corrupt government. Some of it is us, especially in years of late where we outsource our industry. Which doesn’t just hurt the third world countries btw: it hurts Americans that can’t get a job now. But a lot of the starvation and stuff is not our fault; it is the corrupt and (dare I say it) most UNCHRISTIAN politics of their national leaders that cause these people to suffer, not us in the good ole US of A. I try and make the best decisions i can now, avoid the obvious stuff. Take responsiblity for MYSELF. and not anyone else.
So enjoy carving this up and feeling better about yourselves because of it.
You have no idea how much I do to make the world a better place. I just don’t feel the need to brag about it to the world.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Liz
If you’re promoting jerks for Jesus, why not include a link to their web site?
May 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Liz, just some friendly advice: An occasional double carriage return can be a wonderful thing.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
You have no idea how much I do to make the world a better place. I just don’t feel the need to brag about it to the world.
How ’bout making the blogosphere a better sphere?
How many sites have you been asked to leave, Liz? How many blogs do you wander into, throw mud around and then leave, all in the name of truth, justice and being a messenger for Jesus?
Have you thought about starting your own blog? Then you can say whatever you want as much as you want and you can be the one asking people to leave who offend you.
Manners, Liz, they’re called manners. And you need to learn some.
Seriously. How many blogs have you been 86′ed from? A half dozen? A dozen? Does it give you a thrill to rile people up? Is it a badge of honor for you? Are you suffering for Jesus as you bash your brothers and sisters from blog to blog to blog?
You remind me of someone at a church I was once a part of. She intimidated people with her temper and abrasive manner. People were afraid of triggering her and getting a tongue lashing. Many people steered clear of her. She didn’t have many friends. But she had a lot of bible under her belt and could outpray anyone in the room. She was Super Christian, and she was also super mean.
Eventually the leadership had to do what no leadership wanted to do. They had to ask her to leave and find a church where she could be peaceful and content. Because I knew these pastors I knew how it pained them to show her the door. I knew firsthand that they wished her well. Go in peace…
Maybe you need to go in peace, Liz. Go find that online community where you can be content and peaceful. Clearly it’s not with us.
Go make the blogsphere a better sphere.
Go in peace…
May 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
well actually i have only been asked to leave emerging blogs. But thats because they hate the truth. I am not sure that I have really been all that nasty. Its just that I don’t kiss the butts of the emerging types who want peace at any price. I have never been asked to leave a church. But maybe thats because I pick doctrinally solid churches. Perhaps that says quite a bit. The only offensive thing in the the liberal/emerging puddle brain is the dreaded sin of “intolerance”. I notice that other people like Chuck Colson etc who dare call you people on your theological error also get namecalled etc. I refuse to “play nice” and say lets all just have a big group hug. Scripture says the antiChrist will come saying “peace at any price”. After reading some of the trash on these various blogs, I believe it.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
So because we want to apologize to victims of oppression, we’re the Anti-Christ. Sounds doctrinally solid to me.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Liz, you are indeed the most righteous.
Don’t let the back door hit ya where good Lord split ya.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I don’t recall that verse. Reference please?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
gee Sonja…what ever happened to “turn the other cheek”? I guess it only counts when you are dealing with bin laden. You people get very nasty when someone violates your ultimate value of “tolerance”. you reveal your hypocrisy. You do not “turn the other cheek” to Christians who don’t buy your “emerging” crap. But hey..bomb the US…and we’ll looooove on you.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Oh … goody … Liz is talking to me now
I must be important.
Why don’t you drop the lawyerly craptastic attitude that isn’t exactly Christ-like yourself? Model what you’re asking of us?
Go be holy all by yourself … clearly we’re not good enough for you.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Liz wrote: I am not sure that I have really been all that nasty.
Calling someone an asshole and the stupidest person you’ve ever met - I think that’s nasty. Do you remember doing that?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Well this conversation was effectively ended. Liz, I would be interested in a dialogue. And while I respect your right to disagree with me, to call me and my friends names, and to tell us we are all evil and wrong - that isn’t conducive to dialogue. If you are willing to talk through these issues you are by all means invited to continue commenting. But you standing on your soapbox preaching at us isn’t what this blog is about.
