Posted by Jim Henderson on: 05.03.2006 /
Christiantiy Today, the leading evangelical magazine has a blog. They recently posted something about Hemant and OTM. Check out the comments, leave some of your own or cut and paste something interesting and bring it back to the diablog.
Many of the comments will give those of you with limited experience with evangelicals an clearer feel for how they view this kind of project.
Comment by: Ir
1Yes indeed. Many of the comments were boringly typical of evangelicals ;)
Christianity Today’s choice to focus in on Hemant’s comments on Christian Media was unfortunate I think - and typical of the lack of thinking evangelicals tend to put into something. I expect they chose those comments of Hemant’s since they, being a Christian publication, fall under the heading of ‘Christian Media’.
However, I think any of Hemant’s surveys of evangelical churches (Willow Creek, Park, Park Community and Moody are all evangelical, I think) had a lot more comments about evangelicals in them than Hemant’s survey on Christian media. They would have been more relevant.
Oh well. I guess I’ll go post that to them. (A bit more tactfully ;))
Comment by: NCxian
2I, too, found the most interesting question to be why they chose those particular paragraphs from Hemant’s post. I didn’t think about the Christian media angle, though that does seem likely.
My guess is that the blogger thought the comments were likely to evoke responses (which is why we all post, I suppose). In this case, I think they were probably trying to elicit some discussion, which is really hot right now in Christian circles, about whether worship should be designed to appeal to the “lost”, or whether it should stick to ritual, tradition, and what they might call “proclaiming the whole Word of God”. It is a very gray, and sometimes contentious area with folks who care about how worship is done. I see that this particular CT blog is done by the Leadership folks, who would have that kind of interest, I would think.
Comment by: Julie Marie
3what struck me was that a handful of the responders thought, on the basis of 3 paragraphs Hemant wrote, that they were informed enough about him to speculate about his motives. There was a link to this blog, yet it does not appear the speculators chose to take the time to read further. I’m afraid that is an all to human characteristic - if we can decide someone’s motives are murky, we can dismiss what they say. If they are saying something we don’t particularly want to hear, that is an easy way to protect ourselves from thinking about it.
Comment by: NCxian
4That is exactly what I have found as I have tried to describe what atheists are saying on this blog to some of my Christian friends. I end up saying, I’m sorry, I can’t convey the whole conversation in a few minutes. You had better check it out yourself.
Comment by: NCxian
5OK, my next comment is going to be a gross over-generalization, not to mention totally lacking in humility.
I think there are two kinds of people in the world (there’s the gross overgeneralization): people who are happiest in the company of other people just like themselves; and people who are willing to engage with people not at all like themselves just for the sheer titillation of a new idea. By definition, this atheist blog thing has brought together a bunch of the latter, I think. Everything else is bound to be boring! Thanks to you all! (Oops, too many exclamation points–looks pentecostal according to one of the CT responders–I thought his comment was pretty funny).
Comment by: Julie Marie
6Hemants observation about the homogenenous nature Christian conference marketing was one of my favorite of his insights. Its sooooo true. That is a valuable nugget of information leadership would do well to ponder. C’mon, America is not made up entirely of middle aged middle class caucasians.
Comment by: Ir
7If that was all there is to it, I would have found those evangelical perspective comments interesting because they certainly are different from my current perspective.
I think the real issue for me is not whether someone agrees or disagrees with me but whether they thoughtfully and creatively engage with their and other belief/non-belief systems, as it were.
Some of the evangelical circles I used to move in had the goal of helping people ‘think Biblically’. Sometimes this seems to translate into learning how to parrot Bible verses or how some ‘authority’ interprets and applies them, unfortunately. I find that extremely boring.
However, to the extent it can mean, “I thoughtfully and creatively engage with what the Bible says”, I’m all for Bible-believing Christians doing that. Even if I disagree I will at least find it interesting!
