Talk Hard II: Defending Dissent

Posted byChaplainmikePosted inCommentary, Evangelical Anxieties, Rants, Uncategorized

The Original Talk Hard: Defending the Role of the Critic in Christianity. Lots I would change in that essay, but it still holds up 6 years or so later.

Recently, I received an email from someone who has been a longtime reader of this blog, giving his reasons for being a regular reader and generous supporter.

This particular reader appreciated the writing I’ve done on the subjects of mental illness, psychiatric medication and emotional health. As this person is a professional in those fields and far beyond me in understanding, I was understandably happy to read that email.

I have received many thousands of emails in the last 8 years of Internet Monk. A sizable portion express appreciation for something that deserves a moment’s consideration: that this blog is one of the few places some folks have found where certain points of view can be discussed with relative civility.

I won’t attempt a listing, but any regular readers will know that I’ve made it part of the mission of this blog to be present an alternative view of any number of issues within evangelicalism in particular. I do so with provocative writing if possible, and with active moderation of the discussion. I’ve done this without expectation of finding there would be thousands of people reading and thinking: “O I’m not the only person who feels this way.” In fact, I’ve expected considerably more hostility and objection than I’ve received.

Recently, the IM comment threads have started routinely going over 100 comments. Interpret that as you will. In all the time I’ve done this blog, I have temporarily banned around 20 people, and absolutely banned 2.

Yesterday, a commenter aired the usual complaints at me:

I don’t affirm inerrancy.
I’m critical of “my brethren.”
I give “Papists and liberals” plenty of space.
I limit conversation.

Of course, as most readers know, I fully affirm the truthfulness of the Bible in the language of the Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession. Ask any of the dozens of advocates of gay marriage and gay ordination how I’m doing on taking the Bible seriously. What I’m not doing is allowing the word “inerrancy” to become a code word for a set of positions I don’t believe the Bible teaches. I’m not turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy that the “inerrancy” stampede has foisted on my denomination. Give me a confession made before the word “inerrancy” was invented, and I’m perfectly content.

There are thousands of people who don’t buy the kind of flat, literalistic inerrancy that is being sold among conservative evangelicals today, and, sorry to disappoint the gallery, but we don’t have to. Being a Baptist doesn’t force me to buy the search for the ark, young earth creationism, Hamm/Hovind, complementarianism, homeschooling, conspiracy theories, Dobson’s view of politics, bad Christian art, arrogant leaders, bad scholarship or the SBC’s view of itself as compared to other denominations.

Yes, I am critical of some of my brethren. I’ve never lived a day in Protestantism that there wasn’t a critical conversation going on. If the memo has gone out that we’ve stop asking questions and contending for answers, I didn’t get it. My blog is one tiny voice in the midst of a massive evangelical self-promotion machine. When I first called for the outing of Osteen as a motivational speaker, what had you heard from anyone in the evangelical establishment about him? (Oh, that’s different. Of course it is.)

The animosity some have towards this writer and this space comes simply because I have staked out a different position than they’ve been led to believe is the only allowable, God-endorsed, position allowed by the Christian worldview. Their orthodoxy, and the God who sponsors it, requires that dissent be quenched as an act of faithfulness. When I express dissent and protect its expression by others, I’m certain to be told by some amateur fundamentalist Freudian there’s something psychologically wrong with me. (Friend, if you believe you are the ultimate measure of mental health, please go on a world tour so the rest of us can see what it looks like. But just between you and me, I wouldn’t quit my day job on that one.)

The commenting voices at this site give witness to another view. There are Protestants who aren’t Catholics and don’t hate Catholics. There are Catholics willing to talk with Protestants as fellow Christians. There are Orthodox and mainliners seeking to relate to evangelicalism. There are Lutherans insisting we all know nothing about law and gospel. (That’s a joke.) There are Baptists who question the “What we need is more evangelism!” mantra. There are evangelicals who have nuanced views on the issue of abortion, women’s ordination, the nature of homosexuality and the Christian view of mental illness. There are people who give “Papists” and “liberals” space to talk just like the other kids in the class. There are many of us lost in the evangelical wilderness trying to find a drink of water and some food.

I don’t endorse all these views or their opposites. There are a number of issues where I’m not sure what I think, but I am determined to not be railroaded into being told that I must endorse or bow down to positions that I do not hold, am not required to hold and are not my conviction. I’m just as determined to tell my audience that other views exist as held by REAL PEOPLE.

