Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

Menu
  • Home
  • About Julie
  • About onehandclapping
  • Writings
  • Contact
Menu

Month: May 2008

Should Christians Apologize?

Posted on May 8, 2008July 10, 2025

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.

Read more

Religion Fit for Public Consumption

Posted on May 7, 2008July 10, 2025

I was reading about the history of Christianity in America the other day and I came across an interesting phrase. The author was addressing the ongoing need in our nation for there to exist “a religion fit for public consumption.” Such a religion of course serves not only to unify people but to create decent and compliant citizens. In essence it exists as both the opiate of the masses and the backbone of the country. It is something the Founding Fathers saw as a necessary element in creating a society even if they imagined themselves above participating.

I was struck at how tied to such a religion we Americans tend to be. This is a religion that dovetails with our lives as they already are. It shores up our economic systems, promotes civic duty and pride, and never attempts to challenge the status quo. It meets basic spiritual needs, helps create healthy social networks, and helps promote moral systems. Such a religion is safe, fit for public consumption, FDA Approved so to speak.

So it is no wonder that religious movements that challenge the civic system are derided or labeled heretical. Instead of appropriately keeping the system running, these religious movements counter-culturally offer revolutionary challenges. They don’t support life as it already is, but offer alternatives that question the basic assumptions and values of such ways. Their leaders ask hard questions and make uncomfortable statements. These religions are less about something the public consumes and more about leading lives of transformative justice, love, and mercy. You know the sort of stuff the Bible refers to as “true religion.”

These aren’t religions that form the backbone of a nation. Anything that retains the right to question the nations will never get it’s stamp of approval. A religion that actually affects the lives of its followers in radical ways is not “a religion fit for public consumption.” It never will be. So why do I still see more churches caring about being fit for public consumption than about following true religion? How have we been so deceived into idolatry?

Read more

Thoughts on Emergent Gatherings

Posted on May 5, 2008July 10, 2025

I assume most emerging folks have heard by now that the Glorietta Emergent Gathering as it has been will no longer be occurring (more info here). It’s apparently grown too organized, too structured, too different than what it once was. Given those changes the organizers are shutting it down to make room for other sorts of gatherings/events. While I understand the rationale behind the decision, I find it a bit sad. Granted I was never part of the early days of the Gathering. As hard as I tried to make it in earlier years, I was only able to attend the past two Gatherings. So apparently all I saw was the more structured, on-ramp for the newbies sort of event. And I guess I was one of those newbies trying to find my place and my voice in this conversation. I got to hear the reminisces of the “good old days” and the complaints about how things have changed, but I also seriously appreciated what I experienced. And personally I’m going to miss that.

We are being encouraged instead to seek out local events or to put them on ourselves as alternatives to the Gathering. On one hard this is a great idea. Finding others in one’s area to meet with and provide encouragement to through things like cohorts is a wonderful thing. And having put on a few local emerging conferences, I know the value of those events as well. Those are times for like-minded people bound by geography to find each other. I’ve had fun at these events and have been blessed by the people I encounter there. Sometimes these things develop into ongoing community, sometimes they don’t. As we’ve discovered with the Chicago cohort, we have an email list of over 300 contacts, but rarely see more than a dozen at any given gathering. Often people show up once or twice, attend the big events with the big name speakers, ask to be part of the network, affirm that they aren’t crazy for asking these questions, and then never plug into community. It meets a need, often a very vital need in their faith journey, but lacks a certain something for those of us committed to the emergent community for the long haul.

While I have met some wonderful people though the local events, cohorts, and conferences, I still find that most of my emerging interactions occur online. My community is scattered across the states (and the world). There are members of this community who I have only met at the big trans-regional events like the Gathering. So while I still love the idea of and will continue to help organize regional events (yes I am think of a Texas Emerging Women gathering soon), I’m going to miss the opportunity to connect with the larger emergent family. And while the idea of a National EV Conference is appealing, I doubt it will be as open-source, fun, and inexpensive as the Gathering. I doubt we will see whole families there or have the chance to cook meals together. So I’m going to miss the family reunion/pilgrimage that was the Gathering. And I’m curious how it’s absence will affect the nature of the conversation – will it truly spark more grass-roots conversations or will everything just default towards more and more structure? In other words, how can the spirit of the Gathering be maintained without the Gathering itself actually existing?

Read more

Self Help and the Bible

Posted on May 2, 2008July 10, 2025

I have a really hard time with self-help books. I am always finding them to be either too specific or too generic. Either the book gives you a blueprint for the exact 12 things you need to do to improve whatever in your life or it gives no practical advice whatsoever. I generally find the overly specific suggestions laughable. I’m okay with lists of possible ways one can say encourage creativity in your kids – I have the freedom then to adapt what I find useful to my circumstances. But I’m not a fan of the formulaic step-by-step scripts for ensuring a compliant child or showing your husband you appreciate him. How cheezy is it to assume that all people are exactly the same and that saying a certain sequence of words will have the same effect on every child or husband? Maybe it’s my inner non-conformist emerging, but I don’t do scripts like that.

But I also equally dislike overly generic self-help books. These books present ideas that sound great – of course I want to “be a better friend” or “love my child unconditionally” – but they are lacking in specific advice for how exactly to do that. I’m sick of books that latch onto one phrase and repeat it incessantly without ever fleshing it out. I find this a lot in devotional books. They can be all about drawing closer to God, but I think they assume that if they just convince me that I need to draw closer to God (by endless repetition of that phrase) then it will magically happen. Did they ever stop to think that I would never have picked up the book if I wasn’t already looking for ways I could make that happen? That’s why I don’t “do” devotional books, I find them generally pointless. I’m Goldilocks searching for the just right balance motivational concepts and practical advice and so far it’s been hard to find.

So as I was reflecting on some of the disappointing books in this genre recently, I began to think about how this relates to some of my issues with the Bible. Often the way the Bible was presented to me fell into one of these extremes. Either it was taught in sweeping generalities (if you just believe/trust/pray everything will work out). Or it was interpreted with the addition of long lists of how exactly one should live (here are the words you can never say, the movies you can never watch, the ideas you can never question in order to be a good Christian or a Christian at all). I got sick of these interpretations. The Bible felt trivialized, it was just another bad self-help book that didn’t deliver. It felt wrong to read a single verse about the early church praying in Acts and then be told just to pray more (or be given the formula for prayer). It didn’t work for me.

It took years before I realized why this self-help spiritualization of scripture bothered me. As with most self-help books it didn’t come across as genuine or authentic. I wanted something that made sense within the context of real life, not just a mantra I could chant. So it helped once I started reading whole passages at a time from the Bible and paying attention to the historical context of the whole thing. Verses no longer mere devotional ideas, but part of a bigger picture. The church in Acts didn’t just pray, they prayed for specific things and “therefore” certain things occured in their communities. It was all authentic and meaningful within certain contexts and in relation to individual lives. To me that’s much more meaningful than slogans or lists of rules. Ideas, plus guidelines, plus examples make sense to me. That’s the type of “just right” advice I can follow and learn from. But maybe that’s just me.

Read more
  • Previous
  • 1
  • 2
Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson
[email protected]
Writer, mother, dreamer, storyteller...

Search

Archives

Categories

"Everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise." - Sylvia Plath

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2026 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes