Why Liberals Hate Christians
Kevin McCullough wrote an essay on why liberals hate Christians. Here is his conclusion.
Evangelicals know that we are all sinners, none righteous but Him. He calls us to follow Him. We are expected to, and in doing so we will see that life's economy runs best when following His plan. We do not behead those who choose not to. We simply want them to know the joy, peace, contentment and purpose we find in Him.
And it is the reality in seeing the joy, peace, and contentment that we have and that they do not - that drives liberals to draw angry conclusions.
They also want a world with no moral judgments, and they hate that we draw moral absolutes from the Bible...that we actually BELIEVE that our positions are morally right and others are morally wrong. And, to be fair, everybody despises a hypocrite--and in today's media that so many leftists draw their information, that is how Christians are portrayed. It is easy to find and spotlight hypocrites in a group of people who hold themselves up as morally righteous when in fact we're all fallen and sinful. When the media finds a Christian whose sin has become public, they turn on the lights and roll the cameras for all to see. Since liberals hang out with liberals, they feed off of each others' thoughts, get their information from the same places, and draw the same conclusions. Their lack of exposure to real in-the-trenches Christians gives them no frame of reference whatsoever. So...maybe the next big mission field is in our own country. Maybe instead of sending so many people to Botswana, we just need to send missionaries to the left of our own country.
Labels: christianity, liberal, media, missionaries, secular, worldview
posted by KDoel @ 7:05 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Hi,
As a "San Francisco liberal" I was disappointed to read this post. I am Catholic and it seems somewhat unchristian to me to accuse, for example, someone like me of moral relativity and other sins w/o even taking the trouble to get to know the individual person or their positions.
It's very easy to point out the motes in other people's eyes despite the fact that, in some cases, the motes don't even exist. It's also easy to demonize someone and develop hatred in your heart towards them.
It's a little harder to deal with the enemy within. I make no claims to winning that battle. But I recommend that everyone try.
Then please explain to me why the animus toward Christians? People who believe in doing good for others, charity, love, good living, treating people fairly...those all sound like "liberal" ideals. Just please explain to me why Christians are the target of such negative feelings from liberals if not for our views on moral absolutes?
That's a false straw man. I can't speak for all liberals, but being Christian myself, I'm pretty sure I have no beef with myself (or my friends for that matter).
The mistake being made here is the conflation of christians and social conservatives or reactionaries. It is true that many liberals, myself included, do not approve of social conservatives reactionary (to us) political views. This is out of a sense of moral judgment - being anti-gay for example is immoral - rather than out of a *lack* of moral judgment.
There is also a certain sadness that many social conservatives incorrectly appropriate for themselves the label of Christianity and use this false label as a weapon to demonstrate their supposed moral superiority. Christianity has nothing to do with getting people to say "Merry Xmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". However the religion has experienced something of the sort before: I believe Jesus used to call these kind of people who made a public show of their religiosity Pharisees. And yes, there is a certain animus I feel to those who lay claim to the Prince of Peace and use him for their own ends and not for the cause of Truth. Perhaps a better Christian than me could turn the other cheek but I am only human. I will try to understand them better and to love them although the going is occasionally hard, to tell you the truth.
Being anti-gay is immoral? I have known a lot of gay people and I think in general they have all been a pretty nice lot of people. I have known heteros who are not nice people. Conservative Christians are not anti-gay people, but we are to be anti-sin. I'm not making that up. Christians are to be anti-sin, and homosexuality is a sin. The word of God clearly says so. Those aren't my words...they're his.
Now many conservative Christians place so much emphasis on the sin of homosexuality that they act like it's a greater sin than others and pay little attention to the greed, lust, vanity, etc. that they personally struggle with.
We're all sinners, and I acknowledge that. But to call people who believe that homosexuality is a sin "immoral" when the Bible clearly says that it IS a sin is not helpful in the nationwide debate.
A great way that the left squelches real debate is by labeling people they disagree with in unflattering terms. I'm a "homophobe" or a "bigot" if I think homosexuality is a sin. Nobody wants to be labeled in such ways, so many people become politically correct and don't stand up for their beliefs.