If you look out in the back yard of the last twenty years of battles in the Southern Baptist Convention, there’s a baby in the bathwater. That baby’s older name was “soul competency.” More recently, he went by the name “priesthood of the believer,” but I like the previous name much better. In the “battle for the Bible” in the SBC, the moderate/liberals took those terms and used/abused them, causing conservatives to spend most of two decades bad-mouthing “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer” as anathema to Bible-believing Christianity. Some of that response was necessary, but some of it has been singularly unfortunate and overblown.

In truth, Baptists have historically stood with the individual in his right to have his/her own convictions in regard to what scripture or a person’s own religion teaches. We sided with that principle when it caused us to defend Muslims and atheists. We sided with that conviction as a proper summary of Luther’s contention that his conscience about the Bible was adequate defense as to why he stood against the Pope. We defended that principle as essential to the classic definition separation of church and state endorsed religion. We understood that, without embracing all the tenets of anarchic individualism, it was right to protect and hear the minority. We rejected, historically, the tyranny of a class of theological enforcers and their political ambitions. We defended confessionalism, but we did not mindlessly defend all levels of uniformity. We realized, after painful lessons in the civil rights era and beyond, that the majority and their Bibles can be completely wrong.

Today, we live in an evangelicalism that is enamored with numbers and success. And of course, those vast numbers are told they must think, write, worship, vote, educate, live, preach and teach identically to one another because they possess the truth. (Or someone at the home office does…somewhere.) This is the sadness of being ranted at about the “sin” of refusing to use the proscribed word to describe inspiration or of daring to differ with some well-funded, fat cat majority with a mailing list. I may be wrong, but this web site is exercising something Baptist Christians used to care deeply about: DISSENT.

But in today’s atmosphere of sheeple following the media and denominational shepherds, we place no value on dissent. It’s far more impressive to rant about my failure to appreciate the fact that anyone who waves a Bible around should be free from having anyone actually differ with them. It’s now good, conservative sport to tell a dissenting fellow Christian that, as I heard today, my faith is about to collapse and/or I’m going Catholic. All this- ALL- because you have steadfastly decided other views are not worthy of your RESPECTFUL appreciation.

The reason I am unafraid to side with the dissenters and those asking questions that aren’t allowed is that history is moving to our side. The manipulators of orthodoxy are in trouble. They’ve taken our confidence and put the screws to us for the sake of their own power. The celebrity-driven churches are, for the most part, going to be exposed as having no clothes. The laboratories that produce these evangelical clones are shutting down as the experiments seem to have gone horribly wrong. The deluded majority can act as if they have squashed everyone’s arguments and rendered all competing opinions foolish, but in fact, quite the opposite is happening. A lot of people are dissenting, even in an atmosphere of intimidation and spiritual abuse. Write all the books and blogs you want. Have a conference and get 3000 men to wring their hands with you. You aren’t gong to stop the collapse of the kind of authoritarian fundamentalism that wants to keep all of evangelicalism in a stranglehold. It’s over.

Occasionally, I write with the express purpose of sounding a wake up call. I’m provocative and my audience appreciates that in my writing. I am not sounding so much of a call to arms as a literal wake up alarm to the sluggish and the sleepy. We are standing on the brink of momentous changes in the evangelical world. Many Christians brought up in a fundamentalism with all of the answers have discovered things are much different than they would have anticipated. They are exploring this new world, even as the old one is still shifting beneath their feet. Part of that experience is being told you shouldn’t speak or write what you feel. The better part of the experience is ignoring that, and speaking exactly what you’re thinking, feeling and discovering. “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say,” as Will Shakespeare put it.

In the meantime, I consider IM a public service to people who need to get out of the way before a chunk of crumbling evangelicalism falls on their head. If the house isn’t falling where you are, that’s wonderful. Make whatever you want out of the reports from my part of the house. That’s your privilege as a reader.

80 thoughts on “Talk Hard II: Defending Dissent”

  1. Not too long ago I saw EWTN Fr. Peyton’s Family Theater Production’s portrayal of the Day of Pentecost. Raymond Burr played St. Peter, and other recognizable character actors from the 1950’s played other apostles.

    There they were in costume — full beards and all — in the upper room faithfully pronouncing their parts from the Gospels and the Book of Acts: “The Lord told us to wait here for the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. He will lead us into all Truth.”