I don’t remove dissenting opinions here on this blog. I have once removed a highly insulting slur and a few sexual threats. I do not censor opinions or ideas although I may disagree, I am not afraid of truth. But I do ask for respect. You can mock the idea of tolerance all you want, but there are a lot of people out there who are able to discuss and debate while still managing to be civil and loving towards their neighbor. You and all others are invited to participate in such ways as well.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am
There is no doubt a place for collective apologies for past wrongs we inherit through our ancestors (biological or spiritual). This need be, however, just the first step toward full repentence, which involves replacing toxic relationships with healthy ones.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:43 am
funny, people like Benjamin have no problem calling anyone who disagrees adamantly with his little state of victimhood the same names. Yet you all feel sorry for him when he does that. I guess it only “counts” when it is against you all…because of course you are above reproach. Unless of course it is taking blame for stuff you didn’t even do.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
No Julie. I don’t want to dialogue with you. You scare me. You truly do. People like you are such do gooders you lose track of common sense.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Liz, despite what you say I’ve never seen Benjamin call a commenter on his blog or a commenter or blogger on another one an asshole or the stupidest person he’s ever met.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am
no, he referred to people in various newsitems and various people in the christian world as “assholes”. Apparently its an appropriate expression of outrage on HIS part. Of course by and large his posters are of one mind with him. Most people who happen on stuff like that move on if they disagree. Something that perhaps I should ask myself why I don’t do. I will say this: peeking in on all this “emerging” stuff has firmed up my faith and what I believe and most definitely got me off the fence on some stuff that I had on the back burner So I guess, its all good. Even if the conclusions I reached may not be ones of which Benjamin and his ilk would approve of.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Benjamin and his ilk
May 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
oops. I accidentally posted before I was done. I wanted to say:
made me smile hugely. I never thought of myself as having an ilk. Very kewl.
Liz–I wonder if you are into … schadenfreude?
Because I occasionally am.
What I find is that my experience of schadenfreude happens … away from me. That is, I can’t really enjoy the scadenfreude when the person is in the same room. Then I start feeling some empathy toward them, and the schadenfreude is ruined. So I have to experience it at a distance. For instance, I experienced some schadenfreude when Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fellow hunter in 2006–not about the fellow hunter’s suffering, but about Dick’s suffering. But I rather suspect that if I had been *part* of the hunting party, I wouldn’t have been able to experience that schadenfreude.
I find the internet can create that kind of distance–the distance to be able to experience schadenfreude. Does it do that for you? I guess what I mean to say is–Do you say “You asshole” and “You’re the stupidest person I ever met” and so forth to people who are physically in your presence? Because while I have on occasion, for instance (but not in their e-presence) called someone an asshole or a bitch on the internet (and by the way, as my wife has occassionally reminded me, the former is for guys, and the latter is for gals, and it’s somehow important not to get them mixed up.), I never do that to people’s actual faces. It’s just unkind. I’m only able to do it when they are far enough removed/anonymous enough so that I’m fairly confident they won’t experience any pain from my words.
I’m just curious because I believe you when you say you’ve never been kicked out of a church. So do you go hang out with emergent types in Idaho, and call them nasty names and be generally disagreeable to their faces?
Wouldn’t that be a bit silly?
Something here keeps drawing you back to this subsphere of the blogosphere. What is it that attracts you? Is it your own sense of repulsion. Like Data, the android on Star Trek, who having received an emotion chip and finally able to experience emotion, found the … very intesity of his own disgust, an emotion he had not experienced before, caused him to repeat the action that had caused the disgust. Is it like that for you?
My sense has been that you are disgusted with my ilk. You yourself have used the word “sickened”. It’s curious to me. When other people make me sick, I don’t hang out with them. But you do, at least in an e-sense. Why is that?
I think my ilk doesn’t enjoy your sense of disgust. I mean to say that beyond not hanging out with people who disgust me, I tend not to hang out with people who are disgusted by me. Their discomfort makes me uncomfortable. Am I making sense?
(BTW–see how the double carriage return makes it so much more readable?)
May 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Not that I’m thrilled about entering the fray, but I was thinking…
Perhaps the irony here is that we, as people of faith, should be standing up for the faith of and yet apologizing for the hurts inflicted by our fellow members of the body of Christ…including people like Liz.