This is not about squelching debate - I believe people who are anti-gay are, in fact, immoral. I'm not going to keep quiet about that from some sense of misplaced politeness. I believe you have a right to your opinions and hold them for a good reason. I also happen to think that you are both wrong and immoral to hold them; I think they will be held against you when we all have to eventually answer for our sins.
I also doubt I'm alone in standing up for my beliefs. How you would like being told to keep quiet when you say that abortion, in your eyes, is sinful? Things like "left" and "right" are a convenient shorthand but they're often used to label people for the purposes of ridicule - "San Francisco liberal" "right wing ignoramus" - while ignoring the fact that people may have a strong and rational basis for the opinions that they hold even when one disagrees with them.
I don't understand someone who calls himself/herself "Christian" but calls anyone who follows the Bible "immoral." If you call me immoral because I believe homosexuality is a sin, then you believe the Bible is immoral.
"Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with each other as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." Rom. 1:25-27.
I don't make this stuff up. That's God's word. You call me immoral for believing in the word of the Christian bible, but yet you yourself call yourself a Christian and say that I will pay for my sin of being "anti-gay." Where is your biblical justification for your belief system? I know where mine is. It's between Genesis and Revelation!
Talon,
There is more than one way to be Christian; being a biblical literalist is not especially compelling or convincing.
One can find support in the Bible - especially the OT - for all sorts of repugnant acts such as, for example, slavery. What is important about Christianity is the Christian message and not seeking support for one's prejudices and feelings of moral superiority. See earlier post: re Pharisees. Is it your highest priority to love your fellows as Jesus loved us? Or would you prefer to rail against the supposed moral failings of liberals, women, gays, immigrants, single mothers and the less fortunate members of our society?
My highest priority is to love God and grow in my relationship to Christ. My relationships to others springs from that.
As for the issue of slavery, I don't think you can find "support" for slavery in the Bible. It says if you have slaves, you should treat them well. The Bible doesn't take a position on unions or any other employment or superior/inferior arrangements... but says if you have power over someone else, you shouldn't use that power unfairly. You need to treat your subordinates with grace and mercy.
If you're going to pick and choose your way through the Bible, where does it stop? Who decides which scriptures to adhere to literally and which ones to ignore? You?
This philosophy that I believe "liberal Christians" follow is one of creating God in their own image. They look at the modern world with its modern philosophies and try to make God fit that worldview.
We have been studying about Matthew 7:13, and I think the key difference between liberal Christians and us so-called conservatives is that liberals advocate a belief system that drives people down the wide road that is easy to follow rather than the narrow gate that is much tougher to follow. "Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it."
It's much easier, if you struggle with a particular sin issue, to go with the flow and get others to accept it as normal and call those who call it as sin to be "immoral." It is tougher to resist that temptation and live according to God's will. One is a wide road, the other is tougher and is very narrow, and very few go through it.
I don't "struggle" with any particular "sin" issue....I'm confused...are you wondering if I'm gay? Being gay, as some of my good friends are is not a a sin but a state of being. To satisfy your curiosity, I am not gay, but even if I were, I would accept it as God's will for me and not be ashamed of an aspect of His creation.
Again ask yourself, setting yourself up as moral beacon, a Christian soldier who adheres to the demanding narrow path and judging those about whom you know nothing...is that what Jesus would do? Is that why he hung out with outcasts and ministered to prostitutes? So He could feel good about being the Almighty Son Of God, superior to the wayward sinners all around him? Is that why He succored the weak and spoke truth to power? There are wide roads and narrow ones and sometimes when walking on them it's easy to be confused about what kind of road we are on.
There are no liberal Christians and conservative Christians, only those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts and those who have not. Against that standard, worldly politics does not compare. On the evidence of your posts, I believe you may yet have some evolution to undergo as a true believer although I hope that you reach whatever destination you are looking for.
I'm not wondering if you're gay. Not sure where you got that. But it must be nice to not struggle with sin. That would be amazing.
Jesus hung out with sinners, absolutely. He also told the woman of many men to go and sin no more. Just because he hung out with them, doesn't mean he endorsed their sin. He was there to heal the sick, including the sick of spirit. He helped people to become better.
The rich young man battled with sins of materialism, pride and greed. When he asked Jesus what it would take for him to have eternal life, Jesus didn't tell him to be nice to people and don't offend anyone, and eternal life would be his. He knew that the young man's love for his money was in between him and his relationship with God, so he told him to sell everything, give it to the poor, and follow him.
