More than loaves and fishes, more than water into wine, more than healing the sick, or feeding the poor, or forgiveness for sin, Christianity in America is becoming associated with hate.
The other day, we featured the video of a guy who declares Cheerios to be “the treat of the homosexuals”, setting a box of Cheerios on fire with a propane torch.
The video is great, because the torcher is a goober in a pink shirt whose act of zealotry seems to be met with a near-instant response from nature—or Karma, God, whatever—a gust of hot midwestern wind that quickly sets the lawn of GM’s headquarters on fire. In an accidental moment of cinematic genius, The Cheerios Torcher flees the scene, commanding his comrades to hurry up and get in the car.
The video quickly went globally viral, and in response, evangelical Christian blogger Fred Clark perfectly summed up the reasons why The Cheerios Torcher is a symbol of how evangelicals are viewed in modern society. In a blog on Slactivist, Clark notes that most people assumed The Cheerios Torcher to be an evangelical preacher, or at the very least a Christian, though nowhere on this video is it stated that he is. Clark explains:
So why did everyone assume that this man was an evangelical Christian?
Because he’s anti-gay.
More specifically, because he’s disproportionately concerned with being anti-gay and he’s choosing to express that concern in a goofy, obnoxious and destructive way.
Clark continues with a plea to evangelicals, and Christians in general:
Please let that sink in. Please contemplate what that means for the witness of evangelical Christians in America in 2012. Please consider what that means for the reputation of the church.
That’s three “pleases” there, because I am begging — I am begging my brothers and sisters, my fellow evangelicals here in America, to step back and think about how we got to this sorry state of affairs.
That video? This is who we are now in the eyes of the world. And they are not wrong to see us this way.
And, as Clark points out, “Everyone was right” about The Cheerios Torcher being an evangelical.
If you are a Christian, it is time for you to speak out against the intolerance and bigotry coming out of your community. It is time for you to stand up for your neighbors and declare that this is not to be done in your name. It is up to us to put a face of love, acceptance and equality onto Christianity.
This is a call, folks, from a respected man within your community, begging you to see that more than loaves and fishes, more than water into wine, more than healing the sick, or feeding the poor, or forgiveness for sins, Christianity in America is becoming associated with hate.
Read Setting the World on Fire for Jesus by by Fred Clark
Also read 10 Things I Wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality by Jim Rigby
About Joanna Schroeder
I have for quite a while now struggled with this issue. Having grown up in a church that was decidedly narrow-minded and bigoted, it took a long time to tune out those old voices and “be my own man,” Christianity-wise. I have for several years now belonged to a church that is welcoming. When people ask what religion (i.e. denomination) I am, I merely say, “I am a Christian” (and unfortunately not a very good one at that. I am a sinner, saved by grace. On matters such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. I merely know what the Bible states; on a personal level, it is NOT not my place to either condemn or condone their behavior. Trust me, with my track record, I’ve got no business judging ANYONE. Unfortunately there remain those among us who would put themselves in a position to do just that. “Christian: means “Christ-like.” The ones who are acting in a manner to come across as judgmental and superior are not acting as Christ would.Jesus came and associated with prostitutes, tax collectors (the IRS of His day ) theives, lepers, and sinners of all sorts. And He forgave them, It’s unfortunate that the main image of “Christianity” seems to be the lunatic fringe, the Westboro Ch–ch (I won’t dignify their name) coming most readily to mind. Trust me, there are (still) plenty of bigots, hypocrites, etc. But the majority of us try to quietly go about the Lord’s business of feeding the hungry, medical missions, charitable work, and preaching the message. Christ died for ALL and no one is beyond redemption. That’s the position I (and true Christian everywhere) strive to take every day. If that’s intolerant, I don’t know what we could say or do to convince people otherwise
Was Jesus tolerant of those guys changing money in the Temple courtyard? Christianity, like other religions, prescribes a moral code, which the disciple is supposed to follow. “It is only through me that you shall be saved”, Jesus says, not through someone else’s teachings.
It is one thing to say that a secular civil society requires a peaceful co-existence between people of differing faiths and opinions, but the assertion that Christ requires tolerance of any and all behavior is just unbiblical. I think the phrase is: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”.
I see that phrase get thrown around a lot, Anon, but I’ve yet to observe an adequate execution of it, which leads me to treat it as a trite platitude that “Christians” like to throw around to justify their intolerance without ever demonstrating the semantic MEANING of the phrase.
