thank you for this response. i too read this article the other day and at first glance thought, yeah right. however, i began to reflect on my own experience in ministry to youth and realized that parents are very hesitant to allow schools and youth pastors to challenge their children. for example, i wanted to show a movie (Saved!) to challenge the notion of what it means to be a Christian and how Christians are perceived. an attempt to provoke thought and insight was soon foiled as parents asked me to review Focus on the Family’s movie reviews before showing the film. this is the very organization the movie parodies! there is a fear that challenging our students is not safe. safety lies in giving them fodder for discussion; in giving them answers. again, thank you for your response. how would you go about dealing with parents in a situation like i’ve described?>

Chad, I haven’t seen this movie but is it possible that the parents were concerned about – ahem – inappropriate content? I think movies can be an excellent tool for initiating discussion and reflection, but as a parent myself I have to say that too many movies these days substitute inappropriate content for the hard work required to write and tell a good story. There’s nothing worse than sitting in a theater with your adolescent and being surprised by content that you feel is not appropriate. This seems to happen to often. Those parents may just have been cautious, but I’m not familiar with Focus on the Family’s movie reviews to say for sure.>

The academy needs to make space again for the scholar of faith to be taken seriously (as long as their scholarship is sound, of course), but the church needs to stop turning out drones who have all “right” answers down pat and can only go running when confronted with the challenge of truly thinking critically. I almost totally agree with Mr. Francis on this point, but it’s not just the churches who turn out drones who spout the “right” answers, unfortunately.>

I thought “Saved” made some fair observations, and then went overboard in an attempt to bludgeon Christians and implore its audience to accept everyone just the way they are. Ultimately, I found the film’s viewpoint to be as shallow and insipid as the characters within it. And it does have offensive content. I think dialogue in general is discouraged in post-secondary institutions. I agree that Christians could be much better at articulating and defending their worldview, but isn’t college a great place to learn how to do precisley that? I went to a college that was very strong academically, but when it came to spiritual (not to mention political) issues, dialogue was frequently replaced by ranting and raving.>

“Students exist who wouldn’t know how to handle a serious intellectual engagement with ideas seemingly hostile to faith” There are VERY FEW in the Church who can handle “serious intellectual engagement”, aminly because they are so ignorant.>

Some years ago, when he was working for a Houston TV station, Cal Thomas asked Madalyn Murray O’Hair why so many Christians were afraid of her. She said it was because they were afraid that what they believe isn’t really true, otherwise “I wouldn’t be a threat to them at all.” Let’s not forget the real issue in all of this: Contemporary “religionists” want unquestioned cultural control so that they can live in this world comfortably and avoid spiritual warfare; thus in their view all institutions should reflect their agenda. Also remember that evangelical Christianity is often allied with a conservative political ideology, where even evangelicals of a less right-wing political stripe can be attacked (I know that from experience — when I was a campus newspaper columnist a right-wing student activist wondered why a Christian could be “so liberal”).>

Nonetheless, our colleges are very hostile to organized religion, and Christianity in particular. I remember one fellow announced in our first dorm meeting that he was hosting a Bible study, and invited people to come and learn about Jesus. You should have heard the back-talking afterward. Christ did say that he his words would be unpopular, but I was continually surprised that otherwise intelligent students could be so rabidly angry at the ideas espoused by the Bible without even considering them.>

Kevin, it’s just as I said — way back when in many cases people feel put upon by religionists uncomfortable with doubt. Thing is, this kind of cultural religion is actually counterproductive because it doesn’t really leave room for transformation of attitudes, goals etc. To give you an example, though the Bible (in my mind) clearly condemns racism the most racist folks in America are conservative evangelicals. People forget that the primary duty of the church is to exist as an “alternative” community that lives by different values and thus heralds the Kingdom of God; it is neither a social service agency nor promoter of moral values (though it may act those ways at times). Whatever, there should be something about Christians that can’t be duplicated in the world, and that attracts people to the Gospel.>

the most racist folks in America are conservative evangelicals. You’re going to have to provide some data supporting that observation, Rick. I think that’s a caricature without a lot of basis in fact. The most racist folks I know are not evangelicals. In fact, the most racist folks I know aren’t even believers at all.>

I disagree that the church is not a promoter of moral values. To the extent that the church can influence the culture positively, I think that’s great. I also have to take issue of your characterization of evangelicals as racist. The most racist people I have known are not evangelical (or even Conservative, for that matter). To the main question, while I agree that Christian “culture”often exhibits a nauseating tendency to dismiss all things intellectual, I am reminded of the men who Christ chose as his disciples. In fact, the Bible places very little emphasis on the intellect. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility to educate ourselves, however.>

I got that tidbit about evangelicals being the most racist from Ron Sider’s book “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,” and he indeed had the numbers to back it up. On top of that, it’s no secret that 11 a.m. Sunday is the most segregated hour in the United States, and even today most American evangelicals don’t really care. (To be sure, more and more do.) As a black man who has dealt with white evangelicals for over 30 years, I know this from experience, and there are reasons most African-Americans vote for Democrats (but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion). But this plays well with Christianity becoming a culture in and of itself rather than transforming it. Such Christians are truly afraid of “sticking out” for Christ, so they want to have everyone adopt their views regardless of whom they hurt, but that means no one grows spiritually and we don’t develop the inner strength to handle real persecution. And Kevin, I disagree strongly with the Bible “placing very little emphasis on the intellect” — my own faith tradition is primarily intellectual. According to R. C. Sproul, the Apostle Paul, for example, had the equivalent of to Ph. D.’s by the time he was 21, and you best believe that he called upon his extensive knowledge of Jewish theology to educate the church and his Roman connections to propagate the Gospel.>

