The morning after Barack Obama was elected to a second term, I posted this status update on Facebook:
"This is not a 'sad day for Christian Americans,' or 'the beginning of the end.' It is also not necessary to say 'so-called' when referring to Christians who voted for Obama. I have seen all three of these (and more) in Facebook posts last night and this morning. The arrogance of believing that nobody can be a Christian unless they believe exactly what you believe is appalling!"
This status update received 19 "likes," making it (I think) the most "likes" I have ever received for a Facebook post. I don't know exactly how many of those 19 identify as Christian, but I do know that several of them do. I think it is safe to assume that all 19 of those that liked it (including the Christians among them) understood exactly what I meant when I posted it. They understood that I was saying, quite simply, that Christianity should not be considered "closed off" to people who have a different political viewpoint from your own.
My Mormon friends know all too well the feeling of being told that you are not a "real" Christian. I certainly knew the feeling when I was active in the Mormon Church. We were told that we didn't believe in the same God as the real Christians, and that the "Mormon Jesus" was different from the real Jesus. I haven't been active in the Mormon Church for a long time (about 13 years), but the feeling of others trying to take Christianity away from me remains. The truth is that nobody has the right or the power to take Christianity away from someone else. And as I said in my post, I think it is appalling when people think they do have that power. I think nine out of ten people who read that post understood that to be my point.
But then there's always that "one."
One person chose to attack me for saying that Christians should be more accepting of people with different political viewpoints. He said it was in "poor taste" of me "to attack Christians after what was a very emotional loss." He also accused me of name-calling, and in a private message, he said that I was the one who lacked tolerance. After he said those things, I re-read my post several times to try to figure out how it could have been construed as attacking Christians.
I have been thinking about it for several days, and the only thing that comes to mind is that maybe it actually is his belief that, between the two major candidates, Romney was the "real" Christian, and that anyone who voted for Obama lacked Christian principles. After all, he did accuse me of "attack[ing] Christians after . . . a very emotional loss." In other words, Romney's loss was a loss for Christians. I guess it either doesn't matter that Obama is also a Christian, or he just thinks Obama is lying about his faith. If I am interpreting his comments correctly, then I guess I can see how my statement that it is wrong for Christians to exclude people could be taken as an attack on Christianity. If you believe that people should be excluded from Christianity because of political beliefs, then you would also likely read my post as an attack on Christians. If I am not interpreting his comments correctly (and I'm sure he will call me out on it if I'm not), I have absolutely no idea how they could be taken that way.
Although I don't discuss it much, I think I should note that I also identify as a Christian. Specifically, I identify as Episcopalian, as I have for about eight months now. So accusing me of attacking Christians is essentially accusing me of attacking myself. I do not believe that Christianity itself is intolerant. I do believe that many Christians are, and that is what I find unfortunate.
I like your comments much more this go around, but I really can't let you mischaracterize what I said. The core of my message was NOT to defend the truth of those statements made by those Christians of whom you complained. I, too believe that people in good conscience of all faiths can find a home in either political party. I don't think Christ would align himself with either and would probably be disgusted with both. I really think we agree on this point.
ReplyDeleteRather, my complaint was what I perceived to be an insensitivity on your part in kicking these people when they were down, and I, by the way, was also down and still am. Felt to me like you were piling on. People say things when they're upset, and I felt it would have been more gracious on your part to have just let it go, and it probably would have been better for me to have done the same.
What I think you're missing here is that toleration itself is not an acceptable more for many. In the eyes of some believers, to tolerate is to compromise their own beliefs. That's what makes them "fundamentalists," and you will find them in every major religion, from Judaism, to Christianity and Islam. You are making the classic "many roads lead to the top" argument, which a "fundamentalist" of any faith would probably deny. It is clear you believe that, but many Christians do not.
What I was trying to say is that by attacking these people for expressing their own fundamentalist belief, you, too, were being just as judgmental as they were. You weren't merely expressing your opinion about their position, you called them names, I believe you called them "arrogant" and "appalling." I wanted to try to let you see that they were just as entitled to believe Romney was the only moral choice as you were to believe he was not. You were igniting a flame war among Christians who were Democrats and those who were Republicans, as evidenced by the "likes" you received, which interestingly also included your pastor, who, in my opinion should know better.
We ought to do a better job of sticking together. So many of us are hurting and struggling in many different ways, and who are we going to turn to on this earth if not each other? I once heard a pastor say that one fundamental truth about the Christian Army is that they tend to shoot their own wounded. There's some real truth in that, and for my part I'm going to try not to shoot our wounded bretheren, and I'd challenge you to do the same.
Two quick things, and then I'll probably leave this alone.
DeleteFirst, I still don't think I was name-calling. There is a big difference between expressing a feeling about a person's actions, and attaching a label to that person as a whole. I think what I did clearly represented the former.
Second, I also don't believe I was igniting a flame war between Democratic and Republican Christians. Two of the people who liked my post attended CLA at the same time I did (and one still might). Another attends an Assembly of God church in Texas. I know several other people who liked it are Republicans, though I don't know their religious affiliations.