    Cut to Fr. Peyton, narrating from the Scripture.

    Back to the Upper Room. There they all stood in exactly the same poses. St. Peter (Burr) in the same attitude and tone of voice saying something like, “The Spirit did come, just as Our Lord said he would. ” Another apostles adds, “Yes and I saw it come down as tongues of fire. And We all spoke in other languages. And you Peter preached to the Jews and converted thousands.”

    Then Peter speaks to each Apostle by name, prophesying what part of the world each will preach in. And that was it. The Great Day of Pentecost treated as if the postman had just delivered the morning mail. — Surfnetter

    Surf, that’s just PAINFUL. “Tell, don’t show” just like all those scenes in Left Behind. When I was on a road trip last year, I was in a motel with EWTN and checked it out. Some sort of movie about the life of St Ignatius Loyola. It was AWFUL — St Ignatius, Basque nobleman, professional soldier, swashbuckler, and founder of those “Vatican Green Berets”, the Jesuits — turned into a Pious Plaster Saint from some Victorian holy card. Looks like Evangelicals & Baptists don’t have a monopoly on really AWFUL dramatic productions. We Papists flake out, too.

    For the best Upper Room scene in film, check out the first post-Resurrection appearance in that old TV miniseries A.D.. Jesus is dead, Judas is dead, Peter’s in full depresso mode as he and the others hide out. So he decides to start eating, passing a loaf of bread around to the others. Close-up on the bread as it passes around, counting off. And then the last apostle there passes it to another hand — one with a nail-scar. “Come on, Peter, I know you’re stronger than that. After all I taught you?”

    Pan up. It’s Jesus, sitting there like nothing’s out of the ordinary, with a “Hi there; remember me?” look.

    Apostles freak out. Bad. “Hee… Wah… Gik… Na… Hoo… Ha…”

    Jesus calms them down, shows “Yes, it’s Me,” teaches them a bit, then passes the loaf around again.

    Again we follow the breadloaf around from hand to hand, counting off until the last one hands it back to Jesus — and nobody’s there.

    Great Scene.

    Jesus has this posture like he just sneaked in and wanted to see how long before they notice him sitting there, the disciples react like you’d expect real people to (total freakout), and both appearance and disappearance are like actual accounts of paranormal appearances/disappearances — you never see the appearance or disappearance, the apparition is just THERE like you didn’t notice it coming.

    Like

  4. Goliath:

    You mean there is NO variation among individuals in any given group? I was unaware humans (and other primates) were a hive-mind species…

    Like

  5. Phelps is just as good of an example of a Christian as any other because one Christian is just as much of a Christian as any other Christian. When are you people going to learn that?

    Like

  6. If your example of a Bible-believing Christian is Fred Phelps, there isn’t much else to say. I hope you find other, less hate-filled Christian models. Peace.

    Like

  7. “While [the Christians here are] more than happy to teach you about their take on God, nobody here would compel you to worship Him.”

    Then they have no interest in the grand commission, and hence they are not bible-believing Christians, unlike, say, Fred Phelps.

    Like

  8. Goliath,

    Maybe you’ve heard a lot of Christian hate speech, but you’ve picked the wrong forum to complain about it. IMonk runs a pretty tight ship here, and doesn’t put up with non-Christian bashing. This is a bunch of people, mostly conservative Christians, trying to find their way out of the mess they have been led into by various Christian excesses/heresies/misinterpretations. They’re looking for a different take on Christianity, but not of the bashing-the-heathens variety. While they’re more than happy to teach you about their take on God, nobody here would compel you to worship Him. Peace.

    Like

  11. The more that you people hate and fight each other, the less energy you’ll have to wage the battle against non-christians.

    Onward, christian soldiers, onward!

    By the way, I would STILL rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship your god.

    Like

  14. Curtis,

    I’m not Surfnetter, but I get what he’s talking about. The Holy Ghost visiting the Apostles would have been an shaken-to-their-foundations, life-changing, well-nigh-unbelievable experience. Sure, they’d been with Jesus, who may have been God incarnate–healed the sick, cast out demons, stuff like that–but who came across as a man. This was tongues of FIRE–clearly not-man–giving their marching orders. They would have been excited, freaked out, CHANGED, comparing notes on what they’d seen and felt and heard–understanding, finally, that they’d heard God. They wouldn’t be calmly standing around discussing their experiences.