What does “loving a sinner+hating a sin” entail? If you’re already making a values judgement on another person’s behavior, then you’ve assumed a position of moral or ethical authority in regards to the actions or decisions of another implicitly; you’ve already decided that YOU know what is right and wrong, and that this other party either: doesn’t know right from wrong, or; knows and disregards. Both of these assumptions carry insultingly arrogant implications towards a being whom the Bible impels you to treat as an equal: the first that the “sinning party” exists in some state of moral or ethical infancy and thus has no good standing to exert agency (“amoral sinner”); the second that the “sinning party” should (or does) know better, but chooses “sin” for some incomprehensible reason (“immoral sinner”) and needs to be “corrected”.
My bone of contention is the assumption or assignment of “sin” in the first place, as many “Christians” enjoy naming something of which they have poor understanding (my sexuality) as “sinful”. You cannot consider an attribute that is inherent to my person as “sinful” unless you believe in a predetermined and limited salvation, like Calvinists and the WBC (that is, you are born with a soul that is destined from birth either for salvation or eternal damnation; free will is considered a non-issue). If you believe in God and believe that he created humanity with free will to make our own moral decisions, the belief that an intrinsic trait (like sexuality or handedness or hair color or skin color) is inherently sinful is simultaneously silly and mildly offensive to this alleged-supreme being’s power and insight. Then again, “Christians” oftentimes don’t seem to understand that attraction, much like favoring your left hand, having red hair, or having dark skin, isn’t a matter of choice but of biological processes. Any other attitude is high-handed and puts queer people in an presumed, baseless position of moral inferiority.
Furthermore, a person who is constantly obsessing over the sins of others would be better served by directing their criticisms internally and their charity externally.
Yes. Yes, it is.
It’s about time at least one Christian stood up and said.. “Wait… What are we doing here? This isn’t what Christianity stands for.” It is so much easier to hate than to accept or tolerate.
Greg,
There’s a very similar parallel to the supposed “lack” of outrage amongst the Muslim community after the September 11 attacks. What saddened me, however, was that citizens were clamoring for a “moderate” voice. In both instances, we should make a clear delineation: in this case, this man does NOT represent the tenets of Christianity — so to label him as an “extreme” Christian means that there is some thread that connects my beliefs with his. I imagine your friendly neighborhood Muslim would say the same of the frustration they experience with being even remotely linked with an organization like Al-Qaeda.
Ideally, Christians wouldn’t have to distance themselves from a gentleman like this. However, because he’s decided to throw a couple of “in Jesus name”s and Bible verses into his rant, the burden of responsibility suddenly shifts to the blindsided Christian community. It’s this lack of critical observation in the name of blame-shifting that is a far greater stain on society than the ills these extremists decry.
Is anyone actually paying attention to the innumerable moderate voices out there, or are people merely publicizing the crazy voices that fit their narrative?
Alastair, unfortunately not many are listening to those moderate (read: sane, rational,etc.) voices. Let’s face it. Normal doesn’t sell ads. Sane and rational don’t get ratings. Like the old saying: “if it bleeds, it leads.” If it’s loud, in-your-face and divisive, it gets attention. It’s a shame, but for the foreseeable future, that’s how it’s going to be.
The recently published article about the Westboro Baptists by a Sociologist of Religion on this site explains what you’re asking perfectly.
As I understand it, it’s not that the crazy voices fit their narrative, it’s that the narrative is formed, or at least heavily impacted, by the most extreme examples of any given position.
It is interesting that evangelicals are supposedly exemplified by such as the goofy Cheerios burner, while liberals are not smeared by the excesses of the mostly-peaceful OWS.
Not an accident.
Some time back after a serious earthquake in Mexico, the Baptist emergency response was detailed someplace. Interesting. Astonishing. Got no freakin’ ink anywhere. Not astonishing.
Bad joke where I live: If Brother Bob’s house is damaged in a storm, the guys from the church–conservative–show up Saturday with their pickup trucks, compressors, table saws, miter saws, PVC, drills and wrenches and generators, forests’ worth of plywood and boards. They stand in a circle, arms over each others’ shoulders and pray that they can get Brother Bob’s house fixed up right, that nobody gets hurt in the process, and that it be for the glory of Jesus’ name.
The Piskies show up with candles and hold a vigil.
Bad, as I say. Problem is, the former are considered NASCAR-loving bigots and the latter amongst the Elect of Liberal Land. And, as it happens, Brother Bob’s co-congregants will show up for anybody’s house. Seen it happen, although, fortunately, I wasn’t needing it.
Alastair. I hear you. Moderation is like kissing your sister. (Actually that would generate more interest than a passive Christian.) Crazyness is far more attention grabbing than people just going about doing random acts of kindness.
