1

Joe,
With respect, as a fan: I agree that evangelicals are often badly misrepresented, and that that should be fixed, but there's a point where demanding better "understanding" starts to sound, at best, like solepsism, and at worst, like "fall in line." Two posts down this site conflated the two very distinct categories of atheist and agnostic -- which, by definition, are more clearly separate than any denominational differences between Christians (distinctions I wholly agree are significant and endlessly misunderstood). If understanding's the good goal, it can't just be for people suddenly in the media limelight, or members of the religion that have always been part of the country's majority religion. That's not about understanding. That's about power.

The more convincing alternative would be to call for a broader understanding that wasn't just about other people listening to "red-state" evangelicals, but also those evangelicals educating themselves about the many many types of believers and nonbelievers who are summarily lumped together as "blue state secularists." Some are secular, some aren't and I'm not drawing a moral distinction there. "Secularists," just like believers, can be profoundly moral people. As an exercise in understanding, or -- again, no offense -- just to honor your rhetoric and earn your right to complain, why don't you explore how that is? I suspect that it's no more about "Hollywood" for them, than it is about snake-handling for you.
Thanks.

2

Kathyrn,

With respect, as a fan: I agree that evangelicals are often badly misrepresented, and that that should be fixed, but there's a point where demanding better "understanding" starts to sound, at best, like solepsism, and at worst, like "fall in line."

You have a good point and that’s certainly something I want to avoid. One of my goals of this site is, much like The Revealer’s, to break down some of the stereotypes that people have about "religious people." Whether people have a favorable impression of evangelicals or whether they despise what we stand for is less of a concern for me than that they understand what it is we actually are. I’m not asking for people to “fall in line” but rather to just please, please, please stop thinking we are all a bunch of Jerry Falwell clones.

Two posts down this site conflated the two very distinct categories of atheist and agnostic -- which, by definition, are more clearly separate than any denominational differences between Christians (distinctions I wholly agree are significant and endlessly misunderstood).

I’ll admit that in my laziness and rush to get out that post I didn’t clarify the differences between atheist and agnostic. I'm not sure I agree, however, with the idea that they are so different. To me, the differences are much like fundamentalists and evangelicals. The people who self-identify as atheist are a lot like fundies in their dogmatism there not being a God.

Agnostics, on the other hand, take the more thoughtful approach of simply claiming that they don’t know whether God exists (and that it really doesn’t matter). I assume that in Barna’s survey he found many agnostics who really don’t believe in God but who are intellectually modest enough not to get too hubristic about their atheistic inclinations.

You are right, though, that more understanding needs to be made toward atheists and agnostics. Since I have a handful of dedicated readers that are atheist, I’ll try to tackle that topic and see if we can’t get some kind of dialogue going.

The more convincing alternative would be to call for a broader understanding that wasn't just about other people listening to "red-state" evangelicals, but also those evangelicals educating themselves about the many many types of believers and nonbelievers who are summarily lumped together as "blue state secularists."

That’s a great point. Lately I’ve been trying to be more inclusive by highlighting the views of “liberal” evangelicals. But, to be perfectly honest, I’ve done what I’ve complained about others doing: talking about what they believe without actually asking them to expound on their views. I think there needs to be more cross-blog pollination with bloggers from various faiths talking to each other rather just past one another. (That is, by the way, one of the aspects that I most admire about The Revealer.)

Some are secular, some aren't and I'm not drawing a moral distinction there. "Secularists," just like believers, can be profoundly moral people. As an exercise in understanding, or -- again, no offense -- just to honor your rhetoric and earn your right to complain, why don't you explore how that is? I suspect that it's no more about "Hollywood" for them, than it is about snake-handling for you. Thanks.

Excellent suggestion. Since the election ended I’ve been scrambling to find new topics. That is one I’ll definitely be taking up. Thanks again for the input. I’m always eager to receive such constructive criticism.

3

"Do Muslims and Christians Believe in the Same God?"
I suppose that if they believe in God the Father, they believe in one third of the Trinity. The conceit in Islam is that they believe that they can understand, fully and completely, God's absolute oneness. Christians on the other hand don't have a problem with "three Persons, one Substance" even though it's impossible to fully comprehend such a thing while in this world.
I still have hope that the resilient strain of wahabism will be beaten and that sometime before the end of days Christians and Muslims will learn to coexist as well as Christians and Jews.

4

"I’m not asking for people to 'fall in line' but rather to just please, please, please stop thinking we are all a bunch of Jerry Falwell clones."

An understandable request...Thanks for the thoughtful response. I look forward to the upcoming articles. best, Kathryn

5

Hi,

I am enjoying your blog and was referred from Hugh Hewitt's page.

Question 1) Are you aware of any books that contain the words or sayings of Jesus alone? I once heard of a book called, The Red letters but, I can't seem to find it.

Question 2) In some of the ancient art, like that in your blog, Jesus always seems to have his forefinger and middle finger touching. What does this signify if anything?

Thanks for taking a moment.

Warm regards,
Tony

6

Wow.
When's the final exam? :)

7

Tony, I do not know of such a book containing only Jesus' words but one certainly may exist.

I thought I would point out that Jesus said he would speak to the apostles through the Holy Spirit - who would not be speaking for himself. (Read John 16:13-15 especially)

My point is that one can certainly argue that ALL the words of the New Testament are in fact Jesus' words - at least if one is willing to accept what Jesus himself said about them.

The whole New Testament could be written in red.

8

So many links, so much to nitpick. I'll probably have to get out and get another cup of coffee to keep myself away from the comments section. So I blame this post for when I'm inevitably insanely fidgety in church this morning.

(for example, having gone to a college in which postmodernism somehow entered virtually every class, the evangelical response to PoMo Christianity post is like a siren song of nitpickiness to me.)

9

It would be nice if evangelicals were more open about some of the abuses done in the name of that sect. Of course, I don't expect that I'm going to hear many complaints here about the abuses of religion by the likes of James Dobson and D. James Kennedy.

10

I agree though, there needs to be more inter-faith discussion.

That would be a good start to helping bridge divides that we have.

11

I agree though, there needs to be more inter-faith discussion.

In my experience, the differences boil down pretty fast to inerrancy and the interpretation thereof. To whit, I'm gearing up for the standard battle when i head back to the Beave-Bible-Belt for thanksgiving. If anyone knows of any interesting angles, pass 'em along.

12

"Beware of the man of one book."

13

I would say that the discussion needs to be taken away from "inerrancy" and "infallibility," and "my book says," and needs to be re-directed towards the implications of practice and actions.

Nobody but an inerrantist will - or should- accept the inerrantist's argument from authority, and to my way of thinking, such discusions aren't useful to really a) heal the divides between us, and b) attempt to find common ground on how to go further.