I’m not trying to sound patronizing, Liz, though I feel certain that I will be accused of it. I honestly think that you are my fellow sister in Christ, and that the most loving thing I can do is both claim you as said sister in Christ, and also apologize to those who might stumble based on the hurtful things that have been said. This I do in an effort to show the world that we as Christians are not about hurt but rather about healing. Because since we are both people of faith, I bear the weight of what people think of Christianity based on how you conduct yourself, and you (whether you like it or not) bear the weight of what people think of Christianity based on how I conduct myself.
We as the body of Christ all reflect upon each other, and so we have to lift up one another’s joys and bear one another’s burdens. Which, to me, also means being willing to apologize for the misdeeds of members of this body.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Well said, Melissa.
Which is why it is curious that if a certain group of people bring the ugly out in me I need to avoid that group of people if possible. This is why I don’t travel in anti-emerging church sites, those sites that accuse people like me and my friends of being dangerous in our ideas of church, faith and Christian spirituality.
So I think Benjamin asks Liz some fair questions about why she continues to engage with people who clearly bring out the ugly in her? What is the point?
(And Ben, I think you were very articulate about Liz’s accusation about how you could use strong language towards others, but she could not against you. This is an important point. Obviously we all vent and rant about people who have pushed our buttons. But most of us most of the time would never use profanity or resort to name calling and put-downs with people we are directly talking to. You pointed this out very well…)
Yes, Melissa, we need to be committed to avoid infighting with one another. I think most people in the four blogs that Liz has brought her strong presence into have mostly responded to her with patience and respected her dissenting opinion. On my own blog I had to delete some of her comments because they were bringing the ugly out in me. I do not want to go off on her. She is, at the end of the day and when the arguing is over, she is as you point out Melissa, my sister.
Families fight. Families make-up. And sometimes families have to establish healthy boundaries with members of the family who are, um, difficult. Boundaries are a good thing.
That’s the way I see it…
May 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The first was funny–never heard it before. The second was … *very* funny. Love the double entendre. =p
May 10th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
so, um, what you are saying then is that it is better to talk behind people’s backs then to their face really. I find it much more sinful to viciously put down others out of their presence (really doesn’t the Bible call this GOSSIP?) than to directly tell someone they are just out in left field? I also looked up Benjamin’s big word: schehera whatever. Pleasure in someone else’s misfortune, eh? I don’t think I ever stooped to this in print here. Though apparently Benjamin has no problem being spiteful like this and thinks that because the objects of his spite are below contempt that it is quite a good thing, virtuous even, to enjoy their misery. I cannot say, in all truthfulness that I haven’t, in recent history, caught myself THINKING..”well serves them right” or felt vindicated…but I stop myself before it even escapes me in any form, oral or written and I pray for that person’s misfortune. Even if I think someone brought something on themselves and hope they learn from it…I don’t enjoy watching them suffer. I find Benjamin to be one of the most repugnant people I have encountered in a long time for a variety of reasons, yet I can honestly say I feel for him going through what he is going through with his mother right now. Even assholes have feelings. Even assholes love their mothers and feel pain when things like this happen. I am not relishing his pain. I suspect that Benjamin would rather enjoy it if someone who he thought to be a total idiot had a dying relative. That says a lot about him. And its not good.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
It is rather interesting that in your efforts to avoid what you see as the sins of the modern church, that you yourselves have become sinful. Gossiping. Slander. (Mark Driscoll anyone?) Pride. Intellectual smugness. All of which, last time I checked my Bible, were things that God takes quite seriously. It does in fact come across as if you think traditional evangelical churches have failed quite miserably at all the things that concern you. Those that are biblical, I am not at all sure that you are correct. You can just feel the pride oozing out of most of these blogs.
Good question why I feel the need to discuss this. Its sort of like trying to argue with a drunk or an addict. They know what they want and nothing, no reason, no nothing, is going to change their minds. Don’t confuse them with the truth. Don’t confuse them with reality. Maybe I need to look at this. Not why I hold the views I do, but why I would think that “I” could change anyone’s mind when far far greater folks in the Christian world have not only failed but only brought slander upon their heads for trying.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Liz,
Would it be reasonable for me to deduce that at lease one of the following is true?:
1. You don’t consider it a misfortune to be repeatedly called “asshole” to your face.
2. You didn’t get any pleasure out of repeatedly saying “asshole” to me?
Because if they are both false, then it seems to me that it would reasonably follow that you had some schadenfreude going on.
