Understanding Conservative Christianity in America
Wayfairer writes:
It starts with the fact that we as conservative Christians are taught to see America as our land. I mean, you guys in Europe and the loonies on the East and West Coasts think the Founding Fathers died to bring us religious freedom. They so did not. They died to give new Christianity a place where it could flourish. And if you think that Catholicism was flourishing perfectly fine before that, thank you, then you don't understand conservative Christianity. See, I grew up being taught that Catholicism was almost-sort-of-not-quite-but-we-won't-talk-about-it cult. Really. Lots of Southern Baptists believe Catholicism is a cult, despite the fact that it is the largest practiced religion in the world. If you understand that we can believe that about Catholicism then maybe you can understand that American Conservative Christian values don't necessarily fit into any kind of historical, cultural, or anthropological perspective. They never really have.
Conservative Christians are taught all our lives that we are constantly engaged in spiritual warfare. When I was in 6th grade I read a book called This Present Darkness by novelist Frank Peretti, who really kicked off the Christian fantasy genre and preceded those awful Left Behind guys by like 10 years. I read this book and went around fancying that I saw angels around me, fighting demons everywhere, a great heavenly host doing battle with unseen forces of darkness. And I can't really explain to anybody who isn't familiar with conservative Christianity, but we are taught that this is real. Demons? Real. Angelic warfare? Real. That passage in Ephesians about putting on the full armor of God? We take that seriously. We take everything Paul said seriously, actually. Way, way, way too seriously, but the reason we take it so seriously is because Paul has this way of delineating Christianity as a practice so that you can live it out very easily. He basically teaches Christians that they are to live every day as though they are battling persecution. Paul is the classic propagator of the Us/Them mentality. Them is the World. The World is evil and sinful and wants to persecute Us. It is Our job as Conservative Christians to don our armor and wage war against the World.
When you grow up being raised in this environment, whether you give it any credence or not, what starts to happen is that you see things very easily in terms of whether they fit into the "Us" category or the "World" category. Since, um, most things fall into the World category, it gets very easy to compartmentalize in your head, and to, for example, start thinking, "the media is a tool of Satan, I shouldn't believe what people are telling me." And even if you don't think "TOOL OF SATAN!!!!" every time you hear the media, if you've heard other people around you and in your church say it enough, even subconsciously you start doubting the media. How this plays out is that you begin to filter your environment as a conservative christian based on what you can easily categorize. Once you have identified, say, George Bush, as one of Us, it's much easier to disregard negative news about him because the Media is one of Them, and the two things can be easily canceled out in your mind.
In the South, the tendency to categorize things, combined with the fact that we are taught to expect persecution as a Christian people, has led us to segregate, commit acts of racism and intolerance, and to be very, very suspicious of anyone from the North or the West, because all of you are part of the World.
Conservative beliefs do not spread because of ignorance. You must understand this. Conservative beliefs spread because of a need in the conservative church to emphasize that if you are not fighting, you are losing the battle for spiritual warfare. And until you have been out there battling the forces of evil you don't really understand how every day events can be magnified to fit into a larger picture of a tapestry of events being orchestrated by Jesus to lead us on to a higher victory.
Let's see if this can be summarized: conservative evangelical Christians tend to believe that America is "theirs" and that they have primary rights to it (which means the right to make laws and decide what America will be), other forms of Christianity are wrong at best and perhaps cults, real Christians are actively engaged in a war against Satan — a real war with angels and demons and everything, Satan controls most of the rest of the world, outsiders are suspect, if you aren't actively fighting for God you're helping Satan win, and Jesus has already assured them of absolute victory (over Satan and Satan's minions, which includes just about everyone else in the world).
Now, how exactly does this not qualify as being worse than "they voted the way they did because they didn't know any better"? I ask that because an ignorant person, even a desperately ignorant person, can be reasoned with and given information that will help them not be ignorant. If conservative Christians were merely ignorant, that really wouldn't be so bad — being ignorant about something is normal for humans and it's something we all have to work on.
