How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts

[Buster's Uncle]

How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts
It's time we all made sure to practice what we preach
THE WEEK
By Jonathan Merritt | August 13, 2014   



Sometimes the big-hearted faithful are too quick to let their small-minded inner bully out.  (Illustration by Lauren Hansen | Images courtesy iStock)



Eight years ago, Sally Quinn founded "OnFaith," a religious blog hosted (until recently) by The Washington Post. One thing she didn't anticipate? All the nasty Christian commenters.

"I can't tell you how many people wrote in to say that I was a [prostitute] and a [promiscuous] and so much worse that I can't even write it here. And these all came from Christians," Quinn wrote in a recent article titled, "When It Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians are The Worst."

She's been told that Jesus hated her, that she had punched her ticket to hell, and that she had made a pact with the devil. One "God-fearing Christian" commenter even said he hoped that Quinn would wreck her car, explode the gas tank, and burn alive.

Having been a religion writer for nearly a decade, my experience has been similar. The same is true of many of my colleagues.

Now obviously, this is something that internet writers of all stripes experience. It is hardly limited to religion writers and Christian commenters. Across the board, "most comment sections are vats of poison, filled with grammatically questionable rants at best and violent hate speech at worst," as Margaret Eby put it this week at Brooklyn Magazine.

It would be ridiculous to pretend that Christians are the only or worst offenders. But they should know better. It seems deeply antithetical for someone whose faith promotes unconditional love and kindness to spew hate at others.

But can we really expect better from Christians when so many of their spiritual leaders employ similarly awful rhetoric?



Jerry Falwell blamed gays for 9/11. (Bettmann/CORBIS)


Look at Dallas mega-church pastor Robert Jeffress, who has called secular liberals "godless, immoral infidels who hate God." He also said Roman Catholics practice a "cult-like, pagan religion" and represent "the genius of Satan."

Or one might consider Seattle-based pastor Mark Driscoll. Among other things, he has said that stay-at-home dads are "worse than unbelievers" and that women shouldn't hold leadership positions in the church since "they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men." This week, he apologized for comments posted to a discussion board in 2000 in which he called gays "damn freaks" and made misogynistic remarks.

If that's not enough, take a look at Grand Cayman Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile, an influential voice among some American evangelicals, who in 2013 blogged about "the importance of your gag reflex when discussing homosexuality." In an apparent attempt to have an adult conversation, Anyabwile encouraged the faithful to recover "the yuck factor" when discussing gay marriage.

The standard doesn't improve when one considers Christian commentators.

Take a look at Fox News' Todd Starnes. When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez died of cancer, the outspoken Christian gleefully tweeted, "Hugo dead. The good news is now Saddam, Osama and Adolf have a fourth for Canasta," and "Hell is burning a little bit brighter tonight." Starnes once compared same-sex marriage to wedding one's dog. Even Fox News host Greta Van Susteren has publicly criticized some of his remarks as "bad taste."

Of course, bullying language is not just a problem among conservative Christian commentators. Last December, MSNBC host Martin Bashir was forced to resign from the network after calling Sarah Palin a "world class idiot." He then cited a diary item describing punishment practices on plantations whereby one slave would "S-H-I-T" in another slave's mouth, suggesting that Palin be similarly forced to eat excrement. Bashir is an outspoken Christian who attended Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, where Tim Keller is the pastor.

And Christian crudeness is not a recent development, to be sure. One might recall prominent late 20th century leaders like Jerry Falwell, who blamed gays, lesbians, and abortionists for 9/11, and Pat Robertson, who once said that feminism is "about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

For Christians, this history of histrionics has been bad for business. In a 2010 Barna Research survey, for example, one in five Americans and 35 percent of those associated with non-Christian faiths said that Christians' most negative contribution to society was "violence or hatred incited in the name of Jesus Christ." Twenty-five percent of respondents said they couldn't even think of one positive contribution made by Christians.

Such perceptions have almost certainly contributed to the modest increase in the past decade of those who do not regularly attend church, and the spike in Americans who are religiously unaffiliated. Maybe the Apostle James was onto something when he wrote, "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless."