BTW. here’s wiki on masochism: “Masochism refers to sexual or non-sexual gratification in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon oneself.”
If we go with the non-sexual part, then is it safe to say that masochism is kind of like self-directed schadenfreude? I mean very loosely. Pleasure in our own disgust? Kind of like a dog that licks up it’s own vomit.
I see myself in you a little bit, Liz. When I exited the sect in which I grew up, for a number of years after that I used to occasionally send letters to the pastor. I didn’t keep copies, and I can’t remember what they said exactly, but I believe the general tone was in the same vein as the tone which you have taken here and on other blogs on which we’ve interacted recently.
I realized after a while that I was seeking something from him which he would never be able to provide, and in the process I was hurting both of us. So I stopped.
I think it was probably somewhat of a relief to him when I stopped. =).
Of course he could have just chosen to round file my letters, as they always had my name and return address clearly written on the outside. But from what I understand, he never did that. Of course he never wrote back either.
I think it would have been smarter for him to just round file them. But as Agent Smith said, “Human beings define their reality through misery and suffering.”
Although I guess Tal Ben-Shahar would disagree with Agent Smith . And I guess they’d both be right. (How very postmodern of me.)
May 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Actually I have (had) a (former)friend who is just like Liz. This friend –I’ll call her Jan– Jan is also always correct, filled with truth, right and righteous. Everyone else does not know how to behave … but Jan does. Jan knows the correct Christian response in any given situation. She knows it and can tell you what so-and-so should have done, down to the last jot and tittle in extremely critical language, just like Liz here. In fact, when I first began reading Liz I suspected that she might be Jan because the language was so similar. But the life details are too different.
Eventually, I had to draw some fairly stiff boundaries around my life which do not include Jan because she is a bully.
There are those of you who have had far more interaction with Liz than I have. But from my limited perspective, I would suspect that she is NOT a sister in Christ. But a bully masquerading as one so that she can find a fresh batch of victims where ever she goes. The strongest evidence I have for this is her total lack of regard for the apologies she has been offered. She is a white-washed tomb. A pharisee of the worst sort.
Do not waste any more of your precious time and energy on her. You all have better things to do.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Liz, do you realize what happens when you post negative comments about one person in particular (in this case it seems to be Benjamin)?
As soon as Benjamin’s friends find out they rally around him. They tell him not to listen to you, that he is awesome (and they aren’t just saying this, they mean it).
So the more you complain about him, the more affirmation he gets from other people.
Anyway, Happy Mother’s Day if you’re a Mom - and the same to the other Moms here - Julie, Pam and Melissa, Sonja and Kristen if you’re Moms too. In fact Happy Mother’s Day even if you aren’t. My ex-church honors all women on Mother’s Day which I think is a great idea.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:18 am
no, I am not critical about stuff. If you knew me, you would know how wrong you are. However, you would like to think that anyone whose mind is not so open their brains are falling out comes in for all the name calling. Any opinion is welcome EXCEPT those who are firm in their theology. Every jot and tittle eh? If you knew the discussions I have been part of in real life with people who DO think they have the end times figured out, Calvin/Wesley etc where I have just shrugged and told them that stuff makes my brain hurt and really, God doesn’t care. I don’t care what kind of car you drive, what clothes you wear, where you buy them. I don’t care if you love animals or not as long as you don’t abuse them. I don’t care what kind of music you like (unlike some folks I grew up around who measured someones worth by if they liked such and such a band or would immediately discard someone who liked cheesy music) I DO care about the quality of people’s character and I really have no time for people who want to lie, cheat and steal their way through life.
I find it MOST interesting that for having been accused of being a pharisee you seem a far more pharisaical lot. You all are always picking at other people’s Christianity, judgeing whether they are “really” Christians or not. Julie here got VERY huffy when a poster stated that perhaps she should accept her friends don’t have the same opinions. Instead it was me, me, me. “I” need to be accepted for my opinions. “I” want other people to be like me and I am frustated that they aren’t. Methinks there is quite a bit of projection going on here Sonja.