Jesus wants to touch the hearts of those who, unlike you apparently, battle with the sin that separates them from God. I battle with sin. I could easily become an adulterer...a guy who travels on business and enjoys pretty women. Who is to say that I shouldn't? If homosexuality isn't a sin, maybe I should accept my adulterous nature and just go with it! I should "accept it as God's will for me."
Talon,
I don't claim to be sin free (would that I were) but I don't have any *one* particular issue that I struggle with. I have a multitude - just like everyone else. Fidelity is one of them; it's the nature of man to be tempted. I'm glad you don't give in - as Queen Victoria said, we're put on this earth to rise above human nature, not give in to it.
I think where we differ is our definitions of sin. What you get (apparently) when you read the bible is a set of instructions and laws on how to live your life. What I get is an inspiring and living metaphor for the kind of life one should live. You crave certainty and a rock to stand on amidst a sea of changing tides, moral currents and human depravity. I'm happy with ambiguity and the conviction that there is more in heaven and earth than can be revealed in human understanding. You seek biblical justification for right and wrong. I see the bible as reflecting divine will but written by inspired, but always-fallible humans. You cannot admit doubt; I think doubt is something one has to move beyond to grow in faith.
You think you're right and the better Christian; I think I'm right and the better Christian. You think San Francisco is a sinkhole of moral depravity; I think it is a beacon of enlightenment is a beknighted nation where reactionary know-nothings have twisted the Word to preach the gospel of hate. You think liberalism is about not offending people; I think it means imitating Christ in this life - fighting for the powerless, the weak and those who have no voice. You may think highly of Rush or Michael Savage; my heroes are the priests and nuns I know who fight for social justice whether on the streets of San Fran or the military dictatorships of South America. To be honest, I don't understand your point of view. I don't know how one can read the bible and *not* be liberal. There's an awful lot of stuff about justice and poverty and loving your fellow man and not a whole lot of the kind of easy and smug hatred that spews from AM radio station.
I believe in "truth" and the Bible is a guide that God gave us for truth. Jesus said "I am the way,the TRUTH, and the life." I don't believe the Bible is ambiguous on how God wants us to live and we are to strive for the kind of godliness that Jesus described in his sermon on the mount.
Why am I not a liberal? I'm sure most liberals think conservatives are heartless who don't care for social justice and the plight of the poor. That's poppycock. I'm not saying you believe that, but from my readings that seems to be the common liberal view. But how do we care for poor and struggling?
Well, my "conservative" church devotes Friday nights to helping people facing all sorts of addictions, from alcohol to drugs to pornography. We supply a food pantry for the homeless and provide workers for a local shelter and a nearby Indian reservation. Friends from within our local convention are in New Orleans this week helping to rebuild homes in that city's poorest neighborhoods.
Liberals don't have a corner on compassion. So why I'm conservative:
I believe in God's Word as a guide to righteous living and a path toward salvation; it is his living word and not a book of metaphors to help us get through life.
I do NOT believe in relativity...what is true for you may not be true for me. The very definition of truth makes that idea ludicrous.
I believe God has a set of eternal truths that do not change with society's whims. Just because it's politically correct to think that homosexuality is a "state of being" and not a sin, doesn't mean that's true. It's not like skin color. I know former homosexuals, but I don't know former black people (except maybe Michael Jackson).
I believe that God wants me to care for the poor -- the widows and orphans. I believe people like you and me are better equipped to care for those people than over-funded and poorly managed government agencies.
I do NOT believe in the secular humanism that has stripped this country of its Christian foundations. I do NOT want the establishment of a national church and schools to do the job of parents and churches in teaching biblical values, but I DO want our Christian heritage to be honored and respected and religious liberties to be protected. The "separation of church and state" (which is NOT in the constitution) has gone too far in removing vestiges of our heritage from the public square. We need to be reminded where we came from and the lessons of those who brought us here.
I'm a conservative because liberals are opposed to my ideals and worldview.
Having said all that, and no matter how far apart our views on our Christian faiths, I enjoy this discussion with you.
Yes, I do think conservatives get a bad rep in San Francisco but that's probably because few people know one out here.
It's also interesting how local environments color the way we view the world.