Yes, the Apostle Paul was very well educated. However, he does not call upon Christians to educate themselves similarly. Again, this is not an argument against the practice.>

Rick – Forgive me if I discount your info due to the source. Sider is just not a trustworthy source in my opinion, although I have not read anything by him on this particular issue. Your point about 11 a.m. Sunday might be valid where you live, but the part of the country I live in is not more than 2% black so perhaps my experience in that regard is not helpful. I appreciated your comment regarding developing inner strength in order to handle real persecution. Lastly, R. C. Sproul is one of my favorites, so anyone who quotes him must be highly intelligent and discerning. Merry Christmas to you.>

To timks: Sider quoted a Gallup poll taken fairly recently to prove his point. The poll indicated that the people most likely not to want black neighbors were indeed conservative evangelicals as opposed to “liberals” or people with no religion. You said you live in a part of the country that is 2 percent black; however, I live in a major metropolitan area. On top of that, most of my extended family, especially on my mother’s side, is in the South. Thus, it’s far more obvious to me. To Kevin: You need only to go to the “first commandment” — “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your strength, all our soul and all your MIND [emphasis mine]” — to support Christian intellectualism. Paul also writes in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your MIND.” I mean, you don’t need a seminary degree, but we don’t attend Bible studies for nothing; they are as much as anything intellectual exercises.>

I have to admit that, as a graduate of Liberty University (did I actually put that in print???) and one who grew up in a fundamental Baptist church, deprogramming has taken years, and is, in fact, still in process. My mantra to my girls is, “own your own faith”, and we go down every path we can to, as you so aptly put it, discover God’s truth in everything. Thanks for the reminder!>

Well, the first commandment is actually “you shall have no other Gods before me”, but Jesus does instruct us to do as you say. That said, I don’t think the command to love the Lord with all of our minds is a call to become smarter. The reason I bring it up is because of Francis’ comment that some Christians “can’t think their way out of a paper bag”, and so go back to their “fundy roots”. First, this isn’t a very nuanced analysis of the situation. If you’re going to call people dumb, you should sound intelligent while doing so. Second, we need to remember that there are Christians who aren’t very bright, and that their intelligence has no bearing on the strength or power of their faith. There is no IQ test to get into heaven. I also disagree that Bible studies are intellectual exercises, but that could depend on how you delineate intelligence vs. wisdom.>

I actually no longer follow the “Ten Commandments” as such — the two Jesus mentioned are sufficient, the other being “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Even the Decalogue can be reduced to that. There is indeed no IQ test to get into heaven, but to be a disciple in thir world does take some insight. In fact, that’s what the whole book of Proverbs is about. Getting “saved” is not the end; it’s only the beginning, and God desires that we know Him as well as possible. That means using the minds he gave us. And since we’re talking about the academy, we Christians should have the best scholarship (well, the best of everything). It’s just that so many of us are so insecure about what we believe that we do damage to the faith by shoving it down people’s throats. I work for a secular newspaper and have had several articles published on issues of faith. I have found out, however, that if you make a good argument, express it well and don’t demonize the opposition you have a good chance of being published.>

Rick, Sider writes: “In Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, I cite poll after poll that shows, as one evangelical leader noted, “that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general.” Taken from here: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/162/story_16252_1.html The problem with such polls, of course, has to do with categorization. That is, most Americans will say things about “believing in Jesus” or being “born again”, but when you define “evangelical” as those who actually attend church, take the Bible seriously, etc. your numbers are very different. Maybe you’re familiar with the data showing that conservative evangelical churches are much more racially diverse than the more liberal mainline denominations?>

Francis misses the point. Universities are averse to organized religious thought in the classroom and/or on campus because it has no rightful place in academia. Narrow-minded students who desire religious correctness need to look at the purpose of the university. Separation of academia and church (much like separation of church and state) is crucial to the continued progression of mankind. Believing in God won t cure cancer or AIDS; only rigorous research in a controlled environment can achieve that end. The question shouldn t be why academia is so hostile towards religion; the question is why is religion so intent on combining the two schools of thought (which are almost entirely mutually exclusive). Religion exists outside the scope of university purpose, and any attempt to integrate the two will weaken the overall effectiveness of both.>

jrc writes: “Religion exists outside the scope of university purpose, and any attempt to integrate the two will weaken the overall effectiveness of both.” I’m not clear on this. I have taught U.S. history for 20 years, in two seculary, state-supported universities, and would find it impossible to intelligently discuss American history without reference to religion. How could one teach colonial American w/o reference to Puritan Calvinism, for example? Or post-Watergate w/o reference to the rise of the Religious Right in 1970s-early 2000s? Moreover, I regard what we do in the classroom as a form of worship. The search for knowledge, it seems to me, is valid form of work and I regard work as honorable in the eyes of the Lord. Merry Christmas to all of you.>

