I am a Unitarian Universalist, and we consider ourselves the most tolerant of faiths. In the 19th century Universalist churches were known for opening their doors to dissenters of all varieties, and our modern-day UU churches have continued to provide space for those who cannot find a welcome mat elsewhere: atheists and agnostics, religious humanists, political dissidents. We UUs see ourselves as "broadminded," and so tend to say things like, "There is truth in every religious tradition. We respect all religious beliefs." In one of our services, you might hear a reading from the Bible, but just as likely from the Quran, Black Elk, Lao-tse or Starhawk. However, in spite of our long history and tradition of tolerance, I am finding myself increasingly intolerant -- specifically, of the theology and practice of many evangelical Christians.
I say this with some real sorrow, and some measure of guilt. I was brought up Southern Baptist, and the church nurtured me and cared for me as I grew up without a mother in a small town in North Louisiana. I owe that church a lot. Some of my relatives remain in fundamentalist-evangelical churches. A professor at a local conservative evangelical seminary has reached out to me in friendship and has asked me several times to speak to his World Religions class. He published my response to one of his essays in a recent book on Christology. He is a good man. He wants his students to know that our world is multi-cultural and to understand and respect the different faiths and ethnic groups they will encounter in the real world, outside the seminary. He and I have had long theological conversations over coffee, and because of his progressive beliefs about environmental issues, I suggested him as a speaker at our UU national conference a few years ago, where he was well received.
The last time my friend asked me to speak, however, I refused. I find myself in the strange position of being a liberal who is closed, in relationship with a theologically conservative evangelical who is open. I'm having to ask myself why.
I thought about my visits with his students over the past few years. To me, a seminary is a place where students open themselves to new ideas, where they question received beliefs. Seminary changes people who attend, sometimes radically. When I visited my friend's class, I did not try to convince students that Unitarian Universalism was the faith they should adopt -- I just gave a review of our history and tradition. But as I have tried to explain to my friend, during those visits I always felt like "an insect under glass." The students were unfailingly polite. They smiled. They were not confrontative in the least. The closest comment that came to confrontation was the honest, halting expression of one young woman who closed out the discussion by saying, "I just wish ... I just wish ... you believed ... more like I do." I could see that she was concerned for me, maybe concerned even for my soul, which she no doubt thought would be burning in hell upon my demise. Each time I visited, I went away depressed and discouraged. I wanted curiosity, passionate discussion, even a reasoned rejection. Instead, the students put up a glass shield I couldn't penetrate.
But my classroom experience is not the only reason I have lost tolerance for this brand of Christianity. Conservative evangelical Christians are sure that they are right about so much, but from my vantage point, much of what they believe is unloving and in fact destructive. I'm thinking about my two nephews. One is a handsome, talented, funny, warm human being who happens to be gay. His older brother is also handsome and talented, but he is a jock sports star and business man -- and in his case, a conservative Christian who lives in the Deep South. The older brother will not speak to his younger brother, nor allow his four children to see their uncle, presumably because they might be adversely influenced. The brothers' alienation is deeply hurtful to my sister, the boys' mother. The older brother's attitudes are culturally influenced in a region that is profoundly, fervently conservative, both socially and theologically.
Of even more concern is the preponderance of hate crimes being committed against gays and other minorities. There were 6,628 hate crimes reported in 2010 (the last year data was available), 47 percent race-related; 20 percent religion; 19 percent sexual orientation; 13 percent ethnicity or national origin. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 1,018 active hate groups were operating in the United States in 2011, a 60 percent increase since 2000.
Is it fair to blame these crimes on conservative Christianity? Not directly. No doubt, the great majority of people who commit hate crimes would not call themselves Christians of any variety. Indeed, conservative Christians typically say that although they may disagree with the sexual orientation or religion of another, they "hate the sin and love the sinner." In fact, they may go so far as to say that they themselves are "sinners saved by grace." However, I would maintain that these Christians, almost all of whom condemn gays for loving differently, support and perpetuate the milieu in which hate crimes take place. They contribute immensely to the cultural ground out of which prejudice grows and flourishes.
Ministers, respected authority figures in conservative evangelical churches and related institutions all over the country, are preaching their theology of singularity. To be sure, some evangelicals, such as my friend the seminary professor, are encouraging their people to be more like Jesus in terms of social justice and to be more protective of God's green earth. These "new evangelicals" are a growing subset of evangelicals who are changing the religious conversation in conservative circles.
But my friend is a theological conservative, and so far as I know, all conservative evangelicals believe there is but one way to salvation: through faith in Jesus as your personal savior. That stance turns everyone else into an infidel. An unbeliever. A moral pervert. A sinner doomed by God to everlasting punishment. So if these "others" are offending God by their sins and are on their way to hell, what covert permission is being given to those inclined to act violently on their prejudices?
Oppression could be thought of as on a continuum, with one end of that continuum being genocide and the other being more "acceptable" forms, like jokes making fun of minorities, women and gays. Somewhere in the middle is the silence, the refusal to speak out against prejudice, of which Martin Luther King said the following: "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy ... was not the strident clamor of the bad people but the appalling silence of the good people."