Comment by: Julie Marie
8I wish there were more of us. I’ve talked with two of my friends now regarding my thoughts on the Bible. Tears sprang to ones eyes (and she was the more modern, or so I thought) and another has, with heartfelt passion, exhorted me to discuss my issues with someone who has spiritual authority as I am way to vulnerable to satan to figure it out on my own. She just does not understand that I do trust myself, and that God is big enough to handle my questions, even if man is not. sigh.
Comment by: Julie C.
9The CT blog is often too annoying to read. Its usually a bunch of guys condemning anything that is outside their box. There is no thoughful engagement, and a lot of fights.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10Julie Marie said:
My Question:Is this mostly a function of the ease of blogging meaning, since we don’t have to look a person in the eye we can say things about them that we’d neve3r say to their face OR is this just a function of being intellectually lazy emotional humans?
Either way since none of the people at who’s expense we are we are learning (The Out of UR Bloggers)are here to explain/defend themselves, what can WE learn from Julies insightful observation?
Comment by: Jayson B.
11If I have to hear this quote one more time I’m going to drive a drywall screw into my forehead, and then I’m going to headbutt the guy who had the guts to say it to me. Being that there is a drywall screw sticking out of my forehead, this is going to hurt.
Hey, it’s one thing to call me stupid, or wrong. I’ll freely admit that i do the same to christians, and I can take it.
But it’s another thing to keep using the bible as proof of my foolishness, and it’s ANOTHER thing to use the bible to HIDE YOUR CONTEMPT.
This passage is the great excuse: “hey, *I* don’t think you’re foolish, but god says right here that you are.” It’s passive aggressive, and it’s used just to make the christian still feel safe in his self righteousness, that he hasn’t been mean.
That said, reading this made me feel better about this blog. I’ve felt that at times things were going to spill over and it was all going to come crashing down, but you look at people like that, and you see how far EVERYONE on this blog has come…………..well, that’s progress. I like it.
Comment by: Julie Marie
12I can understand being enraged about someone sanctimoniously hiding their contempt behind a facade of pious purity.
Open contempt is not a pretty thing, either though.
When we move beyond our judgemental belief structures to understand one another, contempt crumbles. Its not easy to do, and when we feel attacked its nearly impossible, but when we succeed, as we have at times on this blog, the result is very satisfying.
Comment by: Stephan
13Jim asked what we can learn from Julie’s insightful observation.
Here’s what I hope we can learn. Ascribing motives to someone is always harmful to productive discussion. Feel free to questions someone’s actions or comments, and feel free to ask them what their motives are, but do not pretend to know what their motives are. As Julie mentioned this is usually a way to dismiss what someone has to say. I also often find it insulting.
To the extent that I have done this, I apologize. I ask that others refrain from it as well, both here and on the message board.
Comment by: Julie Marie
14sometimes I don’t know what is driving me either, and thoughtful questions help me figure it out for myself as well. no one is immune to self deception.
Comment by: Julie Marie
15this is a point I had not considered. The anonimity afforded by the internet is another one of those realities to hold in tension. Its good in that it frees me to be more honest about myself, because if someone finds my thoughts offensive, well, they don’t live in my neighborhood so I don’t have to worry excessively over it. but with that freedom does come a responsiblity - when addressing others, to not be a jerk. One way to avoid this, for me, is to stop and think: if the person I am coversing with online were sitting on my couch, how would I say this?
Comment by: TXatheist
16I think there were two posters who made worth-while posts. This one sums it up best “What I find most interesting here are the assumptions being made about Mehta (Hemant). ”
In all seriousness, thanks Julie C dated 4/24/06. That is the problem with being an atheist as seen by too many xians. I’m not saying there aren’t biases from us to xians but this poster and the last person, Ir, made relevant comments and not just useless comments like Hemant is spiritually blind.