Reality, however, is that conservative evangelicals have divided up the world into an "us" and "them," where most of the world is not merely a "them" but is, in fact, an evil "them" that is working (consciously or not) on behalf of Satan. The "us," however, is working to enforce God's will. This pretty much excludes the possibility of compromise between "us" and "them" because, after all, why would God's people compromise with the minions of Satan?
If I were still a conservative Christian I can tell you exactly how this election would look to me right now. Kerry is an immoral man of the World, and I thank God that Bush, a man of clear moral integrity who is out to defeat Satan regardless of the forces that stand in his way, has been blessed with victory. He didn't win the election--God chose him as the leader of this nation.
That's exactly what conservative evangelicals are saying right now. This underscores the emptiness of claims that Bush should reach out and work with Democrats. Bush was chosen by God. Kerry and the Democrats were, at best, pawns of Satan. Why should the man chosen by God to lead America reach out and work with the pawns of Satan?
I just remembered: a key mantra of Campus Crusade was this: If you're not being persecuted for your Christianity, then you're doing something wrong.
This might explain why so many conservative evangelicals seem eager to distort the truth or even lie about being persecuted in America. There is genuine and terrible persecution of Christians in various places around the world, but the United States of America is definitely not one of them.
You guys, you democrats and liberals, have a tendency to blame the people rather than the ideologies they represent. It is my belief that people's lives are shaped by ideologies.
Wayfairer has a good point here, but it shouldn't be taken too far. Yes, it's important to understand the role that ideologies play in people's lives and the choices they make, but in the end people have to be responsible and be held responsible for what they do. To take an extreme example: if a person grows up being indoctrinated into Nazism, we must take that into account when evaluating their behavior as adults; however, that isn't sufficient to excuse their behavior as adults.
Understanding, not excusing, is the point here. We may better understand why a conservative evangelical works against gay rights by getting a better grasp of their religious ideology, but that doesn't mean that the "blame" and "responsibility" can be lifted entirely from their shoulders. Perhaps Wayfairer would argue for separating the two: the ideology is to blame, but the person is responsible? It would be an interesting thought.
As an example of someone who currently qualifies as a conservative evangelical Christian, Wayfairer describes his mother:
My mom who is the sweetest most wonderful, giving and gracious woman I know, whose views and lifestyle represent everything that led Bush to victory. My mom who fully supports the war her nephew is fighting in.
Is that the face of the Enemy?
I would like to think that my mom, and every mom like her, is not the face of the enemy. I would like to believe that she only needs to be brought around by more conversations and more exposure, a person and a conversation at a time, to a better understanding of how her own values are being contradicted by the political spectrum she subscribes to.
No offense to Wayfairer, but maybe his mom is the face of the enemy. Not every "enemy" comes with an evil face and a cackle in their voice. Most "bad" people (aside from true sociopaths) don't regard themselves as doing evil — they think they are doing good, even doing the Good Work of God.
I think that it is a grave error to imagine that the sweet face of people who love their children can't possibly be the "enemy" because they are our family members and therefore couldn't possibly be bad. If we are to learn anything from the sociological and psychological studies done in the wake of World War II, it must be that the "enemy" can be us. We must learn that we can be the evil face behind the mask of goodness — and that includes our moms, dads, cousins, and sibling as well.
Show me a Nazi who didn't love someone. Show me a slave owner or segregationist who didn't love someone. They were humans, just like us. They thought they were doing the right thing, just like our moms.
So, yes, the face of his mother is the face of the enemy. That's what makes the battle so difficult — it's not an enemy you can hate, an enemy you want to destroy, or an enemy you can comfortably pretend is evil and depraved. No, it's an enemy that has a lot of positive qualities and thinks it is on the side of Good and Light. It's an enemy you'd much rather not fight, but must fight for the sake of long-term justice. In short, it's an enemy that doesn't allow for simplistic Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil thinking. That sort of thinking, remember, is the lens through which the "enemy" views the rest of us.
I would like to think that my mom, and every mom like her, is not the face of the enemy. I would like to believe that she only needs to be brought around by more conversations and more exposure, a person and a conversation at a time, to a better understanding of how her own values are being contradicted by the political spectrum she subscribes to.