Jesse, I actually read the book, and my comments — and Sider’s findings — stand. I myself actually ran into a bit of institutional racism in the otherwise theologically solid campus ministry I was involved with about two decades ago, and the ministry’s stance did not even begin to change until the 1990s. Interestingly enough, this same ministry wanted recognition from my university’s Student Government Board back then and when it was denied (for some very good reasons, mostly because it did not comply with certain legitimate guidelines the school set down) people in it complained that the university was hostile to religion.>

Rick, I’m sorry to hear about your experience with the campus ministry. As the data from the Gallup polls suggest, there are clearly many people who call themselves “born-again”, “evangelical”, or “Christian” who are none of these things. As far as race and evangelicalism is concerned, I can only say that I am fortunate to have grown up in racially diverse evangelical churches. I hope many more churches will become places which testify to the great unity that can be found in Christ.>

Jeese, you are one of the fortunate ones — the only integrated evangelical church I’ve ever attended is the one I’m in now (though there are a few where I live). But by integrated I don’t simply mean numerically but also culturally and in leadersship. It’s only when you rub shoulders with people who come from different backgrounds that you realize just how you are. But not to get too far off the topic: I brought the racism part up not to focus on that but to note that Christianity — or, perhaps more accurately, Christendom — in my lifetime has often focused upon its desire for cultural supremacy. This is why so many people feel the need to identify “targets,” such as homosexuals, “liberals,” the government et cetera for destruction, and bashing the academy also serves that function.>

While I am sitting here this AM waiting for my family to wake up I decided to see what was going on over here. I TOTALLY agree with this quote: “But this plays well with Christianity becoming a culture in and of itself rather than transforming it. Such Christians are truly afraid of “sticking out” for Christ, so they want to have everyone adopt their views regardless of whom they hurt, but that means no one grows spiritually and we don’t develop the inner strength to handle real persecution.” The past 20 years of my life in a born-again environment have been living exactly this quote. Not on purpose mind you, when you have a family and small children you are naturally drawn to others with a similar life path. As my children got older I had much more time to reflect on other things and I became very aware of what is mentioned in the quote above. We listened to Christian music, went to Christian conferences, Christian festivals, Christian book stores and on & on. Towards the end of my days at church I felt that I should have just put a house on the church property. Between church & home there was no time to put into building relationships with “others” because all my time was spent babysitting other Christians. Then of course if you had any other viewpoint outside the churches (God forbid) you were treated like a leper. The home school group that I was a part of was awful too. Most of the mothers felt that they were right and made home schooling their God. They acted like it made them superior to mothers who chose a public education for their families. We had women in the group who thought that they should only wear dresses and never slacks. It is fine if you choose this for yourselves, but to them it made them feel more superior to others. I home schooled because it was what was best for my children. Not because it was the “latest & greatest” thing in the church movement. One woman (who acted the most Godly) in the group, didn’t go to church. Because she didn’t go to church the rest of the woman treated her as less. The reason she didn’t go to church anymore? Because when she (& her husband) got saved they were working in a small group environment. The couple that was “mentoring” them told them that they couldn’t do it anymore because they weren’t growing fast enough. Her husband said he would NEVER go to anyother church again. I know tons of families who have left the church over the quote above. It is so sad. We complain that the secular world is only concerned with money & power, but that is what I see in our mega churches and even our local small churches. Many pastors are using churches as a stepping stone to bigger and better churches. Everone wants to be the next Rick Warren or have their own TV show or book deal. If we even used half of the money we had in the churches no one would ever be hungry. I guess my point is that we aren’t ministering anymore. Letting others see “Jesus” in you is what brings the change to others who don’t know Him. Not screaming Bible passages to them. Showing “them” love without judgement is what I thought Jesus was all about. Jesus ministered to people all the time that weren’t perfect. He didn’t suggest that they be perfect before he ministered to them.>

Greetings, Kevin S.,Good point on Intelligence vs. wisdom. Many in this world are highly intelligent but are severely lacking in wisdom. There are different degrees of wisdom but true wisdom is choosing the Living God, and God confounds the thinking of those of the world. God states (in His word) that the intelligence of man is but foolishness to God. In the 20 years that I was involved in Psychiatry and at the University of Michigan, I had the opportunity to observe some of the most intelligent individuals in the world. Sadly, many were not wise in their decision making. Intelligence without wisdom can be a sad state of affairs for the individual, as well as those involved (as a result)of his/her decisions. The world’s thinking and results will never be totally satisfying to the individual or nations without God. The very bottom (results) of man’s intelligence is soon coming because man has rejected his God. God is real and man is but a shadow in time. Man cannot replace the living God with man’s “punny” foolishness,so-called intelligence, or wisdom. Some of the most politically correct, intelligent, anti-god, lacking in wisdom, individuals are found in the universities of the world. There are some “holdouts’ Christians at the University Of Michigan but it is difficult for them to express God’s views without being mocked. Many of the Universities began as Christian Schools and remained as such until the last few years. The “seperation of state and religion” people are either ignorant of history or are deliberately distorting, or are outright lying about about the facts and history of the school systems (in America). The Bible, prayer and all of the christian celebrations (Holidays)were freely expressed in the public schools throughout the history of America. The change came about with the courts and Madelyn O’ Murray case. The Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not designed to be. This is invented “LAW” by the courts and changed the very intent of the constitution. For those who profess this as fact please re-study the constitution and the Federalist papers of the founding fathers. Merry Christ-mas and a Happy New Year to all and to all a good night.>