Comment by: skikid
17Julie Marie had a very good point. I think that I am just as guilty of it as those who posted on that blog though… the first time I saw ebay atheist blog I don’t think I had even read three paragraphs before I had judged Jim’s (OTM’s?) motives. I’ll apologize to Jim in advance, but I really thought you were probably just another ‘bible thumper’ who would try to hit Hemant over the head with you Bible enough times to convert him. For whatever reason I kept reading this blog (it’s the only one I do read) and over the course of weeks Jim and the others who identify as ‘evangelicals’ managed to seriously challenge my preconceptions. Point being I think there is something to be said for patiently and persistent honesty and openness.
Comment by: Ir
18Me too skikid. I’m glad you stuck around. If you hadn’t I couldn’t have benefitted from reading your thoughtful comments!
Comment by: Rorgg
19Here’s the comment that jumped out at me:
All of need to understand that the lost are watching us. Don’t think for one second that the lost aren’t judging Jesus by how we act. Believing in God requires faith but so does not believing, whether non believers know it or not. Faith is not easy because it’s believing in something you can’t see or touch so we work on our faith to stay strong. But since we’re human we all struggle from time to time. The lost are no different. They struggle too because, whether they know it or not, built inside them is the desire to seek God. So they look to us to justify their nonbelief.
That’s both wrong and rather conceited. While a number of non-believers have come to the point of examining their faith structures because of the actions of some believers, to assume that it would be impossible for people to take a rational approach to the subject and come up with a different answer verges on insulting.
“Pastor John Atkinson,” who wrote this not only assumes to know our thought processes and desires — better than us ourselves — seems to think that it’s impossible to judge “Jesus” (speaking here conceptually) on his own merits.
If anything, the actions of the folks he’s speaking to are indicators of the INSTITUTIONS of religion that exist, they’re completely irrelevant to accepting the validity of the actual theological question.
Turn it on its head. What if I said this:
Rationalists, we all need to understand that religious believers are watching us. Don’t think that they aren’t judging humanism, skepticism, and a naturalistic worldview by how we act. The religious struggle because, whether they know it or not, built inside them is the desire to throw off superstition and embrace reality, so they look up to our failures to justify their irrationality.
Not only is it insulting, it’s ridiculous.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
20That’s interesting, Rorgg, because that is not at all what I understood him to be saying. I thought he was saying, in essence, “Look, we’re all in this together. Some of us are believeres and some of us are non-believers but either way it is tough because our beliefs are rooted in faith about things that are intangible.”
IOW, Christians have faith about a God whom they can’t see, but atheists have faith in their reasoning about evidence they can’t see (because it isn’t there.) Both of us, therefore, are in similar situations as we strive to maintain our intellectual framework for our world view.
At least, that is what I understood him to be saying.
Comment by: NCxian
21Ir wrote:
That was what I was trying to say (you just said it better!). We like to explore new and different ideas here, which makes our discussion more interesting to us (because we are the kind of people who like that). As compared to over at the CT blog where they are, for the most part, talking among themselves with nobody to challenge their underlying assumptions. They never get much beyond discussion at the surface, because underneath they are in agreement. To the extent that they do go underneath, it is only to find . . . they are in agreement. Which is kind of boring.
Comment by: Julie Marie
22so then to get over their boredom, the argue amongst themselves about finer points of doctrine.
but there I go, assuming motive. how pervasive the trait is.
Comment by: Rorgg
23Tom — it’s possible I misunderstood, but I’d encourage you to go back and read his entire comment. I just quoted an excerpt. I think in context my interpretation stands.
Comment by: Rorgg
24By the way, I sent my objections to him directly via email, I didn’t find it appropriate to intervene in that discussion, but I thought it was worthwhile to respond in a way he’d see. If he meant otherwise, I’m hoping he’ll respond. I also asked him to allow me to recount our exchange on the forums here, so we’ll see if anything comes of it.
Comment by: Ir
25They have the same software downloaded to their systems and - surprise, surprise - when they run it with the same input data, they get the same results!
I ignored all the dire warnings and uninstalled the software. That’s when things got interesting… ;)
Comment by: Ir
26Rorgg, I find it annoying too when Christians say this. It’s not provable and it invalidates the personal experience of everyone who as best they can tell has absolutely no desire to seek God.