A laudable sentiment — but also a little contradictory. Why? Because the assumption that someone can be "brought around" through conversations depends, in part, on the assumption that you have things to teach and show this person. In other words, that this person is ignorant of certain crucial things. One can imagine, for example, that his mother is ignorant of what gay people are really like and how anti-gay laws affect them — ignorant on a personal level, I mean. If she knew and understood this better, she might change.
Wayfairer's argument that conservative evangelicals aren't ignorant is a false dichotomy: even if everything he writes is 100% true, that doesn't mean that they aren't also ignorant of certain important things. Conservative evangelicals are ideologically motivated, yes, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't change if they couldn't learn a few important facts or have certain experiences (like Wayfairer did) — and perhaps learn them through conversations with people who have had different experiences than they.
Read More:
Comments
Let’s see if I have this right. You are using the words of one what “blogger” to characterize what all Conservative Christians think? Isn’t that stereotyping???
No, you don’t have it right. Try reading it again — more closely this time.
I have read your article. I’d like to point out some problems with this line of reasoning…
Firstly - though not exclusively, - you’re basing the majority of your argument on an individual who not only doesn’t believe what he claims to believe, but seems to be arguing in favour of liberalism and what is essentially anti-Christianity (against Christianity). In addition, his examples of what “conservative Christians” believe are generalized and overly-simplistic at best, and are coloured by his limited knowledge of Christianity in general: he seems to only know the Baptist doctrine well enough to state a case based on that, rather than to state a case on conservative Christianity as a whole or in general. I am a conservative Christian, but the ideals I garnered from the Bible are not exactly in a completely synchronized format with those expressed by Wayfairer. Perhaps, if you are willing to get a different perspective on what conservative Christians believe, you might be willing to contact me. As a non-denominationalist, I have no political interests, other than seeing that morality, justice and freedom are realized by our country… which, as I’m sure you’ll agree, was built on such principles, for the benefit of all it’s citizens.
In short, there are many things that this individual sent to you in his dissertation, with which I - and most other conservative Christians, - disagree; if, at least, in part.
dameon692002@yahoo.com
Most of your understanding of conservative christianity is completely inaccurate. Regardless, you need to face the fact Austin that christianity will NEVER die - as you seem to hope - No matter how much you argue, there will always be conservative christians. You have every right to believe what you want…and so do I. Face it buddy.
Sincerely,
A member of the Conservative Grace Brethren Churches International
Feel free to show how.
Where did I ever express that hope?
Where did I ever suggest that you or anyone else doesn’t have a right to believe something?
Why does “what you want” even play a role in what you believe? Sounds like you are admitting that you believe the claims of Christainity simply because you want to, and regardless of whether evidence and reason actually point to them being more likely true than not. As for myself, such desires simply aren’t relevant — I believe something because that’s what’s reason and evidence point to, even if it’s somehow unpleasant.
Curious that you would consider such membership important in this context.
Conservative Christianity would be pro-ecology, pro-afflicted, and anti-comfortable. What we have in fact is Radical Christianism which feeds off every human weakness.
All of us have the freedom to believe in something. Whether it be in God or no god at all. We can choose to believe in God, creator of heaven and earth or to believe in ourselves. If you believe in yourself then you should also be able to save yourself or never die. I can’t save myself so I believe God.
Why do you assume that beliefs are choices?
Why do you assume those are the only two choices?
Really? Demonstrate how that conclusion follows.
Isn’t it more likely that you believe in a god because you were born in a culture where that’s what’s taught and expected?
Theoretically, all beliefs should be accepted as nothing more than hypotheses. Blockheaded religious belief obstructs the process. I believe that religious experience comes through the upper right part of the brain. Religionists prefer a tin foil hat linked to a skygod and an old text.
The comment by “Christian” has made me realise something I hadn’t noticed before so clearly - that many theists think their belief is actually a choice.
Wow. Do some theists really think that an atheist can just “will” himself to believe in a god/religion? Doesn’t this theist understand the implications about the truth of his religion if this was the case? Do MOST or ALL theists think this? Does this theist think his religion was really his choice?
What are the implications for the theist who thinks this? Can he simply make the choice to cast aside his religion? Utterly bizarre.