The time has come for the faithful to make a concerted effort to reform their rhetoric. They must eschew hateful speech, extreme language, mendacious statements, public name-calling, and offensive commentary against minority groups, such as women and LGBTQ persons. This doesn't mean Christians must abandon their counter-cultural doctrines, but they must learn to express and defend those beliefs in respectful and loving ways. Those leaders who resort to abusive behaviors and repugnant speech must be called to account by the community.

Debate and dissent are critical to a healthy marketplace of ideas, but believers must now navigate new frontiers of digitized dialogue. We must answer questions like, "How can we foster healthy disagreement in 140 characters or less?" and "How do we create debate when everyone is allowed to engage regardless of their credentials or expertise?"

American Christians too often contribute to what author Lynne Truss once called "the utter bloody rudeness of the world." If Christians continue failing to practice what they preach, you can expect to see the continued decline of their faith in America. But if they can begin living in accord with their Scriptures' teachings — which repeatedly command speaking to others in a way that is uplifting, gracious, kind, tactful, and tempered — Christians may be able to stop the bleeding and start winning converts.

http://theweek.com/article/index/266196/how-american-christians-can-stop-being-bullies-and-start-winning-converts

---

gwilly, I'd say this fellow has nailed it.

[gwillybj]

Good points. I've never understood the "bully pulpit."

[Yitzi]

Good points. I've never understood the "bully pulpit."

I think the basic idea is "people are doing things wrong, so try to make them stop that"; back when religion was something people felt obligated to do and not something they did because they felt like it, and there weren't other options, I think that approach actually worked (and I think it still does among people for whom that is still true.)

[Buster's Uncle]

A great deal of it is as simple as republican culture co-opting religious - I watched it happen to the Southern Baptists up close back in the 80s.  Very close to every single example of hateful behavior cited in the article is adoctrinal, but definitely defensive of traditional social conservative values.

People confusing their native culture with the actual tenants of their religion is disgustingly common, approaching universal.  No one, for example, has ever explained to me how a believing Christian can reconcile military service with Matthew 18:22...

[Yitzi]

A great deal of it is as simple as republican culture co-opting religious - I watched it happen to the Southern Baptists up close back in the 80s.  Very close to every single example of hateful behavior cited in the article is adoctrinal, but definitely defensive of traditional social conservative values.

People confusing their native culture with the actual tenants of their religion is disgustingly common, approaching universal.  No one, for example, has ever explained to me how a believing Christian can reconcile military service with Matthew 18:22...

Yeah, sticking stuff into the religion that doesn't belong there is a problem.

By the way, it's "tenets", not "tenants".

[Buster's Uncle]

Blasted spellcheck.  I knew that was wrong.

[Yitzi]

Blasted spellcheck.  I knew that was wrong.

Remember, spellcheck only tells you whether something is a correctly spelled word, not whether it's the word you wanted.   

Google is much more reliable for such things. 

[Rusty Edge]

A great deal of it is as simple as republican culture co-opting religious - I watched it happen to the Southern Baptists up close back in the 80s.  Very close to every single example of hateful behavior cited in the article is adoctrinal, but definitely defensive of traditional social conservative values.

Funny. From where I stood as a Republican precinct worker in PA in  1980, the party was being over run by church people who were actually enthused about Regan. They weren't even that political. What really baffled me at the time was Falwell, et al. It seemed to me that a lot of the New Testament was written by Saint Paul, and most of that was about how the law wasn't the answer, it was what you thought, said, and believed. The love that was in your heart.  Here were all of these church people trying to legislate the Word of God. It was as if Falwell was in direct opposition to St. Paul and Jesus about the law.

Or maybe I was insane...

[gwillybj]

Maybe the Apostle James was onto something when he wrote, "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless."

That's James 1:26. Just a few verses earlier, he wrote (vss 19-20): "Every man must be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath; for man’s wrath does not work out God’s righteousness."
I can't really come up with a comment on that; it's pretty plain.

It was as if Falwell was in direct opposition to St. Paul and Jesus about the law.

Agreed.

[JarlWolf]

Christians, or any established, organized religion acting like bigots to other people not in their cliques is nothing new and has always been a problem. I'm just glad we don't live in an era when pogroms and crusades still happen on a worldly scale, or at the very least to the point where religious organizations are behind it... still have a lot of hateful fundamentalism though that inspires conflict in regions...