Good stuff to think about. Great comments, everyone.
I think, like many ideas/concepts/and even words in our society, Chritianity has been co-opted by those interested in their own personal gain or gain of their particular group. Think “moral majority”. Combating such co-opting requires a lot of work, pro-activeness, and involvement. I also wonder if we have reached the point of no return…. That Christianity will now always be seen as a religion of white intolerant reactionary men?
The nature of the church in the developing world says that this point of no return has not been reached, but Christianity in America is definitely in dire straits. i reminded the people I lead in a Bible study group of Matthew 7:5 and Amos 4:4-5 regarding all this recent, show madness from so many people.
Okay, the Christians have to step up and let people know that it’s not the norm and that the ones that are shown on TV don’t represent the majority. So when are the rest going to listen to us? We can talk until we’re blue in the face yet people don’t want to accept what we say.
If I hear “I’m a recovering Catholic” one more time, I’m gonna puke. People don’t want to hear the “truth” about many of these religious organizations. The truth being that they are compassionate and open. Yup, there sure are some idiots out there but they don’t represent the majority. It’s funny how so man will not accept generalization of people but will jump in line to generalize Christians.
I don’t think there has been a time where I’ve posted and noted my belief is based on my faith, that someone hasn’t challenged it. “It” being either my faith or my belief.
How many times does a Christian have to defend himself or his faith? How many times does a Christian have to explain that the nut cases don’t represent the majority?
Joanna, THANK YOU for writing this. I hope that it opens up some honest dialogue.
Sorry, but their meddling in political activity alone precludes the notion that they’re “compassionate and open.” Instead of whining about how mean people are to Christians, maybe it’s time for Christians to school themselves and start speaking out against those whom they claim “don’t represent the majority,” every evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
I’m a recovering Catholic.
Just kidding. I went to Catholic schools too long to step on that particular land mine. Maybe Catholics in your area behave differently, but a surprising number that I’ve met, quite possibly the majority of them, are generally reprehensible human beings. I might be more open if it weren’t for the whole “sweep sex abuse of children under the rug and encourage suicide in the GLBT student population” thing.
You certainly don’t have to defend your faith. In fact, I’d rather not hear it. I’ve spent a good amount of time studying modern Evangelicals academically, and my head of department in college wrote her PhD dissertation on Evangelical megachurches. Academically those guys are fascinating, but I find the MAJORITY socially and morally deficient. Maybe your congregation is different.
As for me, my beliefs are generally presented through actions and not words, and in everyday life I tend to be treated with respect and dignity. I think people appreciate being shown how to live by christian principles more than they appreciate being told how to live by christian doctrine.
What are you asking Christians to do?
Because if I compare this to the tweet sent out by @sikhknowledge:
I will not distinguish my self from a muslim because I won’t abandon any one person as a target in the face of racist attitudes. Im a person
Which you posted in your article, I figured you agreed that Sikhs, Muslims, and people of all faiths are individual people who should not be acted against or judged on the basis of their brothers and sisters in faith. That just because one dork in an untucked button-down sets the General Mills’ lawn on fire with Cheerios and stupidity is an evangelical Christian, that I should have scorn for every individual who lets me know (or who I even suspect) is an evangelical. The Good Men Project includes bloggers (I am thinking of Christian Piatt in particular) who are thoughtful, loving, nonjudgmental Christians. I’ve talked to others who work for the GMP about faith, and we don’t all share the same religion, but we are good to one another and we help each other out. That’s what we’re supposed to do, whether it’s because the bible tells you so, or some other source.
Huge difference if you ask me. First, Christians are so by far the powerful majority in the US and the west in general. If we were talking about Christians having to “prove something” in Egypt, ti’d be a totally different conversation.
The fact is, anti LGBT sentiment is largely, if not essentially entirely, wrapped up in Biblical-based foundations. Racism was this deep, multi-system discrimination based upon class, religion, economics, and a very noticeable physical distinction. Anti-gay sentiment comes straight from one place – the Bible (in the West).
Being as the overwhelming powerful masses in the US are Christians, and we’re the oppressing majority, it is our responsibility to show the change within us. This simply doesn’t equivocate here. It isn’t one dork in a button-down shirt. This is the ruling class. This is the political minority. This is the foundation of many well-funded lobbying firms.
There are a HUGE number of amazing Christians. But because shitheads like Pat Robertson or Westboro (which isn’t even a real church) or this guy or Dan Cathy have big voices and big money, they represent Christians. The ones like my cousin Ann, who is a minister at a church in Brooklyn that feeds thousands of hungry people every week, are too busy serving the poor to do stupid stunts like this guy.