As for Benjamin: a true friend is someone who tells you the truth, not one who coddles you and enables you. If these are the people that Benjamin has sought out, then it is to HIS detrement. Again: don’t confuse me with what I don’t want to hear. Good day.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
If Benjamins “friends” are those who think its dandy that he feeds trashpicked perishable foods to his small children, then that is a really bad definition of friend.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
actually Sonja: I bopped on over to your blog. I think you are exactly like your former friend Jan. You just have different opinions. Therefore, it is justifiable for you (because your opinions are right) and not for her (because hers are obviously wrong). This is the typical liberal drivel.(I should know, I grew up around an extreme form of it) All this talk about open mindedness and “tolerance” but of course there is PLENTY of intolerance among them. A lot of snickering about those who don’t “get it” like they do. But of course, because they are right..it is OK. I sort of cringe when people make fun of others they think are wrong. I found some “anti emerging church ” posters on the internet last night and while I have to admit they were right on and I was somewhat amused, I am not sure making fun of people goes anywhere. I would imagine even if I kept my mouth shut, you would make fun of my taste in music, my taste in fabric (yes I am a quilter, no I don’t have stuff entered in fairs, I just make pathetic little homemade jobs that the recipient usually loves but will win no awards). I wouldn’t even have to say a peep and you would probably be making fun of me, at least in your head. I know your kind. Just because you are such a saver of the world, you think you are above reproach and you mock anyone who doesn’t share your idealist views. This is part of why I walked away from the way I grew up. I was surrounded by people who would jump to save some poor black kid but who apparently didn’t care that there was a hurting family member right under their nose. They laughed about the hurting family member while patting themselves on the back about what fantastic people they were because they were going to save the world. This probably says more about the pervasiveness of the sin nature rather than at does anything else. It is only as an older adult that I am relooking at some stuff. But with far less idealistic eyes. we should do good, not because we are going to save the world; its doomed. But because Jesus wants us to help INDIVIDUALS. His statement that “the poor will always be with you” seems contradicted by commands to help the poor. I think he was saying even though you may help individuals and change individuals, you will never eradicate evil from the world because its built into a fallen world. This is why I would rather spend my time with individual people, helping those only as God leads me instead of engaging in delusions that I am the next best thing to save to world. I see a lot of pride there Sonja at the same time you are accusing me of being “prideful” and “pharisaical” because I stand firm on scripture and don’t play fast and loose to twist it around to how I think it should be. I trust God enough to think He knows more than me and I wrestle with this stuff in the context of scripture rather than figuring the translaters must have been misogynists or whatever because what is written there doesn’t seem to jive with what my very human mind can think. Newsflash Sonja: church leadership is NOT about power grabs. It is about SERVENTHOOD. The person (of whatever gender) who thinks that using their gifts is about forcing their way into the most visible position of leadership has got it ALL wrong in Gods kingdom. In God’s kingdom, the person who stays a few minutes after the service to put away some chairs, who anonymously brings in some goodies, who looks for people having a hard day and gives them a hug. Those are the true servants. Not the people who feel they are so gifted and talented that the church must simply acknowledge that fact by promoting them. That is the world, not the kingdom of God. watching the agonizing some of the people I know who are truly called (”please Lord, let this cup pass from me”) and how different it is from worldly ambition, I have come to realize someone who is truly called by God is doing this out of obedience, not because they feel they must be “validated”. If they feel they have to be “validated” then really its coming from them and not from God. I read your pitiful gender squealings Sonja and all I could do was shake my head and say you just don’t get it. I left the Episcopal church because it had all come down to power grabs and all these issues and was no longer about God. Sad, because I liked the liturgy. But that’s the flesh. Being allowed to do everything anyone else does doesn’t mean you are “equal”> There are things kids can’t do that adults do. That doesn’t mean kids are less than to God. I think you have a lot more “figured out” than you accuse me of doing. That is the irony.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Word.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
by the way Sonja: beautiful work on your quilt website. I would be caving into a lack of humility if I was not honest and said that your work is incredible. I also am a hockey fan and I am impressed about your kids and their hockey adventures (although i am not sure I would agree with the whole gender thing…my son plays park and rec soccer and some of the same BS goes on..I don’t think gender has anything to do with it. I have heard the same gunk from parents whose kids are in children’s theatre….a non gender specific activity if ever there was one….and I used to show horses as a kid…oh the politics…oh the melodrama…as our pastor is fond of saying where there are people, there are mouths and where there are mouths there is trouble waiting to happen)
Lastly…and you may be really surprised by this, I am in the process of figuring out what to do with my teen daughter. She just graduated from an awesome Christian school that honors creativity. She is in the public HS now and to say it is not doing it for her would be an understatment. YOu may be shocked by this, but I am intrigued by unschooling. Maybe modified unschooling…more like a friend of mine who homeschooled her kids said: passion driven learning. Kid centered but with the parents setting some structure and direction but motivated by the kids own desires. So you see Sonja…you can’t just put me into the little box and decide that I must be a certain way simply because I am very firm about what I believe scripture to be firm on.