    The movie portrays the bare facts, but shows no understanding of what actually happened to the Apostles on that day. I think Surfnetter is saying that what the Church teaches, if this is an example, misses the mark, because it doesn’t understand the direct experience of God. When those who have experienced God directly through Baptism in the Spirit come into conflict with the doctrines taught by their church, he is suggesting that believers will need to make a choice between following the teachings of the church or their personal experience of God.

    Like

  15. Curtis — The key to what I’m referring to is in the reality of the Baptism in the Spirit.

    A couple of months ago I acted as confirmation sponsor for my niece. Th RCC tells the kids that this is their day of Pentecost — and reads from the Book of Acts. But even after the Charismatic Renewal has been officially accepted as an important move of the Spirit, this experience was for me and I’m sure for almost all candidates and sponsors the most useless and tedious exercise in a place of worship I have spent in all my years as a Christian. The elderly nun organizing the event treated us not just like cattle, but retarded cattle. And then the Bishop comes out for the homily and tells them that this is the most important day of their spiritual lives and that God is about to enter them in a very special way to guide them, just as he did the Apostles. My niece, the rest of the young adolescent candidates (many of which were thinking of themselves as vampires, due to the popular “Twilight” series) and the adult sponsors were bored to distraction.

    This had as much resemblance to the actual Day of Pentecost and the experience in the Early Church as a New York rush hour subway does to Times Square at midnight on New Years Eve.

    Like

  16. Surfnetter:
    I’m not sure what is so upsetting about that production you mentioned. The tradition of certain apostles being sent to certain lands, Mark to Egypt, Thomas to India, etc… is not Catholic dogma by any means. It seems like a very humble, unassuming production. I don’t see why this play caused you to have to pit God against His Church…

    I see things like this at RCIA a lot. Sometimes even set to interpretative dance. It’s cheesy and painful to watch, but it hardly seems cause for an existential crisis. Some people really like stuff like that. I usually just close my eyes and recite the Dies Irae until it’s over. 🙂 Am I missing something?

    Like

  17. Hmmm, allways englihtening to read your blog. I am always intrigued by our differences in perception. Some of it relating to our different theological heritages but some of it grounded in our geographical distance…the difference between Southern California and the Bible belt. For instance you point out the evil that resulted from SBC adoption of inerancy- I find that facinating. I am so greatful that the LCMS teaches biblical inerrancy since I can look at the theological state of other Lutheran church bodies that don’t. There may be a price to be paid by Baptists in embracing inerrancy but there is a price to be paid by Lutherans in rejectin this doctrine. Odd the same doctrine would work so differently in our different theological traditions.

    Like

  18. Not too long ago I saw EWTN Fr. Peyton’s Family Theater Production’s portrayal of the Day of Pentecost. Raymond Burr played St. Peter, and other recognizable character actors from the 1950’s played other apostles.

    There they were in costume — full beards and all — in the upper room faithfully pronouncing their parts from the Gospels and the Book of Acts: “The Lord told us to wait here for the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. He will lead us into all Truth.”

    Cut to Fr. Peyton, narrating from the Scripture.

    Back to the Upper Room. There they all stood in exactly the same poses. St. Peter (Burr) in the same attitude and tone of voice saying something like, “The Spirit did come, just as Our Lord said he would. ” Another apostles adds, “Yes and I saw it come down as tongues of fire. And We all spoke in other languages. And you Peter preached to the Jews and converted thousands.”

    Then Peter speaks to each Apostle by name, prophesying what part of the world each will preach in. And that was it. The Great Day of Pentecost treated as if the postman had just delivered the morning mail.

    This was a very popular Catholic media ministry of its day. But for those of us who have experienced the Baptism in the Spirit, this is an obvious example of uniformed but well meaning people putting the words of Scripture into the context of their own limited experience. When that is codified into dogma that is enforced as what must be adhered to, then the choice will always come for those who have the Truth revealed to them as to whether to follow God or the Church, in my opinion.