[DrazharLn]

See rampant homophobia in Russia and Uganda inspired by Russian Orthodox Church and/or state for the former and some mix of Christian influences for the second.

It's real silly that people should cause such a fuss over something as personal and innocuous as who loves whom.

Another funny one on the Russian side is their attempt to associate homosexuality and HIV/AIDS with the EU when Russia has a much more serious HIV/AIDS epidemic (and with better education and prevention HIV/AIDS transmission isn't nearly as big a deal in the gay community anyway).

[Yitzi]

It's real silly that people should cause such a fuss over something as personal and innocuous as who loves whom.

Properly speaking, it's a question of sexuality, not love; the confusion of the two should be avoided regardless of how it impacts on other matters.

(There's also the fact that depending on your understanding of the Bible, it may not be that innocuous if acted on.)

[Nexii]

I think one thing to note is not all Christian churches are this conservative.  At least here in Canada some are liberal (pro LGBT, abortion, etc).  So I'd say some Christian denominations are already opting for this strategy to get new converts.  Despite this, the amount of people not following any religion has increased a lot over the past 10 years.

Traditionally organized religion was as powerful as kings/government.  It wasn't so much about 'right/wrong' as making people believe in a religious code in order to obtain religious tithes and fees.

[DrazharLn]

In the UK, too, there are many more liberal churches and the Church of England appears to be moving slowly towards pushing a somewhat more liberal ideology on all its clergy (though many are already quite liberal). Interestingly, some of this change has been forced through by the secular state (prosecution under anti-discrimination laws was threatened if CoE wouldn't vote to allow women Bishops).

There are also a number of American-inspired or led evangelical churches that are less socially progressive.

@yitzi,

Some may argue that they oppose homosexuality because the practitioners will be going to hell (according to their interpretation of the bible), but to act as if your reading is the only good one (or even that any reading is worth seriously arguing about in secular society) seems like great arrogance to me.

To infringe others' rights or practice hate speech based on your religious beliefs should be criminal.

[Yitzi]

Traditionally organized religion was as powerful as kings/government.  It wasn't so much about 'right/wrong' as making people believe in a religious code in order to obtain religious tithes and fees.

I think the motivation also varied quite a bit; I can pretty much guarantee, for instance, that when Martin Luther criticized the idea of selling indulgences, "obtaining tithes and fees" was not his motivation.

Some may argue that they oppose homosexuality because the practitioners will be going to hell (according to their interpretation of the bible), but to act as if your reading is the only good one (or even that any reading is worth seriously arguing about in secular society) seems like great arrogance to me.

Acting as if your reading is the only good one may or may not be arrogant, depending on how good it actually is, and more importantly how generally you're defining "your reading".  For instance, there are multiple readings of what happens in SMAC...but I don't think it's arrogant to say that the reading of    as deeply religious is the only good one, even if there are other aspects (the details of her attitude to science, or how much of the faction's militarism is from her and how much is from her followers) that are less clear.

As for the question of "worth arguing about in secular society"...that raises the question of just how secular society should be; while most people (at least in America and Europe) agree with  that government should not attempt to influence religious observance, that doesn't mean that religious leaders shouldn't (at least for followers of their own religion.)  And of course some don't even agree with  .

To infringe others' rights or practice hate speech based on your religious beliefs should be criminal.

That gets into all sorts of problems...after all, preventing people from acting on their religious beliefs can itself easily turn into an infringement of rights.  It's a careful balancing act, and calls for careful distinctions.  (Saying "kill all the Jews" based on your religious beliefs is unacceptable, but saying "the Jews must repent of their error before God takes them to account", while not exactly pleasant, is more problematic to ban than to allow.  And what about hate speech against a historical group that no longer exists...I don't think that is harmful enough to justify interfering with religion.  Or what about hate speech against neo-Nazis?  Things get complicated.)

And of course the whole question of "rights" is also complicated...if God exists and created people in order that they behave in a certain manner, they have an obligation to behave in that manner and hence do not have a right to go against that.  Of course, government can't really act on that when it's not proven...but that's more a pragmatic consideration than one of them actually having that right.

So it gets complicated.