Posted by Siamang on: 06.13.2007 /
By Siamang
Both Hemant and PZ Myers have posts discussing Chuck Colson’s recent diatribe to a group of Southern Baptists in which he outlines the 3 threats to Christianity as being Islam, atheists and the Emergent Church.
In reference to my post about how we like nice big juicy targets to wack at when debating others with differing views… Here’s a comment, presumably by an atheist, on Pharyngula which illustrates my point exactly:
Of all the drooling nonsense within Christendom, the “emergent church” is the most offensive, because it actually combines Post Modernism with biblical hermeneutics. Crap squared. It’s not even wrong, and it’s impossible to counter or even discuss because it is shapeless and even further down the rabbit hole than “orthodox” Christianity.
Now, when I call a belief “offensive”, I hope it means that I think they’re treating people poorly. Like attacking gays, or fighting against equality for women.
But no, to this poster, it’s the most offensive form of Christianity because he can’t get a good solid wack at it.
Which may be the exact reason Chuck Colson doesn’t like it either.
-Siamang
Comment by: Mike C
1That is quite amusing. :)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2Great observation, Siamang!
Comment by: PZ Myers
3No, I don’t think you get it. It’s offensive because it is vacuous — no substantive content at all.
Treating people poorly is offensive, but treating people poorly for no reason, but only because you believe in a particularly insipid version of empty religion…that’s doubly offensive.
Comment by: Stephan
4PZ, you are criticizing what you do not understand. What Mike believes and lives out is far from vacuous and is full of substance. It’s just not easily labeled.
And I don’t know that Mike treats people poorly based on what he believes. Again, you are criticizing what you do not understand.
Comment by: Keith
5Mr. Myers,
In what sense do you see the Emergent church treating people poorly? In what sense do you see this poor treatment deriving from their belief in this particularly insipid version of empty religion? Thanks for posting, and I look forward to your response.
May the coffee you drink be neither insipid nor virulent, and may the dialogue here be neither as well.
Comment by: Siamang
6Hi PZ, and welcome.
I’m not aware that members of the emergent church treat people particularly poorly. The ones I have met tend to treat me, an atheist, with respect and I’ve quite come to admire them.
For example, this blog. Know any other websites run as part of a Christian ministry who invite atheists to blog for them?
Now, whether or not the emergent church has no substantive content, I tend not to agree. I have learned that attempting the standard atheist apologetics with an EC’er is likely to be met with a response somewhat like boxing a shadow. More often than not, the response I get from an EC Christian is along the lines of: “That’s a good question… I enjoy seeing that from your point of view.”
To me, that in itself IS substantive content in that it is a procedural rejection of dogmatism.
To me, it’s progress. The EC Christians here see me as a human being with different beliefs. Not as hellbound. Not as someone desperately lost and in need of saving. Just as someone with different beliefs.
PZ, I’m an atheist, just like you. I left my supernatural beliefs behind because like you I like specific testable assertions.
But I’m also of the opinion that the human mind is really really good at walling off information it recieves from members of out-groups while protecting information from in-group. We see that in Chuck Colson’s speech. We see it in dogmatic closed-mindedness all around us.
I don’t read all the scientific data, but IIRC many studies on cognition show that people have a physiological response that causes them to reject ideas that they percieve as threats before even letting them into the rational parts of their mind.
The way to open minds, I’m convinced, is not to beat at other people, but to achieve personhood in their mind. You may think it’s not achievable, but I think this blog and its circle of posters is attempting something unique to the atheist community, as well as the Christian community. It’s quite the interfaith/nonfaith experiement, wouldn’t you say? An atheist blogging for a Christian ministry?
Comment by: Siamang
7And I apologize for misspelling your name, PZ. Corrected.
You’ve got to give me props for spelling Pharyngula correctly from memory, even if I can’t spell Myers.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8PZ I’d also like to hear you elaborate on how emerging Christians treat other people poorly.
I hope you’ll provide the substantive content behind that remark for us.
(I carefully checked this comment to make sure it had no smilies in.)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
9Siamang
This is all I think all of us are trying to do
How about a little progress - that would be cool
Comment by: Mike O
10When Colson talks about the EC being a threat to “Christianity,” if it’s true, I’m not sure I care. Because what does he mean by “Christianity?”
He must mean the “Christian Religion.” Because I don’t see how EC would be a threat to Christ … we’re trying to be like him.
Heck, even if we’re getting it wrong, trying to get it right and failing is not a threat.
What is it they say … imitation is the highest form of flattery? I think ECers are trying to imitate Christ.
Personally, I think Colson is great. I like him. I like what he’s doing with prison ministry. I share his his conservative positions on a lot of topics. I just think that maybe the thing ECers are a “threat,” to is religion. And if that’s true, that’s a good thing.
I just want to be like Christ. And I don’t see how trying to relate to people like he did is a threat to what he wanted to accomplish.
Comment by: Bisch
11Hey, Siamang, thanks for the invitation from a couple days ago at Unscrewing the Inscrutable. I’ve read a bit here and love it so far.
Hopefully I can get into a discussion in the near future.
The best, Paul Bischoff
Comment by: siamang
12Thanks, Bisch!