However, Christianity is in need of a PR overhaul, and it is capable of doing so. First, by declaring that equality IS a Christian value.
I think that we should recognize such ‘will you distinguish/dissociate yourself from such persons/beliefs/behaviours/etc.?’ challenges for what they really are: loaded questions, designed to underwrite the prejudices of the person who asks them. Asking Christians to distinguish themselves in such a manner is akin to expecting every woman to prove that she is not an irrational and hysterical creature, every black kid that he is not a petty criminal (if such a kid wears a hoodie, he is obviously asking for it…), every man that he is not a rapist, every Muslim that he is not a terrorist, or every immigrant that he or she isn’t just seeking to abuse and take advantage of our welfare system. The real question that we should be asking is why people hold such ugly stereotypes in the first place. Why is the action of some isolated crazy guy halfway across the world supposed to be representative of me? Why do so many seem to have a vested interest in believing that it is?
Seeking to dissociate ourselves in response to such inquiries is the wrong approach. I, for one, was never associated in the first place, so I have no intention of dissociating myself from a person with whom my only connection exists solely in the fevered imaginations of some paranoid individuals, who want to believe the worst of those who disagree with them. We need rather to expose and to tackle the loadedness of the question and push the question back on the inquirer: why did they choose to allow such a stereotype to develop in the first place?
Apples and oranges.
Individual women do not belong and share the belief systems of group WOMAN.
Individual blacks do not share the beliefs of group BLACK.
Individual feminists (North America) should share the belief systems of NOW, and if they do not, they should not be calling themselves feminists. This is the same nonsensical argument some feminists make when you point out the negatives of their politic – big tent, small tent, tent for rent.
If you are an Evangelical Christian then you should hold the belief of the group you belong to and one of those beliefs is that homosexuality is immoral. If you don’t believe it is immoral but still want to call yourself an Evangelical Christian, then this is nothing but semantics if the canon of the group does not change.
Christianity is becoming associated with hate. Easy. Those who seek to discredit Christianity accuse Christianity of hate in the hopes that Christians, seeking to avoid the charge, will cave on their beliefs.
It’s a vile, despicable tactic. As I’ve said elsewhere, though, it’s losing it’s effectiveness and those who still use it have apparently not gotten the memo for progressives, “Accusations that make the accused laugh at us.”
If Christianity is exemplified by, say, the Cheerios burner, it would follow logically that liberalism should be exemplified by the “mostly peaceful” OWS. In fact, liberalism is exemplified by the OWS, as in liberals have not bothered to distance themselves.
Goose. Gander.
Uh…then stop trying to cram your beliefs down the rest of our throats?
My neighborhood’s got a fair number of evangelicals. And they’re nice as pie until you refuse for the 823,525th time to come to church with them. I guess that’s the magic number, then they disappear. Before that, though, they’re incredibly intrusive, swarming all over your own religion in some mistaken belief that you want to share and commune in Jesus with them (doesn’t everyone?). The things that fall out of their mouths are breathtaking, and the “live and let live” module appears to be permanently broken.
I used to wonder why the atheism in this part of the country was so wild-eyed and unpleasant and tiresome and — well — kinda dumb. I get it now. These people are cult escapees. This isn’t considered, philosophical atheism, it’s reaction to abuse and something better suited to therapy.
It’s a cult, plain and simple, and have never seen more messed-up kids than the ones who come out of their households. I’m not usually afraid of kids, but you can imagine a disproportionate number of these ones sauntering off alone somewhere to torment frogs. Urgh. To be fair, my own religion has its zealots, too, and they’re just as bad.
Sarahj. Hyperbole is so much fun, don’t you think? I live in an area where the evangelicals–we’ll leave the exact brand secret–are distinguished solely by the facility with which they smile.
Other than that, nobody’s bothered me in the two and a half years I’ve lived here and the forty years I’ve been visiting here.
The cooperation among the various churches–one is so inclusive they took down the cross and people stopped coming, lesson there, I guess–in civic activities would hurt the head of a person who thinks evangelicals can’t abide RC and the Unitarians can’t abide the trinitarians and that the Baptists are always throwing water on people. And that church-league softball features sharpened spikes.
I’m related to a bunch of teachers, different states and systems and grades and SES. Your “imagine” such kids being messed up didn’t seem to happen where my kin are. Funny.
I’ve worked various youth groups over the years. A disproportionate number of non-messed up kids come from Christian homes.