And as for Benjamin…I still stand by initial impressions from his blog that he is immature and lacking the grace towards others that he feels was not extended to him. And at least online, he seems to evade every hard question by turning it into a joke. what is he going to do when he has a client in the hotseat that turns the hard questions in therapy into a joke? As a therapist in training, he should know that humor is a very common way people evade things that they don’t want to deal with. I find his pompousness very offputting. I find his public namecalling and mockery of people in the Christian world that he ‘hates” as pretty much hypocritically practicing the very things he claims to despise. I have seen a lot of this in my brief foray into the emerging church. It is enough to make one want to flee into the ultra reformed church. (although i go to a nondenomination saddleback type place)
May 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
In God’s kingdom, the person who stays a few minutes after the service to put away some chairs, who anonymously brings in some goodies, who looks for people having a hard day and gives them a hug. Those are the true servants. Not the people who feel they are so gifted and talented that the church must simply acknowledge that fact by promoting them.
I agree.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Liz - are you having fun yet? Does this sort of interaction make you feel good about yourself?
What is it exactly that you want from us? I really am confused as to why you keep dumping your issues here. Do you just need space to vent? Or do you really harbor some deep hatred? Is there something you would like to discuss?
I’m not sure how to interact with you. You show up at my house, dominate the conversation and tell me that you have no interest in actually talking to me. How is it exactly that you are expecting me to respond?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
um…Julie..I believe you lifted my words from another blog. That is what drew me over here. I sort of wanted to see the bigger picture of who thought that I was just such an ogre.I was looking at emerging stuff because I read a few things online. SOME (not all..but some) resonated with some stuff I myself have thought. But the more I read online..the more my mouth hung open. I mean, how much can you jettison and still be a Christian? Is just being a “good person” and gluing Jesus onto your philosophy enough? Benjamin in particular truly rubbed me the wrong way. On multiple levels. Maybe the reality is that people just need space to work through stuff. I know that was the case with my husband. But somewhere along the line I had to draw a line in the sand (even if it was only in my head) about just how much was “opinion” and how much was undebatable truth. I probably come across like I never miss an opportunity to cram the truth down someones throat. That is not the case. A lot of people are like that and it doesn’t have the effect they hope it does. That I agree with with the emergents. But what I find disturbing is that even with the confines of their own minds, it appears to me that a lot of people who are in positions to lead others really think it is “mean” to take a stand on truth on their own convictions. I believe if you are really firm on where you stand, even if you don’t spell it out, it comes across in a million different ways. A lot of the “emergent conversation” is feeling to me very much like relativism. Not looking at where people are coming from and meeting them there. Not knowing when to shut up and listen instead of preach. But relativism even within their own inner belief system. I suppose I should realize that a really good chunk of people here have had major snafus with churches and have either left or been asked to leave. And maybe they are still in the phase of trying to “get back’ in some way instead of handling it in a Christlike fashion. It is interesting Julie, both you and Sonja, I have found a lot of points of common ground with you two. That doesn’t mean though that I would rethink stuff I firmly believe to be true just because maybe I can maybe see why someone would react that way. I do believe that scripture teaches (and I think Sonja is AT LEAST as guilty of this as I am. And Benjamin. Note I did not include others.) to not be ugly and vicious to people you believe are wrong. But that also doesn’t mean caving into lies just to not be accused of being “mean”. That is really manipulative when you get down to it: putting people in a position of having to agree with you or risk being labeled “mean” or “bigots”.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I respect Ben and think well of him and his lovely family whom I’ve had the pleasure of spending time with. Their warm hospitality and generosity blessed me deeply.
