conflicted, or just double-thinking?

In a recent interview, a prominent evangelical pastor said the words in the first two panes. The words in the third pane logically followed for me, as his statements imply them.

But I then wondered what it must be like to believe in something and to also believe in someone who does not believe that same something. What options does this pastor have?

1. Give up his belief in equality and stick to his God.
2. Hold to his belief in equality and give up his God.
3. Live a conflicted life of struggle and cognitive dissonance due to believing two contradictory things.
4. Believe both parts simultaneously -- in other words, believe that you truly believe in equality, and believe in God. This is typically easier when a person is not verbalizing the fact that their God does not believe the same thing as they do.

I suspect that #4 happens quite commonly, that people believe they are good even while doing bad things, believe they are pro-life even while advocating the death penalty for murderers and lgbt people, believe they are tolerant even while they tolerate others only on their own terms, believe they are embracing of all even while they are excluding of some. And they do this without feeling any conflict about it.

Kinda like being against sweatshops, yet buying more cheap clothes produced in them. Or buying chocolate that's not fair trade, while objecting to child labour and human trafficking. Those are examples from my life. Perhaps you can think of your own examples....

Believing both parts simultaneously ties in with the term "doublethink", coined by George Orwell in 1949 and appearing in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four: 

"Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction."

 (from Wikipedia, emphasis added)

So what about that God I believe in who believes things I don't believe in? Is it time to reconsider whether God really does believe those things, or whether I am believing limited human interpretations that have become "gospel truth"?

special number

Pastor Stickman has invited a friend to be part of the worship service. An unexpected friend.

If you attend a church, what do you think would happen if this took place on a Sunday morning? The parishioners might be unsure how whether to applaud or not. Some might be shocked or outraged. And some who have read Bad Girls of the Bible might be quite pleased to meet Rahab in person.

But in general, while many Christian have heard Rahab mentioned in sermons, we don't expect her to be a hero if she showed up today, especially if announced as a prostitute. Now to be fair, there is some debate as to why she is referred to that way, considering that she was an innkeeper and likely made fabrics (based on the quantity of flax on her roof). But the Bible is full of stories of God using unlikely people to further His kingdom, so why not?

Why not indeed?

While I don't know of any Old Testament characters known for singing (aside from the woman in the song of solomon, perhaps), you can imagine what kinds of names might have popped into people's minds when the pastor first started speaking. Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Naomi, and other familiar ones. But today, the visitor is Rahab who protected the spies when they came to her city.  And because of what she did, she and all who were in her household were spared.

What might her song be?

Can you hear it?

love. period.

Pastor Stickman's first sermon, his first Sunday after inadvertantly outing himself. Quite a contrast to some of the things which he said previous to that point in time. Now he can be more open, more honest.

Love. Period.

What do you think? Is there something more to say?

Do you want to qualify love in some way? Put conditions or limits on it?

---

Previous pastor stickman cartoon

just as we are

Last time: Pastor Stickman, at the first Sunday service after accidently outing himself, was unsure of what to say. A parishioner gave the traditional greeting of "The Lord be with you", and Pastor Stickman responded with "And also with you".

Somehow – and frankly, I don't know how – he is still the pastor! Many pastors in similar situations have been fired and blacklisted in their denominations. In his case, half the parishioners have left the church, but that's to be expected.

Those who have stayed have been encouraging him. Perhaps a card, or an email. Maybe some fresh muffins dropped off at the house. And he begins to understand more deeply that even in this the worst of times, God loves him. No longer the proud leader with all the answers, he needs the body of Christ that meets in this building. They need each other. We all need each other.

the Lord be with you

Amazing that the pastor is still in the pulpit. In the typical elder-ruled or vestry-run church, he'd be long gone, dismissed via a secret meeting to which he was not invited. After all, he confessed his sin publicly, didn't he?

But somehow, here he is, albeit unsure of himself and of what to say, the Sunday after having inadvertantly outed himself in front of the entire congregation. And it is reasonable for him to be unsure. Many of his previous sermons had an anti-gay tone or message. He hasn't been fired ... yet. And now he finds himself at the mercy of the congregation. Well, at the mercy of those who have stayed, anyway.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

I Peter 2:9 NIV

And here we have this verse played out, with a parishioner initiating the greeting with which a priest usually starts the eucharist (Lord's supper) in many liturgical churches. How fitting... a parishioner taking seriously hir role as a royal priest, using a phrase from the Lord's table at which all are welcome, the table of the Lord Jesus who broke stigmas and social rules and generally made the religious people of his day angry.