I don't believe in relativity but I think I have fewer moral absolutes than you do. For example, we have such diversity in the Bay Area - a good portion of my neighbors are non-Christian and non-white and from all over the world - that it makes it much more difficult to want to impose a standard of conduct on them unless I can find what you might call a "secular humanist" rationale for it. It's hard to argue that everyone in America should do something because my particular denomination of Christianity says so when I'm talking to, say, a Hindu. That doesn't mean I compromise - wrong is wrong regardless of what faith or lack of it one practices - but I'm much less likely to want to use the government to impose it on everyone. Christianity is my faith and while I evangelize, I believe it is done best through works and not by coercion.
I must say part of my frustration with conservatives is motivated by the fact that many people hear "Christian" and think - Dobson or Falwell or Robertson or one of those get rich through Jesus prosperity Gospel types - and it makes me angry that this is the face of Christianity that my peers see (and rightfully condemn), the face of hate, fear and greed instead of love and grace and joy. The unholy combination of big-business conservatism, appalling greed mixed with sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitudes set my teeth on edge. The one thing that keeps me going is that 'twas ever thus; the Church was appallingly corrupt before the Reformation but it corrected itself and endures. As Martin Luther King said, the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
I've enjoyed this discussion with you too Talon. We can agree to disagree.
Well, we seem to have come to some intersection in our conversation where we agree on several areas. How did that happen?
We are certainly more homogeneous here in the middle than you are in San Francisco, but we're not completely white Christians here. There is quite a diverse mix of people from all over the world here. Plus, we're 20 minutes from "Little San Francisco" over in Lawrence (University of Kansas).
I don't believe in imposing standards of conduct (other than laws, of course), but I need to show them through the way I live my life that there is something special about my life because Christ is in it. I will share my testimony if given the chance because, while thumping somebody with a Bible will get me nowhere, telling somebody what Christ has done in my life can actually make a difference.
I'm not sure if your post implies that conservatives are more inclined to use the legal system to force Christian values on people. I believe that our original set of laws were rooted in Judeo-Christian philosophy. If believing that abortion is infanticide (especially relating to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions) is a "Christian value" then I guess I'm probably more inclined to want the government to impose that value on the rest of the country. Then again, if the issue had been settled through the legislative process by representatives of the people, rather than imposed upon us by courts in Roe v Wade, the abortion debate would be much less rancorous today.
Kansas has a much more liberal abortion policy than Europe, which had a sensible approach determined by the legislative process rather than judges. Many call Kansas the abortion capital of the country because you can come here, claim to be "depressed" and have a late term abortion. I'm "depressed" just thinking about it.
Regarding Falwell and Robertson, I couldn't agree more. I don't want them to be my representatives when they present the Christian worldview on TV for the nation to see. But unfortunately the media portrays them as such, so when Robertson says Tinky Winky is gay, I groan as loudly as you do.
Dobson...I like him. Sorry. I've read his book on raising sons and he's in a completely different league than the other two.
When you say "Big Business Conservatism" and greed, money and greed are not conservative issues. I've been in business for myself for nine years. Most small business owners I know are conservative and they're not necessarily rich. If someone has a good idea, risks their capital, and works hard to earn a good living, I don't understand why they should be vilified as greedy or punished for their success through the tax system. They're economically conservative probably because they work hard for their money and don't want it to be taken by the government.
There are lots of rich liberals, some who earned it but many who didn't (Kennedy, Kerry, et al). Are the wealthy liberals with Apple less greedy because they're liberal than conservatives in business?
I think the whole "Rich Republican" thing is a bad stereotype. When I've gone to Republican political rallies, the parking lot isn't full of BMWs and limos. Instead, it's loaded with pickup trucks and minivans.
Talk about "sanctimonious" and "holier than thou" -- what about limousine liberals? Their religion isn't Christianity, but they certainly think their elite views should be imposed on everyone else. That's why the battle for the Supreme Court is so important. It can and has been used to circumvent the will of the people.
Corruption and greed are rampant on both sides of the aisle because politics and business are run by flawed, sinful people.
latest KU play has "pro-life vigilanties" holding a rape victim captive in a basement to prevent her from aborting her fetus:
http://www.kutheatre.com/
~kutheatr/performances.shtml#keelydu
Post a Comment
<< Home