In the middle of a two-hour chat about matters of faith, my conservative Christian friend told me she had no problem with evolution.
So much for that stereotype.
Amid all the hostility among people of faith, many of us reserve our most potent venom for people of our own faith: those who disagree with us, that is. "Conservatives," "moderates" and "liberals" within most faith traditions often find themselves at odds. (Words like these are fraught with trouble, so I am using them loosely.) Put together two devout Catholics on opposite sides of the abortion debate, or two Baptists with different views of scripture, and the conversation has the potential to get long, loud and angry.
If there is a conversation. In fact, precious few people actively seek out those who disagree with them. Unfortunately, that leads to a vicious cycle. The longer we avoid "them," the more space we create for caricatures and stereotypes to arise. Seeing our adversaries through the filter of those stereotypes -- which usually include the qualities we loathe about them -- just increases our anger, and so we avoid them even more.
Worst of all, the whole cycle runs counter to the Divine imperative at the core of most religions: compassion. Small wonder that people of no particular faith hear our words, watch our actions and give up on us.
What's a person of faith to do?
We can start by removing the stereotypes. Over the years, I've had the opportunity to spend time in traditionally opposing camps of the Christian faith: I have been a teenaged literalist conservative, a cerebral evangelical of sorts and (now) a moderate Episcopalian who admires Eastern faith traditions and aligns with the "heretics" on key points. Along the way, I have observed some stereotype-defying aspects of the people I've come to know. For example:
Not all religious conservatives take the scriptures literally. At least not in the way the stereotype runs: that every word of scripture is literally and factually true for all time. Most of my literalist friends understand that the Hebrew Psalms are poetry, that the Book of Job is literature, that St. Paul's opinions on hair length and celibacy might be messages to a specific church rather than universal truths. Most important, they think about these issues with a degree of reflection that goes far beyond the bumper sticker "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Many conservatives are good, gentle people. Without question, fundamentalism and zealotry have spawned violence, prejudice and hatred over the course of human history. This does not make all fundamentalists violent, prejudiced and hateful. Many of my conservative friends will tell you, for instance, that they are not homophobic -- in the sense of "afraid of gay and lesbian people" -- even as they uphold their stand that homosexuality is sin. Many of them strive to practice the virtues their scriptures require of them: gentleness, generosity, love. They give of themselves in the pursuit of good works. They get involved with the disenfranchised.
Many moderates are passionate about God. Political and religious moderates both suffer from this stereotype: that moderate means indecisive, apathetic, even spineless. They don't really have a dog in this hunt, so the story goes. Don't you believe it. I know moderate monks, priests and others who have changed their entire way of life to submit to their sense of God's calling. You don't do that without passion.
Many Christian liberals take the Bible seriously. I have heard conservatives dismiss the positions of liberals as mere attempts to fit in with the prevailing culture, regardless of what the Bible says. Yet some of the most thoughtful Bible thinkers I know are among the most progressive, and they search the scriptures to better grasp the Divine will. As with the point about passion above, you don't devote years of your life to the study of something you dismiss easily.
Not everyone in a given category believes the same thing. My conservative evolutionist friend is a case in point. So is my cousin, a gifted scientist and a person of faith: two categories thought to be diametrically opposed. So are many young evangelicals who rank environmental issues among their most pressing concerns. So are Catholics who vigorously oppose abortion and just as vigorously advocate for the poor.
The larger point is not the observations so much as how we arrive at them. I learned these things simply by spending time with the people in question. The more I listened, the more surprises I found, and the more the impact of the labels faded away. Yes, my friend is conservative, but suddenly I saw her more as human: the most fundamental common ground from which we can dialogue and care for each other.
What have you seen in people of faith that defies the stereotypes? Please share it here.
Follow John Backman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/backwrite
Share your Comment:
That we are all born with a debt to God Almighty, a debt to be paid with infinite pain for ever and ever, which is righteous and just (because our forbears did not appreciate God's love); but that we can, by agreeing not to riot and murder, while paying 10% of out worldly goods to the interprete
Amen.
God gave us the bible.
God gave us the Holy Spirit.
God will allow us to talk to him any time of the day or night and always answers us.
Keep it simple and know the Father!!!
I am just saying.
:-)
Certainly, many areas or decisions in life can and should be disagreed upon. However, what are the tenets that should be agreed upon to define yourself as _ (Christian
The Catholic Church has the Magisteriu
I think relativism is a slippery slope. While this should not discourage dialogue or the search for Truth, we should continue to work and pray to define our beliefs.
"Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words"
- St. Francis of Assisi
I think the Protestant
Thank you for reminding me about the 3-legged stool analogy. I am glad to be an Episcopali
That is only time I can remember in recent memory that the stereotype has been broken.
Dialogue is so important in religious groups and between religious and secular groups. Stereotype
I have grown up as an evangelica
I keep a blog on all this you might be interested in? http://lov
It is an incredible and informativ
Have fun on the journey and all the best in finding the right path for you.
I think the article is saying more that we should get to know people on an individual basis prior to judging anyone and placing group stereotype
Thank you for this article!!!
As a dyed-in-th
Peace, love and blessings!
The term, as it is used now, should refer to those who are based in that movement (via Billy Graham) that emphasize authority of the Bible (to varying degrees) and the need for personal conversion (varyingly
During Ronnie Ray-gun’s presidency I first noticed that right wingers have insatiable need to ascribe labels to people such as liberal or conservati
I’m for tough sentencing and the death penalty if the evidence is over whelming. However, I believe that programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are necessary for the health and welfare of tens of millions of Americans. Does that make me a liberal or a conservati
It would seem that some people are comforted in someway by putting labels on other people. However, the simple fact is people are more complicate
I used to be a moderate Republican
I used to be an agnostic, but now I seem to be an atheist to a lot of people because I don't believe wholeheart
Some people are willing to conform to whatever label they like best, I think that's where this whole thing comes from.
Unfortunat
Therefore, it's going to take an effective interventi
There is such a judgment, and it tells us that it doesn't matter what your religion is, or whether you are religious or not. What matters is that we establish a society where all religions, races, cultures and ethnicitie
We can establish such a society, with a reformatio
I think I should add that I understand that in promoting this message I teeter on the edge, as it were.
On one hand, I understand how and why the humble, gentle, peaceful and meek shall inherit the earth. Yet, on the other hand I understand why the son of man had to tell the honest truth. I understand it is the "stone" of truth which "shatters the image of the King of Babylon," as Daniel put it, and the stone shall become as a great mountain that fills the earth.
Therefore, on one hand we should do as Jesus said and not as he did, so we should be loving and forgiving. But, on the other hand, the modern son of man has done as Jesus did (but in writing), and he rebukes the greedy rich and the sanctimoni
I admire your approach, and yet I have accepted a responsibi
Isn't that circular reasoning? That makes the situation where there is a God and some rebel against him vs there being no God and some genuinely recognize this, indistingu
I'm not an atheist because of the negative actions of some believers. I judge the evidence for a claim, not just the negative consequenc
"God has given enough mind boggling evidence for HIs existence.
What would that evidence be?
Secondly, "He already knows who has a date with destiny and Satan" implies a determinis
Thanks for your thoughful reply.
John 14:6 ends the debate about different roads to God and John 3:16 tells you how to get to the ONE GOD that created off of mankind.
As for determinis
Thanks for the feedback,
Doc