Richard, the fact that you’ve had a nice experience with Evangelicals “where [your] kin are,” or that “nobody’s bothered [you] in the two and a half years [you've] lived here” means nothing whatsoever in the larger scheme of things. Every once in awhile, people like you could benefit enormously from just listening and reading, and not assuming that you have all the “real” answers to everyone else’s “hyperbole.”
Curious about my vehemence on the subject?
This is my hometown: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/09/man-with-bible-threatens-to-rape-woman-during-gay-day-in-michigan/#.UCP25HvbSWQ.facebook
Richard, I report what I see. At this point if I find out that an acquaintance is evangelical, I have exits planned for when the conversation shifts to religion, because it’s gonna go there. I’ve also learned to be closedmouthed around them about my own religion, because no, I don’t want them coming to church with me. I don’t mind other friends of different denominations coming, but they’re just curious and respectful. They’re not on some creepy Borglike mission to digest the church, which is precisely the vibe I get from the evangelicals. I get the impression that they’re told to get others hooked in a social obligation: I came to your church, you have to come to mine. I don’t open the door to the Mormon duos anymore, either, because there’s no way to be polite and neighborly about getting rid of them. Anything you say can and will be used to convert you. But I guess it makes sense: they’re not there as themselves, they’re there as part of some army of God.
Church attendance is really the least of it, though. On a policy level I wish they’d leave the rest of us the hell alone. Nobody’s forcing them into same-sex marriages, or to have abortions, or to take contraceptives, or to be agnostic or atheist, or etc. But apparently nobody else should have these choices available, either, because their beliefs should be imposed on everyone else.
Joanna, for sure. We don’t have local bands of rape-threateners, but we do have people turn out with hateful and ugly signs at gay pride events, and the women’s clinic had a police cordon for many years because of violent “Christian” misogynists threatening women who went in, as well as the women who worked there.
The “leave others alone, don’t force your religious values on them” part is key, though.
One persons hatefull intolerance is another persons foundational belief. Until Christians come out enthusiastically supporting on demand abortion they will continue to be painted as narrow minded hate filled bigots by a large very vocal well connected minority.
That’s just one issue among many where that standard gets applied. Not to saw that there aren’t real circumstances of hypocracy bigotry and hate but most of those charges are actually the result of a desire to shame Christians into accepting the worlds standards, one thing they are very specifically warned against.
That ceases to become a valid defence the nanosecond the Christian rejection of “the world’s standards” becomes them trying to force other people to live their way. Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t marry someone of the same sex. Think Muslims are “of the Devil?” Don’t be a Muslim. But don’t try to legally or politically force the rest of the world backwards with you.
The fact that the man had a Twitter channel with more than a dozen evangelical rants would have indicated to most people that he was an Evangelical Christian.
I report what I see. Good enough for you, good enough for me. Neither exemplifies Christianity, according to someone else.
Back in 1970, my brother, an Air Force navigator, was killed overseas. Many years, decades, later, my father told me they’d gotten taunting calls from peace activists.
Do these subhuman slime exemplify the peace movement?
Wouldn’t happen today. Caller ID.
Thankfully freedom of speech is still permitted here so no defense is necessary. The freedom to not listen is also protected.
There have been guys in rags on the edge of town ranting about Odins rage, Ra’s wrath, or the
disappointment of Apollo since humans first clustered huts together. Now they have YouTube channels.
Opposing views use these lunatics to try and smear, shame, and silence messages they don’t agree with.
Hey now, Rick. I oppose the modern day prophets, but I don’t have to use them to smear or shame anyone. They do it all on their own. If anything, I think it’s the responsibility of the group the radical minority is claiming to be a part of to clean their own houses out.
As to some earlier discussion points… in my town, I’d say a disproportionate number of dysfunctional children come out of extremist christian households. If I was from a different area, they might be extremist Muslims or extremist Jews, but around here the garden variety of crazy is Christianity. Not saying all Christians are crazy, but there sure are some pretty hilarious or sad examples, depending on your point of view.
The emphasis on Christianity here might cause some folks to lose sight of the actual point: A religious group is defined by the actions of some of its adherents.
I understand it’s okay to do this to Christians, and to conservative Jews.
Has it occurred to you that people not in a cocoon might apply the same logic to Muslims?
How many Americans have Christians killed in the last decade, in the name of Christ? Last two decades?
None of the nutjob shootings in the past, say, ten years were preceded by calls to Jesus on the part of the shooter(s).
So, as the saying goes, are you sure you want to go there?
You may decide not to.