Thanks for telling your story Deb. Just by doing that you start to live in the Living Christ instead of playing Christian. Please keep doing that. p>

To Christ’s child: That analysis is a little too simplistic. It should be no surprise, for openers, that the Unitarian movement started in “Puritan” America because, frankly, the Puritans were interested primarily in power (that was par for the course in those days because the Reformation was as much about power politics as anything else). I say this as coming from the Reformed camp. Yes, most colleges were started as religious institutions but as they become more established they began to drift (as everything does). And if you really want to talk about the “excising” of God from our society, let’s go to the post-WWII days where there was prosperity galore. Only a fear of communism (read: potential loss of privileges) kept people in church. Besides, in this country “conservative” religionists were never involved with issues of justice for the poor and dispossessed. Martin Luther King Jr. was either despised or ignored by most “born-again” Christians, which is one reason African-Americans routinely vote against the Republican Party. I could say much more, but I’ll stop here.>

Rick, You’re right that many evangelicals were slow to get on board with the civil rights movement, unfortunately. But I also have to point out that the abolitionist movement was headed by evangelicals both in the UK and the US. Merry Christmas!>

Jesse, you may be right, but you best believe that the Falwells and the Dobsons wouldn’t be on board were slavery an issue today, so that’s a tad misleading. Raising money for the sake of someone else’s freedom just doesn’t happen; apartheid is a comparable example. Besides, it is my understanding that the social conscience of yesterday’s evangelicals actually led to the fundamentalist/modernist split in the 1920s.>

Rick, If you want to look for an example of “raising money for the sake of someone else’s freedom” or evangelicals fighting for justice in present times look no further than the prolife movement. It has been catholics and evangelicals who’ve been leading the way in fighting against the horrible injustice of abortion. They stand in the tradition of Wilberforce and other evangelical abolitionists.>

I have really enjoyed reading the posts from Rick Nowlin, to me – you are right on target in regards to most everything you have written. And the comments written by Deb, well for me – all I have to do is put different names and different categories and I have witnessed the same behavior. And as she said the one lady within the group whom showed the most Christ like quality was the one who didn’t attend church. I too – have a former preacher’s wife, who does not attend church anymore because of the witness of the Body. As for me I believe there is definetly a difference between a high IQ and wisdom. And I find that the older I get and the more I study scripture – the less I know. I find today I listen more and talk less. I find that my reasoning can be to simplistic. That what I see on the outside, is not necessarily what’s on the inside – or truly the heart of the matter. Our desire to form neat little boxes of what is right and what is wrong, is simply too simplistic. So much more goes into who we are and the lives that we lead. Hence, why I believe that Jesus hung out with the sinners. He knew they were in need of healing and not only that they would infact listen. They had ears that were open. Moses killed a man and yet led the children of Israel out of bondage. God picked him, we would have found him unworthy. The woman caught in adultery could have/should have been stoned but Jesus chose not have her stoned. Peter denied the Lord 3 times and Jesus still chose to use him. Paul – yes definelty a great intellect of his time – persecuted the church and yet was the with whom was chosen to help bring the message of the Gospel. I am probably way of the mark with all that I have said, especially in regards to the topic. But again – I believe that we all have just a small understanding of what God desires for us. And Rick you were right…. the greatest commandment by Jesus was Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and strenght and the 2nd to love your neighbor as yourself….in these 2 you keep all the commandments. How do we love our neighbor, by treating our neighbor with compassion, love and respect. This is Jesus’ walk – the King who served. Oh how I desire to walk, to be a mirror of who he is. love you guys.>

MB – AMEN! Rick – great posts, I have really enjoyed reading them also.>

Jesse — sorry, but the modern anti-abortion movement generally is NOT in the tradition of the abolitionists because fighting abortion has itself become a cottage industry, and a lot of people would all of a sudden be bereft of purpose were abortion made illegal (which I would like to see personally). The issue is in fact used to generate lots of heat but very little light for the preservation of some folks’ power and authority. I didn’t know this until a few years ago, but abortion was a big problem at the turn of the last century. “Pro-life” people back then attacked the symptoms of the problem, such as sexual ethics — you really can’t deal with abortion without doing so — encouraging men to abandon the sexual double standard. This is why it was so effective. To MB above: I appreciate your kind words, but I need to correct one item. Jesus let the woman in adultery go not because of His mercy but because the Pharisees accused her falsely and broke the law in doing so.>

Rick, I think your characterization of the prolife movement, which is itself very large and very diverse, is unfair. It may be true that it has become “cottage industry” for some, but most organizations I know realize that abortion is a multi-layered problem and treat it as such. This is why you see efforts to educate, crisis pregnancy centers, homes for unwed mothers, etc. Abolitionists treated slavery the same way…working to change laws, seeking to change the culture, and even purchasing or rescuing slaves. My experience with prolife work has found that those in the movement are generally very charitable and are more than willing to put their money where their mouth is. I’m also familiar with the history of abortion in the US (Olasky’s book is very comprehensive). Those who were fighting abortion at the turn of the century were doing so while the prolife laws which were in place already reflected their values. Had these laws not been in place, their passing would no doubt be a goal of their movement.>