I’ve come across this “choice” idea many times in religious arguments online. I think they really do think belief is a choice, just as many of them think that homosexuality is a choice. I wonder if theists could “choose” to believe in leprechauns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Christian said:
If you believe in yourself then you should also be able to save yourself or never die.
Save myself from what?
Drew,
It’s important to understand that this is critical for Christian doctrine. If beliefs are not free choices, then it’s very hard (if not impossible) to attach any moral qualities to it. For Christianity (and many other religions), though, disbelief is a sin — among the worst sins possible. How can not believing be a sin and believing be praiseworthy if they aren’t really choices?
It is important to note that the choice to believe must be continually reinforced in the world of the faithful. There must be life re-dedications, revivals and enthronement ceremonies. Catholics come up with new ablations and apparitions. Evangelicals ratchet up the worship volume. Fundamentalist find something new to ban. Religious belief is actually quite tenuous.
Choice is an illusion. Seduction is usually the rule. People go where their pleasure lies.
Austin and Nate, thanks for your replies to my questions. I hope that this information will make my discussions with theists more successful.
Just like the theists we debate, it is difficult for me to see things from the other point of view. I was raised free from religion. I have little difficulty pointing out their fallacies and falsehoods, and have plenty of ripostes I have learned from others; but have problems hitting the emotional buttons that may help them begin objective criticism of their beliefs.
Well to me it seems like he is basically talking more about the leaders of the church and their beliefs that they try to teach to their flock of blind sheep.
drew said
“The comment by “Christian” has made me realise something I hadn’t noticed before so clearly - that many theists think their belief is actually a choice.
Wow. Do some theists really think that an atheist can just “will” himself to believe in a god/religion? Doesn’t this theist understand the implications about the truth of his religion if this was the case? Do MOST or ALL theists think this? Does this theist think his religion was really his choice?
What are the implications for the theist who thinks this? Can he simply make the choice to cast aside his religion? Utterly bizarre.”
by this line of reasoning, i had no choice in being a christian, and yet most atheists dont miss an opportunity to criticize me for my beliefs. i wish you few enlightened guys would inform all those ignorant people that i had no choice so im not to be blamed.
also you havent made smart choices and followed the evidence to come to the logical conclusion there is no god, you had nothing to do with it because we have no choices in those matters, thats the group you were born into right?
to drew and anyone who shares his line of reasoning, i assure you that whether you agree or not with my christian beliefs, or think im a fool, that what i believe is by choice. whats utterly bizzare to me is that you can be an atheist and think the above statement you made has any merit.
chris
There’s no inconsistency if the criticism is directed as the qualify of the reasons for the belief and the methodology you use for forming beliefs. Indeed, that’s precisely the target of criticism when a belief is described as irrational — “rational” and “irrational” are ultimately descriptors of the basis or methodology behind a belief.
In that case, you can “choose” to believe that you have wings and can fly. Can you, really?
Which statement, that atheism isn’t chosen? Of course it isn’t — disbelief in gods can no more be chosen than disbelief that there are purple elephants under my bed. Or can you truly chose to truly believe that you have purple elephants under your bed?
‘Which statement, that atheism isn’t chosen? Of course it isn’t — disbelief in gods can no more be chosen than disbelief that there are purple elephants under my bed. Or can you truly chose to truly believe that you have purple elephants under your bed?’
This is something I find interesting, as I think I’ve often seen people who do genuinly seem to be able to force themselves to believe that which pleases them. I can’t really prove this so I’m not going to make claims of anything that I ‘know’ to be true, but one example that I find very common is liars who seem genuinly outraged when people call them liars, even though they could not possibly be unaware that they have lied. Even whilst they lie they seem to be able to somehow push this knowledge to the back of their mind and pretend it doesn’t exist, whilst still on some level being able to use it when it suits them.
Equally I suspect that many religious homophobes (especially converts) hate gays first, then come up with an idea of a god who hates gays to somehow justify this ridiculous prejudice to others, and they then buy into it themselves as it fits their world view. Again I’ve no solid evidence of this, its merely something to think about should it peak anyone’s interest.