    Like

  20. As to the subject of dissent…….isn’t that what false teachers are known for in the bible……to cause divisions and to bring people after themselves ? I am all for dissent for the sake of the gospel or for the sake of Truth but I think we should becareful that we don’t fall into dissenting for dissenting’s sake or worse dissenting out of a rebellious heart or dissenting to be noticed and wanting attention. And also, Paul makes clear that in the last days that some will fall away from the faith. Jesus makes clear that the gate is narrow and the way is hard. I think people these days have fallen for the postmodern idea and desire to be ‘ oh so different ‘ from such and such or so and so. I think that is what might be driving some to think and react the way they are. If that is correct they are wasting their time trying to be ‘oh so different or unique ‘. Fundies are reacting and non-Fundies are also reacting.
    As to authoritarian fundamentalism I would agree with you about it’s harm and that there is a better way. I think we’re living in hard times spiritually speaking. It’s become harder to listen to Truth.

    Like

  21. HUG, I have a vague memory that I asked you before about your science fiction writing. Remember that I want to read some of your writings.

    iMonk, well you manage to attract quite a variety of people. So, if you are wack then so must we be. Hmm, of course, there is at least one Archpriest, maybe two, who think that about me.

    As with most things there is a balance between too much dissent and too much sheepleness. It is a hard to find balance. And, if I had the answer to that balance, I would cheerfully write it down here.

    Like

  23. Ed:

    If you refrain from making me the central issue, and speak respectfully and on topic, you won’t be moderated at all.

    I appreciate your point, but the “fear of being moderated” simply isn’t a reason not to comment. I probably moderate less than 1% of comments.

    Your comment that I will make it clear what I actually said and actually mean is really puzzling. Given a choice of what someone heard and what I actually said/meant, which should I defend?

    For example, a guy asked me how dumb I thought James Price was? I said I never called him dumb. “Dumb” has a meaning. I know the meaning. I didn’t say it or mean it. I said what I said and good grief, that’s provocative enough. I’m more than willing to discuss what I’ve said, but I won’t discuss the exaggerated and reworded versions of what I meant.

    I’m in class with non-Christians 5 hours a day, 4 of those teaching Bible. I’m pretty experienced at creating a teaching environment. But when a student wants to tell me that my mention of African American culture actually meant that I was a racist who wants him back in the cotton field, he’s not going to get very far.

    I may be defensive on what I write because I take some care with what I write. There are manipulative commenters who do nothing but go from blog to blog stirring the pot. If I’m going to have comments, then I’m going to be accurate. I have a lot of positions that others don’t share. I’m not trying to avoid the provocative nature of what I say. But I will deal with what I said and what I meant and not with what some critic wants to stuff into my mouth, mind or onto the page.

    ms

    Like

  24. I grew up in a wonderful SBC church in the fifties and sixties whose leadership was as caring and righteous to a fault. Yet when I went to college, I discovered the liberal side of Christianity that my church never talked about. I was concerned that they had been hiding Schweitzer, Barth, Bultmann, et al from me and I almost lost my faith. One summer I began to do some reading at Southwestern Seminary and realized that the liberal positions could be addressed and one could be both conservative theologically and open minded. Of course, N. T. Wright is an example for me today, as well as other pastors, who seem to have gravitated from the SBC to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

    I finally left an SBC church six years ago, partially because I was sick of the Convention infighting and smearing of reputations, and joined a conservative Methodist church. There, I am free to be credobaptist among a sea of paedobaptists and no one cares. I can debate the meaning of the resurrection with one with a less literal viewpoint and we can remain friends. It used to be that way in the SBC, but they seemed to have lost tolerance starting in 1979.

    Like

  25. Either way, Michael B.

    I certainly didn’t think she was defending it. This is a thread about Christian dissent, and I am offering some based on the topic raised in that post.

    Much of the nature of my own personal areas of dissent in the Spiritual realm is based on what is easily observed by the unindoctrinated as opposed to what scholars and theologians tell us we should or must believe. That post is an example.

    Like

  26. Michael,

    Yes, your writing is often provocative.

    Provocation can elicit emotional, seemingly irrational responses in the reader, uncovering deeply-held beliefs and prejudices, so I don’t think it’s surprising that some of your readers don’t “get it”.

    I have noticed a pattern in your blog comment sections wherein someone responds in some negative, perhaps personal way to what you’ve said, to which your response will generally be along the lines of “I never said” or “When did I ever say?”. Perception has a powerful influence on what people think you are trying to say. Maybe you didn’t say it, but they heard it.

    Over time, as I’ve read more and more of your blog entries and the corresponding comment sections, I found myself less and less inclined to disagree with you. Maybe I’m too afraid of a public rebuke from you, because based on the huge number of “Amen brother” comments, I could definitely find myself outnumbered in the discussion. I wonder if I’m alone in this, or if this pattern is suppressing a form of dissent in the very place you are trying to foster it?