Rick, You had me going. I want to understand, truly I do. I could only find the reference re: the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3 in looking in the commentaries… because scripture says she had been caught in adultery…the commentaries say, that both parties needed to be held accountable. My understanding of this verse was that it was a trap, a trap for Jesus. Yet, for me the only one there who was able to cast that stone and to ask for the man to brought in to account would have been Jesus. He did not. He was the only one when asked, “He who is without sin amoung you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” He ended by saying to her to go and sin no more. Which is no more than what he asks of us, today. Which I like the woman caught in adultery fall short of everyday. Not adultery, Praise God, but foolish in the sense that I fail in being sinless. I hope to walk better daily, I ask for forgiveness, more than likely not enough for what I actually do. There is do doubt she was guilty, yet at the same time so where the religious leaders. For me, I find that I can be on either side of that coin – depending on which day of the week it is. I pray that my walk becomes better, but I am reminded how easily I can do things in which are judgemental, unkind, tricks and just downright wrong in the eyes of my Precious Heavenly Father.>

Rick, I didn’t realize, that my last post didn’t have my initials.>

I think Francis is a bit off here when he opposes “professors who start crying ‘victim’ because folks of faith are turning up again”. I think he’s fighting an opponent other than Taylor here, because Taylor didn’t bring up just any Christian intellectual, he brought up just the sort of Christian that runs away and cries to the administration if the professor asks a challenging question. That is, after all, the professor’s job. I go to a very expensive university, and I would be very disappointed if the professors didn’t challenge me to grow in new ways and consider new (difficult) ideas. I can’t bring myself to agree with Francis that academia should be a safe place for Christians. I don’t think we really ought to try to make things less challenging for ourselves. If you’re trying to build muscle and get stronger, you use more weights at the gym, and when you’re comfortable with that, you use even more. Never less. I can completely understand how one who is weak in faith (like I once was) would want to make everything easier, but that’s just not going to help in the long run. The only way to make someone truly stronger in faith is to challenge them and then provide (limited) help to overcome the challenge (limited because they really need to put in their own effort, though they may need help once in a while). I understand how someone may object to me calling the student in Taylor’s article a weak Christian, but it seems clear that no matter how strong a faith you think you have, the real test is what you do when your faith is challenged. This student chose to run away and complain about the challenge instead of working to overcome it. I can only conclude that their faith is not as strong as it can and should be, and needs to be challenged more, not less. Challenging our faith in academia (especially in philosophy classes) truly prepares us for what life’s really going to be like – people challenging your faith, asking hard, intellectual questions, etc. Of course, your life doesn’t have to be like that – you can choose to go live in a safe, isolated Christian community that doesn’t have any meaningful interaction with the outside world, and which cannot do the Will of God in the world to the fullest extent. Sure does sound like a coward’s way out to me… Choosing not to confront challenges, like having a professor that thinks religion is “just a socially-constructed reality”, is just like having your parents do your homework for you, except that the class you’re going to fail as a result is much much more important. As soon as you step out into the world, people are going to challenge your faith. *Especially* if you try to share your faith with other people. God tells us to always be able to explain and defend our faith (kindly) to anyone who asks. If we run from challenges and never confront them, we simply won’t be able to do that. If we continue running and separating ourselves from whoever asks tough questions, we’re going to seriously diminish our presence (and our ability to do good) in the world. That’s most definitely NOT what Jesus would do. So basically what I’m driving at here is – if you come across a tough spiritual question (from a coworker, professor, philosophy book, whatever) that makes you struggle with your faith, then struggle with it. Fight it out. Pray about it, read the Bible, talk about it with your clergy-type leaders, talk about it with your faithful friends, etc. Struggle with it until you’re done struggling with it. That’s what makes you stronger, and when someone else down the line has the same question, you can really help them out. What you can’t afford to do is just run away from it (complain to the administration, change schools, stop reading challenging material, etc), because then you ensure that you just won’t be equipped for the challenges that lie ahead.>

Rick, First, I don’t think you can simply say the Dr. Dobson or Jerry Falwell would not oppose slavery. That is simply unsubstantiated opinion. Neither can you dismiss out of hand the work that the pro-life movement is doing. The pro-life movement faces particular challenges (via the supreme court) which make action a little more difficult, but still believe they seek to root out an injustice. It seems as though it is you who is trying to shoehorn Christians into a neat little box.>

Kevin, as a Christian myself I would never be guilty of “shoehorning” Christians into anything. But the historical record is clear, and the reality is that most conservative Christians wouldn’t care about ending slavery. I based my comment about Falwell and Dobson on contemporary Christian culture and, in the case of Falwell, past actions. Falwell, though he says he has repented of his segregationist past, openly supported the government of South Africa in the 1980s when it was fighting anti-apartheid activists in general and Nelson Mandela in particular in calling for reform; I have never heard an apology from any conservative Christian, let alone Falwell, for doing so. And as for “pro-life,” you completely missed what I just said. The original “pro-life” movement didn’t simply focus upon changing laws; it changed the culture beforehand. Today’s anti-abortion movement wants to change the culture by changing the laws, and that never works.>