The Lord be with you.

oops

Some members of the congregation absorbed the pastor's previous messages well – too well – and now that he has inadvertantly outed himself, they have outed themselves out of the church.

But some people have stayed. Perhaps they have not bought into his public views about homosexuality. Maybe some believe in full inclusion like the "church down the street." Perhaps they value relationships over facts and sexual orientation. Maybe some of them also understand where he's coming from. Or they've heard God's call to love one another.

How would you respond in such a situation?

unbaptized enemies

Can we agree to major on the majors? Can we focus on what really matters to the kingdom, and agree to disagree on the secondary things?

How easily we get distracted from what matters to the Kingdom of God. And surely quantity of water cannot be one of them. In this cartoon, pastor lumps the church down the street in with "enemies of God" because they baptize by sprinkling instead of immersion.

Growing up, I attended a Baptist church in Manitoba. It was part of a Baptist association which believed in baptism by immersion as an adult, and where one had to be baptized to be a member. They were completely against infant baptism. And they didn't just believe in immersion, they insisted on it.

Here's where the problem came up: when a person who had been baptized as an adult by sprinkling (in another denomination, obviously) came to the church (perhaps having gotten married to one of its members), they could not become a member unless they were baptized by immersion. Which meant that they had to be baptized again (from their perspective; from the church's perspective, it was for the first time). So really, it wasn't a matter of the person's ability to understand, or their conscious desire to be baptized, it was the quantity of water that was the problem.

One of the other churches in the denomination finally left due to such things.

If a person or a denomination feels so strongly about something, how many steps are they away from seeing the other person or church as misguided? heretical? the enemy?

How will people see the love of God for them when the churches they see are in conflict about things that are really not that important?


Note: this cartoon  was originally published on June 29, 2012, but that puts it out of sequence, in that chronologically it should have taken place before pastor inadvertantly outed himself on Sunday, June 17th . So I republished it to have it appear before.

wheat and weeds

Then Jesus told them another story:

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who planted good seed in his field. That night, when everyone was asleep, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat and then left. Later, the wheat sprouted and the heads of grain grew, but the weeds also grew. Then the man's servants came to him and said, 'You planted good seed in your field. Where did the weeds come from?'

The man answered, 'An enemy planted weeds.' The servants asked, 'Do you want us to pull up the weeds?' The man answered, 'No, because when you pull up the weeds, you might also pull up the wheat. Let the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest time. At harvest time I will tell the workers, "First gather the weeds and tie them together to be burned. Then gather the wheat and bring it to my barn." ' "

Matthew 13: 24 - 30 NCV

The pastor in this cartoon is being "inclusive" at one level, but also judgemental – he has decided who is the wheat and who are the weeds. And that is exclusionary and othering. That is tolerance of the religous sort but has nothing to do with Jesus.

In what ways do we judge who is in and who is out, whether on a social level or an eternal one? In what ways does the way we treat other people reflect the judgements we have made?

---

Richard Beck in a recent post says:

Should we pull out the weeds?

This question goes to the heart of one of the greatest temptations amongst religious people wanting to serve God: the impulse to sort the good people from the bad people, the saints from the sinners, the church from the world, the saved from the damned.

He then goes on to look at what the farmer says, and suggests that this parable offers two visions of what the kingdom could be like:

On the one side are the weeding Christians, those wanting to identify, sort out and burn the weeds.

And on the other side are those Christians who live alongside the weeds manifesting forgiveness and patience.

Cuz in real life, people are people.

business as usual

What should be the church's "business as usual? What have you experienced it to be?

Churches and Christians often act as if their purpose is to focus on right and wrong, even to the point of enforcing this in the lives of others. What's with that?

Was Jesus' life focused on right and wrong, or on loving people and speaking the truth in ways that they could hear it? Granted, he also had this annoying habit (annoying particularly to the very religious people) of upsetting the status quo, overturning power structures, and breaking social mores. He probably wouldn't be welcomed in most churches....

enlightning

I doubt that when making his point, Pastor Stickman expected to have it illustrated so immediately or so aptly. Not only is god taking care of the sin, but the pastor is not exempted from being included as one of the sinners who should be loved.

Granted, perhaps his view of how god takes care of sin has been heavily influenced by Ananias and Sapphira (see Acts 5) and needs some adjusting to reflect more of the example of Jesus.

love covers

Once in a while, Pastor Stickman gets it right, and this is one of those times.

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins". I Peter 4:8.

texas

Really? LGBT people would also know them as the friendliest little church in Texas? Or is this just wishful thinking in the pastor's mind?