    Yes, no doubt you receive untold numbers of private / anonymous emails and letters admonishing you for your supposed heretical views, but I don’t respect that approach. I don’t see heavy criticism employed that often in the public forum, and almost never without a response.

    It’s your blog, and you have every right to moderate it and maintain what you define as a civil discussion, but you do open the blog to the comments of others.

    I left the SBC last year over just exactly the kind of crushing conformity message you allude to here, but dissent to me is more than like-minded people dog-piling the easy targets of the evangelical freak show (even if it’s delivered under the guise of “humor”). And yes, I’ve got the fleas to show how often I’ve participated in the piling-on.

    I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with any of your views, really, and much of the time I agree wholeheartedly. I only wish I could feel freer to express myself here without the need for a long-winded, carefully worded, defensive, explanatory thesis. When I express a strong belief in the contrarian view, I have by default said the other person’s point of view is wrong, and therefore, I have insinuated that they themselves are somehow wrong-minded (not my goal). This is a tough thing for me to work out.

    Me? I’m a confirmed cynic, and I’m told by those close to me that I can be mean, so I have to guard how I say things because my mouth has gotten me in trouble more than once…and it has probably said too much for now.

    Like

  28. I think dissent is always strongest against the denomination one has grown up in. Having been raised as a Roman Catholic, however I converted in my twenties, I am very critical against Roman Catholicism, and I have been anathematized as a result. I usually save all my sharpest sarcasm for my dissent and criticism of that denomination. Obviously, any Roman Catholic who reads my sarcastic criticism can easily be offended.

    I believe it is this type of offense that some readers have recently felt from IMonk’s criticism of the SBC. They are SBC and they get very offended and defensive. They wonder why the sarcasm written by other posters towards other denominations is modified. I believe they interpret that as favoritism of one denomination over another.

    So, you see, it is just a misunderstanding of the human condition. We rant against the thing we were brought up in and those who belong to that community take offense. Dissent is still a good thing though. In fact, I would say it is the dissenters of those reared within a denomination who should be listened to most intently. Experience is a great educator and therefore, dissenters are the ones we can learn the most from.

    Like

  29. Anna — This is an example of the story completely overshadowing reality. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, every man since Adam was born from a woman and actually was female in the womb until gender differentiation began.

    Being that no one — not even the first person to write down the story of the forming of the first couple — has ever witnessed such a thing as a man coming from a pile of dirt and a woman being formed out of the first man’s side (even Adam didn’t see that happen) and every one has experienced the female origins of every human — and nearly every other living creature — male psycho/spiritual dominance is a little out of kilter, I think.

    Just a dissenting opinion. 🙂

    Like

  30. HUG,

    You were asking about complementarianism. I believe that it is the idea that women, coming after Adam and from his side, are always supposed to be submisssive and subordinate to men.

    In the good sense, it can be talking about the differences between men and women, and how they work together strengthening the other’s weaknesses.

    In the extreme negative sense, it can lead to women always being under a man’s control and even to the idea that Christ is eternally subordinate to God the Father.

    (and if my understanding is incorrect, I hope that someone explains it better. Thank you)

    Like

  31. There’s an ancient Hindu parable about a fly dancing on the antler of an elk boasting of how much impact he is having on the grand beasts attention, when the elk is actually completely unaware of his presence.

    I sometimes think that what we consider to be of great import to the purposes of God parallels this tale.

    Like

  33. Expounding: As a newer northern Southern Baptist, i was taught by former denominational affiliation that SBC was liberal. Then I read the adventures of the child monk. That does not sound liberal..
    I am more familiar with Catholic Mass, having, attended many times, than with the full fledged Evangelical church. This blog has opened my eyes to what some people in my church have come from, and what others in my church rejected in their path to Christ. What an invaluable ministry tool.

    Like

  34. This post is exactly why I’ve become a regular reader and IM podcast listener over the past several months! Thanks you for stating it so boldly and clearly, Michael!

    Like

  35. As a long time reader and one who has crawled out from under “a chunk of crumbling evangelicalism”, thank you.

    Like

  37. Imonk, I feel you are being used as a tool of the Holy Spirit. Something is happening, not non-denominationalism, but inter-denominationalism where the family of God is learning to accept each other, with the cultural differences allowed and respected. Your forum is invaluable. Thank you and God bless you.