I have been doing genealogy and I find record after record (in PA) of people leaving churches because no one could agree on slavery. I hope to God that I would have been one to stand up and not only speak out (in favor or freedom) but to help. I taught my children to NEVER judge anyone based on color, religion, etc. We have not walked in anyone elses shoes, and I’m old enough now to realize what that really means. I agree with Rick, you can’t change people by making laws. People have to want it (& see it). The prohibition did absolutely nothing and caused way more problems than it ever solved.>

Jesse, Oh, I’m well aware of the vastness of today’s “pro-life” movement and I do support its goals. Nevertheless, when I was in college I butted heads with some of its student activists because it focused ONLY on changing laws, not to mention insulted and misrepresenting the views of people who didn’t actively agree with them. In my experience, abortion opponents even today generally act in an authoritarian manner.>

Jack, thank you for some sanity. The topic is one near and dear to my heart in part because I’m considering going back to school to get a master’s degree, and my primary interest is faith in the political process. Especially if I attend a secular university I should expect to have my basic beliefs challenged, which should make me only stronger.>

To MB: Jesus let the woman in adultery go because the Pharisees were forced to withdraw the accusation; they themselves broke Mosaic Law in the first place. It had little to do with His mercy. 1) The law stated the offending man also needed to be apprehended, which of course didn’t happen. 2) You needed at least two witnesses to accuse someone of a crime, but it was also illegal to watch people have sex, which is why He suspected a set-up. 3) Had her partner had an ejaculation she was ceremonially unclean anyway (remember, she was brought into the temple where Jesus was teaching).>

Rick, Again, your statements about abortion opponents and conservative evangelicals are sweeping ones based on little to no evidence. “Most conservative Christians wouldn’t care about ending slavery” is a very offensive statement based on zero evidence. I would recommend that you get to know more of these conservative Christians you are demonizing. Most do not fit these racist caricatures you are making. Today’s anti-abortion movement wants to change the culture by changing the laws, and that never works. –This statement is empirically false, as demonstrated by the fact that abortion rates increased each year after abortion was legalized. There is also research demonstrating that different laws (parental notification, informed consent, etc.) lead to decreases in abortion. Laws reflect culture but they also influence culture. Once abortion became legal, it became more acceptable to many. Many started to view it as a back up option and sexual promiscuity, increases in illegitimacy, etc. resulted. I should also point out that those who say “changing laws doesn’t work” usually vote for pro-choice candidates…this argument seems pretty self-serving and disingenuous, to say the least. The abolitionist and civil rights movements both sought to change laws. You could, no doubt, see the same law and culture dynamics at work in slavery and segregation.>

Rick Nowlin: Thank you for responding. The comments I posted were to cause more discussion and not to be too much in depth. The time frame after the second world war was the time that I was pointing out and I agree with you. The problem(s) with the comments in general is that we all over state and generalize at times. My personal back ground and life has not been at all isolated. Being raised in Detroit, Michigan, with more black and Mexican friends than white ( my “White” family was the minority)maybe gives me a different view than expressed in some comments.In the church all of the saved are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ. To concentrate on the color or differences of others in a negative way is counter productive,at least. Christ is the way and we are commanded to go into all of the world proclaiming his good news even in the Universities (public places).Many want to concentrate on seperating the christian from the world and where the christian can speak and not speak.The church is commanded to increase and to proclaim God’s word to all of mankind. God invented science,math,language,as well as man and man refuses to honestly admit this fact. This refusal is in man wanting to be God and to replace God with himself(government,etc.).At the present time I am involved in mission work in South America and my eyes have been opened to more of the poor and needy there,in Peru, Chile,Ecuador, Argentina and Colombia. These are the countries that I have visited and worked in thus far. Before I became involved in this missionary work I was somewhat afraid and thought that I might be rejected or worse, but I have found only love both in the church and in helping the poor and needy in the different places.Jesus chose Peter,a fisher man and Jesus chose Paul, an educated man. We do need to study and think on God’s work but at some point we need to “DO” God’s word. The Greeks enjoyed just thinking about new ideas such as thinking about this man called Jesus and what he may have done. Many of us are not unlike the Greeks in this way.>

Everyone deserves to have their name correctly stated as in Madalyn Murray O’Hair and not Madalyn O’Murray, sorry!>

These posts have been most excellent. Rick – your 3rd point – I have never heard before but an exceptional point. I would bring it up in our next bible study re: this subject but can imagine the looks I would get.>

Jesse, Hate to burst your bubble, but I’ve been around conservative evangelicals and abortion opponents (and occasionally have actually been persecuted by them) for over two decades. Over a decade ago I even had my own segment on a Christian radio program and I occasionally heard some of the reactions to my commentaries. Thus, I think I’m on solid ground. As for my comment that “most conservative Christians wouldn’t care about slavery today,” the church’s own history gives some hints. Remember that around the time of the Civil War almost every mainline Christian denomination split over whether to deny communion to slaveholders, and to this day the Southern churches, which agreed with doing so then, are more “conservative” and “evangelical” but in most cases also more openly racist, than their Northern brethren. Not only that, but much of the opposition to MLK Jr. was based on his “liberal theology” and his being educated in the North. With abortion, it’s not the issue itself but how it’s framed. Your more apocalyptic anti-abortionists have done a grave disservice to the cause by warning of dire consequences were Roe v. Wade not overturned, and on top of that it’s still used as a fund-raising tool. And you still haven’t addressed my point that anti-abortion activists are generally authoritarian, in my experience with a PRIMARY focus on changing laws without considering the consequences. Some years ago I heard a true story about a woman whose mother had had a medically justifiable abortion and two women she had never met visited the house and condemned her for it. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is the picture most people get of anti-abortionists.>