If someone can’t detect such a desire in him/herself, it seems rather presumptuous to me of someone else to declare that a) that desire is really there and b) the person who doesn’t perceive it in him/herself must simply be ‘in denial’ of it.
Comment by: TXatheist
27Ir,
That theme of Hemant being spiritually lost is what I saw too much of from some xians.
Comment by: Siamang
28At the risk of being presumptuous, I’d say that the mainstream Christian worldview demands this belief.
After all, they, to the exclusion of all others, have the “right” religion. God must therefore have planted the desire to seek Him in everyone’s busom. Otherwise He’s setting everyone up for hell.
A desire for there to be a God is taken as proof that there is a God. CS Lewis used this rationale when he said that there is no need inherant in man that has no way to fulfil it. He desired for there to be a God, therefore God existed.
It’s a particularly twisted form of logic. But then again, Lewis was a literature professor not a logician.
Comment by: Marty
29Siamang - I would agree that what you describe as mainstream Christian worldview is true for many Christians - but I am not sure I would call it mainstream - but who really knows what is mainstream. Maybe it is an I have just not accepted that I am not mainstream.
I choose to believe there is a God and I find it speaks to me relative to understanding and appreciating the magnificience of nature, healing, our human bodies, etc. That is just my choice and I guess that for myself I think that that is proof. It is certainly not proof in a scientific way - but nevertheless I like it and it is more comfortable for me than believing there is not a God. But I have no issue with anyone else who is equally more comfortable feeling there is not a God - and equally can not prove it.
Comment by: Westy
30I found the one comment on OTM’s vision seemed accurate.
Jim, would you agree this is your mission?
Comment by: Siamang
31Marty,
That’s why I felt that my comment was slightly presumptuous. I don’t mean to speak for christians in my comment. I just wanted to give my impression that the theology behind christianity fosters the feeling that according to christians, it’s mankind’s destiny to all be christians eventually. Every nation tribe and tongue, you know?
Comment by: Chris
32Pastor Atkinson wrote me back. I did, in fact, interpret his post appropriately. His response was along the line that while he trusts me when I say that I don’t have that need, but that I’m an exception and most of the “lost” aren’t like that.
And that if I really do feel that I need god, after all, let him know.
So, basically he apologized that I saw a message intended for a Christian audience, but stood by his assertion that non-believers are all (or at least overwhelmingly) believers in denial, essentially.
Comment by: Ir
33So…he has a theory about “lost” people which I doubt he’s run by “lost” people. One “lost” person comes to him to tell him he’s wrong about at least one lost person.
I suspect this is the only real piece of data he has from ‘the source’. Does he revisit his theory in view of this real piece of data? No, he simply decides the only piece of data he has from the source is an anomaly.
(I may be wrong that this is the only piece of real data he has - but I suspect it is because I can’t imagine any “lost” person saying - you’re absolutely right! I do have a desire for God! I never noticed it till you pointed it out!”)
Comment by: skikid
34Not all those who wander are lost.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
(Not that I think anyone here is lost or wandering)
Comment by: Julie C.
35but aren’t we all. to me to wander is the only healthy way to live. granted I have that quote as a bumper sticker on my car… ;)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
36Westy
One of Off The Maps central goals is to attempt to introduce anyone who is interested to Jesus as we’ve come to understand him.
Another is to help make the world a better place- if some people aren’t interested in one of these goals we can partner on the other.
I believe/hope/attempt to practice that it is possible to live life intentionally (with a desired outcome in mind) without becoming manipulative (forcing that outcome) or mean.
a.k.a. nonmanipulative intentionality.
We are also very interested in learning from those who disagree with us or are disinterested in us. However, we will ultimately spend most of our limited resources of time and attention on those who are looking for something even if it isn’t exactly what we are offering
Hope that helps - I was waiting for someone to pick up on that
Comment by: skikid
37Julie
For myself I definately agree… but I hesitate to imply that about those that i know only through a blog… wandering has been where things get intersting and where I grow the most. :)