Also, one does not choose beliefs so much as they choose you. Someone born to a Xian family is unlikely to have a child spontaneously be Buddhist. Someone would have to tell the child about Buddhism. One can go to services and do the rituals of any religion, but that doesn’t make them a believer. The events of your life shape your beliefs. A child raised by chimps in the jungle wouldn’t believe in Jesus or capitalism. i didn’t choose to be atheist. i’d love to be one of the flock, but what i have seen and experienced makes the content of the Bible a work of fiction to me. As a kid, i went to church and did all that nonsense my parents made me do, but it hollow. i couldn’t make myself imagine that Jesus died for my sins any more than i could believe that Santa Claus put presents under the tree.
The sad thing is that some people still believe that if they are “good” that there will be presents for them at the end. If a full grown adult still thought Santa delivered presents via chimney, you’d prolly see them as irrational, immature or maybe just as a fool. Some of us grew up and figured out that our parents put the presents there, some of us didn’t.
Santa is to children as Jesus is to adults. Similarly, fettuccine alfredo is mac and cheese for adults.
The scary part is that some of these believers have lots of money and power, and feel obliged to spread X’s love to everyone. Whether they want it or not. Some of them run for office and make decisions based on the will of their imaginary friend. What cracks me up is that God and the person always want the same thing, and sometimes God wants things that are contradictory. For instance, he wants BOTH teams to win the superbowl. He also want the Axis AND the Allies to win WW2.
Gravity is not a choice either. Atheism is an excellent cleaning agent. It gets rid of the crap so you can what’s left.
Chris, I don’t know if you have come back to this thread or not, but I’ll reply to your comments about my comments.
“by this line of reasoning, i had no choice in being a christian . . .”
I agree that as a child you had no choice. You probably didn’t.
“also you havent made smart choices and followed the evidence to come to the logical conclusion there is no god, you had nothing to do with it because we have no choices in those matters, thats the group you were born into right?”
My comment wasn’t about the ability of people to make choices generally, but rather a realisation that some people think that a religion is a choice. Maybe for others it is, but for me it isn’t. I’ve seen and heard people converting to religions to be compatible with a loved one. I could just never do this, because to me that’s not something that you can just “choose” to do. I can’t imagine living my life as a lie like that; or have such a “throw-away” mentality to such important questions an issues. That’s why it surprised me that some people actually think I could “choose” to start believing in their god and their religion, when the reason I reject it is that it’s a pile of crap.
“to drew and anyone who shares his line of reasoning, i assure you that whether you agree or not with my christian beliefs, or think im a fool, that what i believe is by choice. whats utterly bizzare to me is that you can be an atheist and think the above statement you made has any merit.”
Thinking that something good about you is true when it isn’t is not only extremely common among humans, it’s a survival and coping mechanism that has evolved with our large brains. Most humans have positive self-delusions. The ones who don’t are chronically depressed. A theist who understands, and then admits, that his religious beliefs are the result of parental and societal indoctrination is quite probably well along the path to rejecting those beliefs, but a person who is incapable of honest self-reflection (the vast majority of humanity) is probably incapable of such useful critical thought.
Although many theists rationalise their belief by claiming it is a choice, if they possessed the mental tools to dissemble the entire chain of events that lead to their religious belief they might not make this claim. Wish fulfillment, wishful thinking, need to fit in, inability to criticise - religious belief is all these things; but a free choice is something it almost never is.
Having been indoctrinated from birth, no choice, educated from infancy, in the basic British christian religion. no choice, by the age of twelve the doubts surfaced, were reinforced by thirteen, and totally consolidated by fourteen, when I CHOSE to be an atheist. Now in my eighties I find absolutely no reason to return to my era of no choice.
Choice is an intelligent decision based on reason and research. Beliefs are BLIND acceptance of unfounded, unprovable hypotheses, from dubious sources. Most of these beliefs are, and have to be, reinforced by continuous Church/Temple/Mosque attendance, plus daily ritualistic mantras all designed as part of strengthening what would weaken if intelligent enquiry and investigation took their place.
I pity the mind that will not question but slavishly accepts.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au