Rick, I’m sorry you’ve had some bad experiences with conservative Christians, but did you ever gather anything from any of your experiences which suggested most Christians approved of or were indifferent to slavery? Any Christian? True, there were Christians in the 19th century (not just in the US, mind you) who did not see slavery as the injustice it was…but it’s a logical fallacy to say “because they approved of it then, they must approve of it now.” It is also true that some Southern Christians hold racist views, but it is not all of them or even most of them…if you think it is most, please show me the data. Making the preposterous claim that “most conservative Christians wouldn’t care about ending slavery” is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst. I’m sure you are aware that African-Americans are more likely to hold anti-semitic beliefs than any other demographic group. Could we also say that “most African-Americans wouldn’t care about ending the Holocaust against Jews”? The logic is the same as your statement above. The fundamental problem is that you’re making unfair generalizations to an entire group based on your personal experiences/impressions of a few individuals. It’s wrong when this is done to blacks, and it’s wrong when this is done to conservative Christians. I understand that many people perceive the prolife movement as authoritarian and they have definitely struggled with an image problem. But there has been a move over the last several years to focus on and embrace both mother and child. Women are thought more of as “second victims” in abortion. In addition to crisis pregnancy centers, homes for unwed mothers, and so on, there are post-abortion groups sprouting up everywhere. Considering that many Christian have had or will be having abortions, I think it’s something that pastors do not speak about enough. As a result, women either don’t see it as being that bad or (after they have one) believe it is an unforgivable sin. But that’s veering off topic…>

Jesse, Well, we’re a bit off-topic as it is, so… As for the slavery issue, it’s necessary to understand WHY many Christians supported it — plain ol’ racism. Don’t forget that two of the legacies of slavery were Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan, the latter a “Christian” organization; had African-Americans not had to deal with these realities we would have never needed a civil-rights movement, which is where many white evangelicals are indeed indifferent. That, BTW, is what got Trent Lott into trouble several years ago when he suggested that segregation would have solved “all these ‘problems’” that we had today, and he has a long history of statements that sound awfully racist. But he has quietly regained his leadership position in the Republican Party and was re-elected last month with nearly two-thirds of the vote. The fact that few Christians to my knowledge have publicly protested these kind of statements the way they do abortion or homosexual marriage speaks volumes, and the reality is that the percentage of evangelical churches that are truly racially integrated across the country is still in single digits and only because, at least in older assemblies, they’re often in transition. As for “proof,” ask Bill McCartney, formerly of Promise Keepers and who has always maintained a strong stance against racism — he has said that every time he went to a PK rally and spoken about it he was met with stony silence. He was quoted in Christianity Today saying that it’s the primary reason PK attendance has fallen off over the past few years. I am indeed aware about many African-Americans’ antipathy toward Jews, but that began to happen only when the state of Israel was formed. Soon after that Islam began making serious inroads in the black community, and since the right wing has come out in support of Israel — an important issue — blacks and Jews have occasionally clashed. It’s important to remember that Muslims are not anti-Semitic in principle; they just feel that Israel and the Jews have generally acted unilaterally and that the Jewish state in fact represents arrogant Western imperialism at its height. That’s the real reason they want Israel destroyed. Louis Farrakhan, whom I rarely take seriously, once said that Israel was created “in violation of the Jews’ own law.” You are right in saying that Christian women have been and will be having abortions, but that speaks more to the unhealthy relationships between men and women than anything else. The pro-life movement in the late 1800s addressed that issue but we don’t today for some reason; it should make sense that if they’re climbing into bed with someone there’s the possibility of pregnancy.>

Rick, We both share the goal of a more racially integrated church, but I think you’re wrong in putting all the blame on white evangelicals. Evangelical churches are not well-integrated, but they are more integrated than mainline denominations. It’s also true that many black churches make little effort at reaching out to their non-black brothers and sisters. Personal prejudices can fuel both sides. In large part, the segregation in the church represents a lot of the segregation that exists in society as a whole. I hope the church will take the lead in breaking down these racial barriers. The churches I have been a part of have been doing so. Yes, Trent Lott made some ugly statements. And he apologized and was punished for it. Sharpton and Jackson both have made anti-semitic remarks…Sharpton’s remarks even led to people getting killed. Both spoke at the DNC convention. Other CBC Democrats are on record making racist remarks against whites. What to make of all of it? People would be more concerned, I’m sure, if someone like David Duke, an unapologetic racist, were in leadership. As it stands, I don’t think people not protesting against Trent Lott says much at all. I personally don’t like him that much, but me not making a fuss about him doesn’t make me a racist.>

