Adventures with the Religious Right

Following on from my last post about commenting on the World Vision USA Facebook page, I’ve had a bit more time to process the experience and I remain deeply perplexed. I think perhaps it is because I am British, and although there is a Christian Right here, it is small, not very vocal and doesn’t muster the publicity of its American counterpart. When it does, it tends to be viewed with a degree of dismissive amusement. (In Britain, that means a discrete roll of the eyes and an almost imperceptible cats-arse moue.) That isn’t to say that there aren’t deeply held conservative positions on a range of issues such as human sexuality and abortion etc, but the debate tends to be more … well … British.

While there has been some evidence that the American Right has tried to influence Christian thinking here, that sort of approach doesn’t tend to fit so well with the national character. I know most Americans probably think the British are pathologically polite, which would be a huge overstatement, but I do think the boundaries of discourse and debate are set at a different, almost subconscious, level.

I’m sure lots of my countrymen will come back at me and tell me I’m deluded on this, but I sense here a greater willingness to engage with the other viewpoint: things don’t seem as combative or confrontational or have as much invested in the need to prove yourself right and others wrong. I tend to think that here the emphasis is on being satisfied that you have been heard and understood, if not necessarily agreed with. I look at the relationships I have with my Evangelical friends, some of whom I trained with, and they are characterised by mutual respect and tolerance, albeit overlaid with a healthy degree of teasing. While we have no trouble articulating that we disagree and saying why, I can’t think of any circumstances where that would lead us to telling one another that we were actually wrong and It took me a while, therefore, to get in with the cut and thrust of commenting as one of very few non-Americans on an American site.

It’s another world where I was quickly disabused of the notion that calm, reasoned argument and politeness were the order of the day. I went armed with those but quickly learned that they were not required. So bad tempered!

Do you know, I can’t imagine any set of circumstances where I would (effectively) shriek at someone that they were wrong, a false Christian, in need of repentance and in need of being saved from Hell by Jesus because of the sin-darkened nature of their minds, just because they had the temerity to hold a different theological perspective to me. I can’t imagine any circumstances where I would claim to know the spiritual status of any Brother or Sister in Christ before God as if I knew His mind. I can’t think of any set of circumstances where I would claim that the theological viewpoint I hold could be the only one and therefore, by extension, the correct one. I can’t think of any set of circumstances where I would be happy to just throw proof texts at people and metaphorically sit back, smile and fold my arms as if I had delivered some killer argument as if merely quoting scripture, of itself, would prove some doctrinal point. And I certainly can’t think of any set of circumstances where I would insult someone, either directly to their face – or Facebook post – or behind their back –  on someone else’s Facebook post ….. in the name of Christ!

 (Although, on reflection, I do seem to remember advising someone to think before she typed to avoid embarrassment. My bad!)

 My approach tends to be more reflective, “But you do realise that some other Christians, particularly Catholics would disagree with you here because……”

 “CATHOLICS AREN’T CHRISTIANS.”

 “But when I talk to my gay Christian friends …….”

 “THEY CAN’T BE GAY AND CHRISTIAN!”

 “But did you consider when you quoted this passage that St. Paul also said ……”

 “GO AWAY AND READ YOUR BIBLE. YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!”

 (Nevertheless one person did have the good grace to delete a comment where he had accused me of being insulting when I asked him to cite the evidence. He also apologised. Perhaps he was British or Canadian.)

 “Has it occurred to you, though, that there are some who would argue that your view isn’t very theological because …..”

 “IT'S THE WORD OF GOD. YOUR (sic) A HERETIC!”

 "THEOLOGY? WERE (sic) TALKING ABOUT GOD!"

 “Jesus did hang out with the marginalised though, so I’m sure that he would have treated gays in the same loving way because they were marginalised.”

 “ARE YOU GAY? I THOUGHT YOU WERE A CHRISTIAN!”

 “WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO JESUS IF HE STOOD IN FRONT OF YOU NOW? (!)”

 “Er …what kept you?”

 “I just think there might be another way of looking at this ….”

 “I HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT TELL THE TRUTH WHERE AS (sic) YOUVE (sic) DONE NOTHING BUT SPEW LIES AND FALSEHOODS.”

 “Er ….”

 “YOUR (sic) ONLY HERE TO BOOST YOU’RE (sic) OWN EGO!”

 “I’m simply trying to say that I don’t see things in the way you do because the injunctions against homosexuality are references to heathen, cultic prostitution and need to be seen in the context of the Holiness code….”

 “YOU ARE A FALSE TEACHER FROM A FALSE CHURCH. YOU NEED TO REPENT AND ASK JESUS TO BE YOUR SAVIOUR!”

 “I did that many years ago and repent daily.”

 “!?!?” (DOES NOT COMPUTE WITH MY WORLDVIEW. MY BRAIN HURTS.)

“I’LL PRAY FOR YOU!” (How to turn prayer into a passive/aggressive activity.)

“Thank you. Prayer is always appreciated.”

 "As Bible believing Christians perhaps you could help me out here. In Matthew and Luke’s story of Jesus’ encounter with the Centurion why does the Gospel writer use the word παις rather than δουλος? And, while we’re on the subject, why not αρσενοκωται?

 "Και ο Ιησούς είπε, πάει και αμαρτία πλέον!" (HA!)

 "Well, I've got to hand it to you, you cut and paste a mean passage of Greek text. But this doesn't answer my question, which I suspect you didn't really understand did you?"

 I changed tack. I spent a happy twenty minutes posting pictures.

 My favourite is at the top.