    Like

  38. You have been a breath of fresh air (pardon the cliche) to this Evangelical Anglo-Catholic. You’ll continue to be the air freshener that is sorely needed in Evangelicalism today. And don’t you ever let your supply of air freshener run out Michael! The room is stuffy enough as is without it getting stuffier.

    + Pax from the land Down Under (Australia).

    Like

  39. Guy from Knoxville: I don’t think the gay lifestyle is preferable but you have to get past that if you ever hope to reach people in these situaitons and others and quite honestly there are times that going next door and fellowshiping with the guys and their friends and family would be preferable to attending some the “church” things that are going on – no plasic and no masks next door and sometimes that’s just refreshing.

    What you shared about the gay neighbors….and the gentleness and compassion for them in your tone…is DISSENT OF THE JESUS KIND. WAY TO GO! All sin robs its participants of things God desires for us. But for all sin left unrepentant, ‘sin when finished is death.’ Love your neighbor as yourself is great doctrine because Love never fails. You..and the neighbors…are positioned there for a reason. Make good use of opportunity. As for the church issues…I suggest just letting them go. It comes under’bearing the weaker brethren, turning the other cheek, and prefering others before oneself.’

    Like

  40. I’m sitting at my desk, at work, reading through these comments. Tears (of joy) are welling up in my eyes, I daren’t look up in case my colleagues see.

    Like

  42. “Being a Baptist doesn’t force me to buy… bad Christian art…”

    Bwah ha!

    I know tackiness is not a sure sign of demonic activity, but I believe it anyway. I would also add “bad Christian pop music” to that list.

    It’s a not-so-funny irony that the denomination which championed individual rights in matters of religion has morphed into an entity bent on squashing the mere hint of it.

    Increasingly I feel more and more like an anomaly. My father still calls himself a Fundamentalist Southern Baptist, and he raised me to believe that God created the world over billions of years using evolutionary processes. I spent decades happily unaware that I couldn’t believe in theistic evolution and Gospel at the same time. I made the mistake of looking further into the matter and stumbled across an opened can of inerrant worms, and it’s been downhill ever since.

    iMonk, I wish I shared your confidence that history is on the side of the dissenters.

    Like

  43. Michael,

    I have appreciated this blog ever since the day I came across it – you always have a way of stating things that I could never come up with without sounding like a total nut case….. some think I am regarless but, that’s for another time.

    One of the things I do so appreciate is the fact that one can ask the hard questions without being raked over the coals and told “bad boy… don’t do that again…” In my current situation (churchwise) being the one with the dissenting view is not necessarliy the easy road at all and this being especially true being a musician and seeing the whole of the SBCs worship and music heritage thown out on the trash heap. It’s been one of the hardest things to see and yet there is the helpless feeling that it is beyond turning it back now. There are, of course, other issues besides worship and music and you’ve covered that one very well too – this just happens to be the area that I’ve been most involved with in recent years. I have fast learned that I dare not question anything that’s going on at my church – especially in the area of worship and music. I stated a straight out position on this back in January during a discussion where others were stating theirs only thing is mine was the opposite – the only opposite and I felt the “shoulder” to the point that one lady hasn’t spoken three words to me since.

    At any rate, something that I want to add is this regarding the guy who stated that you would be the kind of person that he would like to have as a neighbor which I think was a compliment meaning that you are real not plastic – not phony and that made me think of something…. I just wonder how many of our fundamendalist “brethern” are going to be suprised when the end comes? Listen, I my wife and I have two guys that live next to us in our sub-division and they are gay and you couldn’t find better people or better neighbors or friends -there’s not anything that they wouldn’t do for us if we needed it yet, I can’t even think of inviting them to my SBC church for anything for obvious reasons. Honestly, they are more christian than most of the “so called” christians that I know including myself (wake up to me!). I honestly belive that when the end comes for some of the “brethern” that they are the ones that are going to be looking across the great gulf begging for a drop of water from the fingertip of the people that they have beaten senseless with their big bibles over these issues and others insted of living Christ before them and treating them as Christ would – sometimes I think those folk are closer to God than many church folk and many of those folks will find God while the others who think they have him will find out they didnt’t. I don’t think the gay lifestyle is preferable but you have to get past that if you ever hope to reach people in these situaitons and others and quite honestly there are times that going next door and fellowshiping with the guys and their friends and family would be preferable to attending some the “church” things that are going on – no plasic and no masks next door and sometimes that’s just refreshing.