Jesse, I don’t agree at all with your statement that white evangelical churches are more integrated than mainline churches. Now, many of the modern “mega-churches” have black members, but you cannot say the same for more traditional, evangelically-oriented churches still within mainline denominations (many of which exist in my city) or those that have separated from those denominations because of doctrinal issues. The church I grew up in is part of a denomination that split from the larger Presbyterian church in the 1930s, and even to this day it has no black members. (That being said, I’m still welcome.) You are right in saying, however, that the segregation does represent racial separation in society as a whole. I blame that, however, on the idea that going to church is a “respectable” thing to do in this country and that people thus bring their own prejudices and cultural blinders into church. I am not aware of any “racist” statements made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus. What can be construed as “black racism,” truth be told, is really these days a contempt for right-wing political positions that they feel are themselves racist, if only passively. As for Trent Lott, no, he did not really apologize for what he said because he did and does not understand that it was wrong; listening to his “explanations” made that clear. A couple of years before that he spoke at a meeting of what was known back in the day as the White Citizens Council, which was a segregationist organization. And as for punishment, the Republican Party stripped him of his leadership post — that was all, and as I mentioned he’s back in. As for David Duke, you may remember that he ran for governor of Louisiana a few years back and even won a majority of the white vote; he lost only because almost all the blacks voted against him. (Then again, his opponent typefied corrupt politics in that state, so it was a matter of whom you didn’t want in office.)>

Rick – I too see the same things that you do. I appreciate your responses. It is so refreshing that you have not returned fire with more fire. Keep up the good work. I would also like to say that from my experiences we are all somewhat afraid to build a bridge between our communities because we don’t want to say something wrong. One other interesting thing I would like to interject. In our PFLAG group we have some young black men & women who want to start a group for just them. They really do feel that we can’t relate to their problems at home with parents, etc. While we all get along and love each other it is kind of frustrating that we can’t relate. Their biggest problem they say is that the “black community” feels that gays are a “white problem”. They feel totally abandoned, but we just don’t know how to help them. Do you see this? Any suggestions?>

“I don’t agree at all with your statement that white evangelical churches are more integrated than mainline churches. Now, many of the modern “mega-churches” have black members, but you cannot say the same for more traditional, evangelically-oriented churches still within mainline denominations (many of which exist in my city)” This is essentially what Jesse just said, that non-denominational evangelical churches (which is the direction evangelicalism is going) are more diverse than mainline denominations. “As for David Duke, you may remember that he ran for governor of Louisiana a few years back and even won a majority of the white vote;” It was 15 years back, and he also ran, as a Democrat, for the presidency in 1988. I’m not sure what this has to do with evangelicals, and I dont think anyone has made the clam that there are NO racist white evangelicals.>

Kevin, ” … that non-denominational evangelical churches (which is the direction evangelicalism is going) are more diverse than mainline denominations.” Jesse said evangelical churches in general, which I know not to be true. The mega-churches are still a minority in evangelicalism, BTW. “It was 15 years back, and he also ran, as a Democrat, for the presidency in 1988. I’m not sure what this has to do with evangelicals, and I don’t think anyone has made the clam that there are NO racist white evangelicals.” Wrong — Duke ran for president in 1992, as a Republican. The GOP actually wanted to take him off the ballot in Florida and the American Civil Liberties Union came to his defense. My point was and is that there’s a lot of racism in evangelicalism that it refuses to address.>

kevin s. – you are very young, and I think that you haven’t lived through a lot of what Rick is trying to convey. He is not here beating anyone over the head. He has lived it and these are his experiences. His viewpoint is valid. This is why many non-denominational evangelical churches have been trying to reach out to the black community (I hate when we call things communities, but for a lack of better term this is what I am calling it). In my side of the world, he is right. The mainstream protestant churches in my area are still pretty segregated. The non-denominational ones are trying to call out to all people. Someday it just might work.>

Deb, I am a bit “out of the loop” when it comes to a lot of things in the black community, but I do know homophobia is pretty strong there. My own church, which belongs to an evangelical denomination and is about 20 percent, is fairly unique in bridge-building. I’ve participated in Sunday School classes where issues of racial diversity are openly addressed, and we’re going pretty well. One thing I hope we will deal with someday is our political diversity.>

Amen, Bob Francis. Aggressive secularism is a real problem in academia. Sometimes I have to let people know that I’m a Christian, just so they won’t think they can trash-talk “Christians” as a group in front of me. This problem is invisible to most my colleagues, who think Fundamentalist Christians must be forceably de-programmed for the good of the human race, and call this “tolerance.” When I point out this problem, people justify their bullying by decrying the evils of the Religious Right. The Religious Right is such a self-evidently wicked enemy, that people can’t recognize that secularism can be oppressive too.>

Lydia, my son is at college and has roomed with all kinds of people. They respect each other and have all gotten along. The only Christian kids that have problems are the ones that are extreme. And to be perfectly honest, they seem to be socially awkward which doesn’t make it easier for them. The Christians that act Christ-like are every bit well liked and popular as well.>

In agreeing with Deb, I think part of the problem is that many Christian leaders anoint themselves as the definers as to what is Christian and what isn’t, for the sake of control. If Jesus is not making his presence felt through changed lives it doesn’t mean a hill of beans in the long run.>