What does it mean to be gay-friendly? What kind of stickers do churches need on their front doors?

And how do you feel about adults addressing someone they don't know as "honey?"

seek and destroy

This is usually not expressed so clearly, but it does happen. We identify the person with their sin instead of seeing their heart, and we seek to destroy them, in subtle or not so subtle ways. It could be the whispers behind their backs or the looks of disgust we cast in their direction. It could be less subtle, like standing outside an abortion clinic or at a gay parade, holding signs that label people.

Definitely some mixed messages here. The initial "so we love the sinner" gets completely neutralized / cancelled out by the idea that "hating the sin" is accomplished by identifying the source (namely, the sinner) and destroying it (him or her).

Would you read this differently?

ten virgins

The words in the first panel of this cartoon come from a sermon I heard recently. It is the passage from Matthew 25 about the ten virgins and the bridegroom, and how some were ready and others were not.

The other two panels carry on to a possibly logical conclusion. Not one that I agree with, nor one that is in line with the ethic of Jesus, who seems to have spent much time with those who were excluded from the traditional religious circles.

opposite sunday

What we do and what we say are often not in sync, and it seems that "opposite Sunday" has made this apparent to this pastor. Not that the "unopposited" saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a good saying to start with, but if a person says it and then is actively doing the opposite....

third row

I often hear Christians use the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin" when responding to the topic of homosexuality. Little do they know that this statement is hated by many gay and lesbian people.

"Love the sinner and hate the sin." We don't typically use this to refer to our friend, our grandma, our neighbour or the pastor at church. No, it's used to refer to someone whom we see as being different than us, someone who is a sinner unlike me and you who are good Christians. It labels people. It puts distance between us. It others them.

And despite the first half of the saying, the other person in the relationship rarely feels the love.

n.b. This phrase is not in the Bible. It "apparently comes from a letter that St. Augustine wrote to some contentious nuns. Augustine's phrase, "cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum," "with love of persons and hatred of sins," is used parenthetically, and does not even mention "sinners." (source)

blond

Have you ever heard a blond joke which was about a blond guy? I haven't. Blond jokes -- even if the target is just referred to as "a blond", are always about women.

So along with the discrimination and prejudice which women generally face, a woman who is blond has an additional layer to tend with. This is sometimes referred to as intersectionality -- when more than one type of discrimination or prejudice impacts a person. Another example of this is the experience of black women who are discriminated against based on both gender and race.

abstinence

This cartoon reminds me of that famous line from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Aside from issues of right and wrong, do we hear what we are saying? Do we understand why it is reasonable for such statements to be perceived as anti-gay?

family friendly

Two things stand out for me about this cartoon. First, when the preacher says "God loves everyone!" and expands on it by saying "Gay, lesbian, bi, transgender" without including "straight", he is speaking from a place of privilege. Privilege here assumes that "of course God loves heterosexuals; what is not clear is whether or not God loves those who are non-heterosexual." Inherent in this type of privilege is the assumption that the privileged majority is included, is right, is best, and so on, and usually those who are part of it never question or even think about such things.

Secondly, are gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender people not from families? Do they not have families? And are there not families in the church who have gay sons and lesbian sisters and bisexual cousins and transgender partners? So the not-yet-spoken implication by the pastor that "because this is a family-friendly church we can't have LGBT people running around", is actually counter-family, or family-unfriendly.

If Jesus had been as picky as we often are about whom we associate with, he would have avoided the lepers, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the woman who had been bleeding for years and years, the beggars on the street, the man who was demon-possessed, Zaccheus and other tax collectors, prostitutes, and general sinners of all sorts. He would have spent his time with nice religious people, reading the Torah, and looking good. And with all of that he wouldn't be Jesus anymore ... he'd be a Christian*.

* north american variety. And yes, I realize this is a grand generalization which is not fair to the many north america-based followers of Jesus who do get it. However, this is what the majority of non-Christians perceive when they think of Christians.

anybody

What we are known for?

Are we primarily known for being against things, whether the older version of "Christians don't drink, smoke or dance" or the newer versions of "anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-anti-bullying campaigns, etc."?

Or are we primarily known for those things which are good, such as the fruits of the spirit, helping the oppressed and marginalized, being respectful of those with different views and lives, being people of integrity? Does what we do and how we live help people move toward God, or does it push them away from Him?  Does the goodness of God ooze out of us, or is there so much antagonism, fear, and contempt of others that very little of Jesus shines through?