To see his name slandered publicly by someone who has never even met him is outrageous and messed up.
This woman is out of control…
May 12th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Pam
grin.
At least I’m not running for office =).
You’re totally kewl.
I can ride my bike with no handlebars. no handlebars. no handlebars.
We killed 20 little children in Iraq last month–you and I. One of them, a two year, was named Ali. He was gorgeous–the way that only two years olds can be. He was an early walker. He could already recite one verse from the Koran. We bombed his house twice about 2 weeks ago (It’ll be two weeks on Tuesday). One of us just flew a plane over and pushed a button and bombed it. And a bit later the other one of us flew over again, during the middle of the rescue opeartions, and pushed a button, and bombed it again. We killed 30 people–including most of Ali’s family.
I think we should apologize. I’m not a Christian, but I definitely think we should apologize. ‘Cause we acted like assholes.
What do you think? I think we’re out of control. Have been for a while now. (I’m thinking 5 million dead in Vietnam in the 60’s and 70’s, another at least 1 million dead civilians in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador in the 80’s, and at least a million dead civilians in Iraq in the 00’s).
Let’s find some way to effectively apologize. In the “I’m sorry” sense.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Oh, Liz … I haven’t been ugly and vicious. I’ve been forthright and called a spade, a spade. But … I haven’t used any scatalogical language. I haven’t demeaned anyone’s character. I’ve simply called out bad attitudes and actions. Sometimes that’s painful for those who are acting badly. I’m very comfortable with who I am and what I’ve said here.
You might want to google the term “relational aggression,” and pay particular attention to how the aggressor behaves when you’re reading up on that.
Beyond that … I’m done with this conversation.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Read this
May 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
thank you sonja. That was helpful. =)
May 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
[…] reminded me of a recent post by Julie Clawson in which she asks “Should Christians apologize (for the behavior/words of other […]
May 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
so its perfectly Ok to call someone a “nitwit” as long as the shoe is on the right foot. I have to wonder Sonja, if your “ex church” business went down like you claim. I love how people leave churches in a snit because they have authority issues and then cry “abuse” It really is demeaning to people who truly have been abused, such as kids who were molested by priests. I just have this feeling that you are one of these whiners who got into a snit when things didn’t go their way.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
you know what Sonja…I said something real nice to you, complimented you on your quilts and all and you just call me names. You really are a piece of work.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
well gee Sonja..I googled “relational aggression” It doesn’t really fit me. However, if you are such an apologizer, I would think you would want to apologize to me for any way in which you might have contributed. Or does that only apply to countries that hate the US that you figure “must” have had a good reason to hate us or they wouldn’t have hit the twin towers. If I recall..you were nasty first.
And I thought you emerging types LIKED bad language. makes for a more “authentic” spiritual experience if you pepper it with the word f***. Or is that only when it suits you. I believe telling me to not let the door hit me in the rear wasn’t terribly Christian, Miss Sonja..so YOU owe me an apology. The mea culpa first must only count if you are an enemy of the US. Not in everyday personal interactions.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
i want to ask you something Benjamin. This is a serious question. What would you do if some guy broke into your apartment and meant harm to your wife and kids. lets also, hypothetically say, since i am sure you would not own a gun, and usually it is stupid for people to try and “play hero” against a criminal. But lets just say that you study martial arts and have reached a high enough belt rank that you know, in theory, you could totally and completely put this guy out. lets conveniently ignore the fact that martial arts also teach to use no more force than neccessary and assume that for whatever reason, you know that you will have to use enough force to seriously injure or possibly kill this guy. What do you do? Do you let him kill, rape and God knows what all else your wife and daughters? Or do you counterattack and hope for the best? I really want to know the answer to this. I am not going to talk back to you because I think the answer to this is going to settle some stuff for me in my mind. I just really want to know.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Liz,
Because of your immense unkindness toward me, as well as your ongoing lack of response to my own questions, I’m not going to respond to the horrific and traumatic hypothetical you pose. But here’s a reciprocal hypothetical for you. This is a serious question.