All religious traditions are not equal. Some beliefs foster freedom, growth and a deepening of compassion. Others are rigid and exclusive, warning of eternal punishment for those who don't believe in the one true path to salvation, as they see it, or for those who love someone of the same sex. For the personal support the church of my childhood gave me, I remain thankful. I'm sure many conservative evangelicals today feel similar gratitude for their community. But for the damage that conservative Christianity does to people and for its perpetuation of prejudice and hate, I must reject this tradition. I believe those who teach it and preach it are doing great harm, and I in no way wish to be an ally.
Marilyn is the subject of a documentary film, "Raw Faith," now available on Netflix.
Follow Marilyn Sewell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarilynSewell
I don't like oppression, exclusion, bigotry or racism and I have no tolerance for them. To me, these are things that should never be tolerated. I believe in Jesus' teachings but it does seem to me that most churches don't practice those teachings; instead they hate anyone that doesn't think like they do. I think that, like Jesus, a truly loving person doesn't tolerate other people being hated, judged or condemned. Jesus accepted the outcasts of society and chose those as his friends. This isn't what I've found in most churches.
Unitarian Universalism is going backwards is various ways too, and not for the good things. . .
For just one example of such U*U degeneracy, earlier today I took the opportunity to once again remind UUA President Peter Morales of his negligent and effectively complicit (non)response to my clergy misconduct complaint against a certain Unitarian Universalist who insultingly characterized ALL Republicans as "a whole bunch of really mean people" who "DO suck".
Summary: I (Marilyn Sewell) am tolerant of all religions, except conservative evangelical Christianity, and this saddens me deeply. But, I feel their intolerance does not merit any tolerance.
These evangelicals are outsiders to this land and culture. Always remember that.
You use the word, babies, when referring to abortion. I use the word, fetus, since it is an act of murd_r to kill a baby. A fetus is incapable of living outside the womb, and is therefore not a baby. A baby, on the otherhand, is incapable of living IN the womb, and is therefore not a fetus.
I sometimes wonder at the rationale of the right. "Thou shalt not kill." There is no caveat in that commandment. There are no options available. The Commandment is simple to understand - four unequivocal words. Killing is a violation of the law - pure and simple! And at the time when the commandment was being put forward, abortion was commonplace, and remained so for nearly three thousand years.
Yet, in order to justify one's philosophies, some would advance the killing of a medical practitioner who aborts a fetus as a legitimate exercise of one's religious interpretation, i.e. kill one for the sake of another. That is inconsistent with the Biblical teachings. Yet conservatives have no problem with this dichotomy.
Is it liberal rationale to conclude that that is equivalent to talking out of both sides of one's mouth?
Why have you sacrificed principals and family to adhere to outworn laws of two thousand years ago? You mistakenly superimpose onto the Modern Age antiquated conventions of the emerging culture of man 100 generations past -- a painful anachronism now unnecessarily shouldered by the innocent.
I left you thinking you would take the love I shared with you to share with ALL people. Instead, you take a book of paper and ink, aged, disputed, and altered over time, and you make that book more important than LOVE itself. You deny rights to loving couples, and judge and punish them for being what God made them to be.
You single out God’s children, harmless and unsuspecting, and prevent them from enjoying friendships and comradery. You bully others into such desperation, they take their own lives. You defy reason, intuition, and emotion. You withhold love from your own child, to pray the gay away. You chant dogma that contradicts human nature, though you, too, see the injustice and humiliation you now promote. And all this you do in the name of God!
You travel a muddy road downhill in the dark.
I light a different path to a place where people treat others the way they themselves want to be treated… the place where LOVE resides. See the light ahead? Follow me.”
Genesis 3:21 ¶ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
And because of Adam's sin that broken fellowship with God has been passed down throughout all the ages since Adam to all mankind. And now we stand on the edge of eternity with a decision to make; to accept the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins, or reject the sacrifice that God made for us
John 1:29 ¶ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world
So to answer your question, "Where do you think this doctrine of atonement--this violent, bloody doctrine--came from?" It came from God, of course. And yes, it was violent and bloody. God forgive us.
Organized religion in the USA have gotten out of hand and main reason for this is our government encourage religion by not taxing them and forcing those of us who have to pay taxes to subsidizes religions. They also encourage them by giving them federal funding for their faith-based initiatives.
Tax exemptions for religions and tax deductible donations to religions, are unconstitutional because they encourage religion. The government is suppose be neutral towards religions.
The constitution is 100% secular without a SINGLE reference to god, Jesus, or the bible.. it created a secular government while guaranteeing religious freedom to believe in ANY god, or no god at all the constitution mentions 'religion' exactly 3 times.. ALL with the word "no' in front of it.
Freedom from religion.
Biblical Christianity is truly the "thinking man's" religion.
that god exist, based on empirical or verifiable or tangible evidence, that’s
because there is no clear and objective evidence that would indicate the existence
of god or gods. The only possibly conclusion a clear thinking rational person
could draw is that all gods are myths that was created by theist who simply
made up these gods.
It’s irrational to believe in myths. As for Christianity, Christianity
has proven by its history that it’s a vile and hateful religion. Christianity
is responsible for the torture and death of millions of people and it has supported
tyrants and tyranny all throughout its history. Christianity continues to try
and suppress and deny individuals rights it involves its self in government and
politics which is unconstitutional.
So run along now and don’t forget to take your silly dead Christian
myth Jesus on the stick with you.