What would you do if a group of highly placed powerful people in the U.S. government arrested the person you loved most in all the universe, and tortured and mocked him or her over the course of about 12 hours, and then crucified him or her naked on the mall on Washington D.C., and left him or her there to die the torturous death of the victim of crucifixion, and you had the power to stop them, and more than just stop them–you had the power to unexist them?
What if you could trade some specific amount of your own suffering for the guarantee of an end to all suffering? How much would you be willing to trade? What sort of security would you want on the guarantee?
I know I wouldn’t be willing to trade very much at all. How do I know this? I know this by taking a wee peek into the amount of suffering I could currently alleviate by making a few simple changes, which I generally fail to make. My history seems to indicate that I’m unwilling to make many changes until I grow to love myself or another enough that my or their pain becomes more horrible than the pain of making the change. Which in a sense makes me very much part of the human race.
Aslan says “No one is allowed to no what ‘would have happened’”
And Corrie Ten Boom’s father says “When do I give you the train ticket, Corrie?” to which she replies “Just before we board the train, daddy”. Which in a sense means noone is allowed to know what *will* happen, nor even what they *will* do. We can of course dream about what we would do. I wonder if Corrie occasionally wished she could have crushed with mighty power the evil unkind guards who oversaw her time in Auschwitz? I bet she did. But I bet she didn’t go with that. I bet she was glad when the thought retreated, to come and attack again at a later time. I wonder if some part of her reveled in the trial and execution of Adolf Eichmann in 1962? I rather suspect that some part of her did, and that she realized that this part of her was not the best part of her, and fought it. Of course that is all speculation.
Is there some third way, or must be choose be either the victim or the perp? Some wise person said to me, the last time I asked that question online, that the truth is we are constantly doing both.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I don’t really get the relevance of this question Benjamin? But I will answer anyway: no question if it was my kids or my husband or my closest friends. Honestly, I don’t know I would do it for a stranger or someone I disliked. But thats the difference between God and I. At least I am honest. I have actually gone through a lot of years of emotional hell for those I love. I don’t really care to share my story, but I have faced it, not physical harm but much emotional pain. The wellbeing of those I loved was more important than my emotional pain. I have been courageous, I have done the right thing. You really don’t know how you would respond until it comes on you. It was all god. my strength came from him. I chose to do the right thing and god gave me strength and did it through me. Thats all I will say. And yes, if it meant killing someone else to protect my child or my husband I certainly would hope I could do it. What then would be the greater evil: watch my loved one die or kill some scumbag? No question there. I can’t say I wouldn’t be a chicken because I am far from the bravest person in the world but at least I hope that is what I would do.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Julie,
I’m coming to this conversation a little late. I read your post via Thom Stark’s fine little blog. Anyway, I was wondering what is your role in the church? I agree entirely with your overall point. We as Christians ought to be the first to apologize and repent for the sins of our past. It does bother me, however, that you seem to refer to Christianity wholesale as “toxic.” If it wasn’t for the “toxic” faith of the church in history then we wouldn’t have any semblance of what it means to follow Jesus. We literally wouldn’t be able to do it. So, I guess I’m questioning the severity of your criticism against the church. I welcome a response and for you to check out my blog where I’ll be starting a similar thread on race and reconciliation.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Hey Tyler–welcome to the conversation. You ask reasonable questions =)
I’m wondering if you can elaborate a little on this theme? Would you say that Jesus was “toxic” in the sense in which Julie is using the word? Or the early (book of Acts) church was toxic in that sense? Or are you talking post Constantine? Or are you saying that since the only way we could *receive* Christianity as transmitted through people over 2000 years is through toxic people, since people are in their nature toxic?
Or am I totally misunderstanding you altogether?
‘Cause it seems kind of circular to say “Well, we wouldn’t be humans if we weren’t toxic, therefore we shouldn’t criticize ourselves too harshly for being toxic.” Although there is a certain truth to that. Overzealous self-criticism is hardly any more productive than overzealous other-criticism, I suppose. Progress not perfection–is that what you’re saying?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Tyler–by the way–and I realize this is way off topic–but I see you are reading watership down. Isn’t it just magical? It’s one of my all time favorites =).