    Now folks if this isn’t dissent I don’t know what is because if many of the folk at my church, including my pastor, knew this and many other things about my positions on many things I can promise you I would be put out in the middle of Strawberry Plains Pike in front of the church to be run over and put out of their misery.
    There is no room for dissent anymore in most of current evangelicism in general and SBC in particular.

    Michael, I don’t know if anything I wrote above makes sense as I tend to “chase rabbits” everywhere on the way back to the topic. My apologies – moderate/edit as needed.

    The Guy from Knoxville

    Like

  44. iMonk – Seventeen years ago my family and I walked away from a place that looked like a real church, but was in fact a gnostic cult where the core leadership was engaging in the most profound and hideous kinds of spiritual sexual abuse. We have been part of a wonderful church for the last twelve years and have received tremendous healing and liberating teaching. Visiting this site, however, has been like engaging in a doctoral course in “How to Think Critically and Still Be a Christian.”

    You, those who write as guests here (love, love, love the gangstas!), and many who comment, have made me laugh, cry, swear, pound my head, shriek for joy and slam the top down on my laptop. I have vowed on a couple of occasions to never read another thing written here…..and yet here I am…..still laughing, crying, cussing – and just in general…….LEARNING.

    Thank you sir, from the bottom of my heart.

    Like

  45. Michael,
    Please write the book inside of you.
    Earlier this week you told of givnig up TV.
    There’s your time.
    The wider world of Christians must hear these things.
    Robert Lofland

    Like

  46. Amen to all. Especially to what Ray A. and Sharon said.
    Thank you, iMonk, for all the work you do to make this a great place to come and think.

    Like

  48. Micheal
    Not a Christian. Abandoned my faith in god a long time ago

    Michael, your comment sounds like it comes from someone who’s known a lot of pain. If that’s the case, I am so very sorry. Please know how much I wish you well.

    Like

  49. I definitely don’t agree with everything that’s said here, but that’s OK. THAT’S OK — for me and everybody else.

    Like

  50. The nice part about your “dissent” is that it’s a call to live the gospel, not to change it. Christians are programed that “dissent” is synonymous with going against long held Christian doctrine. True dissent is about reclaiming the truth.

    I love this blog because its provides much needed “non-liberal” and “non-fundamentalist” dissent. You’re not trying to change Jesus, God, the Bible, or Christian History. You’re not trying to reject science, geology or believe only those things that support your faith. You tell it like it is, from your perspective, as a Christian and a rational human being.

    Thanks.

    Like

  51. To Mich who posted at 6:39. I wondered what “soul competency” was too. I did an internet search. At http://www.txbc.org/1997Journals/Oct1997/Oct97SoulCompetency.htm I read what the controversy is about and I read that it means: “Soul competency is the idea that every human being is free and responsible before God for his or her faith or the lack of it.” I wouldn’t have thought many people would disagree with that, but reading the essay I think I understand what the folks are arguing about. It seems that some people are afraid that people will become too “independent” in their thoughts about how they relate to God, Christianity, the Gospel and put the Bible as second to their own experience.

    Like

  52. iMonk, if you’re taking flack on our behalf, thank you. You keep this space civilised, kind and sane. It’s a pleasure to read your posts as well as all of the (moderated) comments. This feels like a community to me now and it’s definitely a public service.

    Like

  53. Yesterday, a commenter aired the usual complaints at me:
    …
    I give “Papists and liberals” plenty of space.
    …

    I’d tell him “The Treaty of Westphalia ended the Reformation Wars in 1648, and you STILL haven’t gotten the news?”

    Being a Baptist doesn’t force me to buy the search for the ark, young earth creationism, Hamm/Hovind, complementarianism, homeschooling, conspiracy theories, Dobson’s view of politics, bad Christian art, arrogant leaders, bad scholarship or the SBC’s view of itself as compared to other denominations.

    I understood all of those terms except “complementarianism”. Quick definition?

    And as an amateur artist & SF writer who’s just starting to go pro, I can attest that “bad Christian art” — especially in the genres I work in — gives me the Screaming Abdabs.

    Like

  54. “In the “battle for the Bible” in the SBC, the moderate/liberals took those terms and used/abused them, causing conservatives to spend most of two decades bad-mouthing “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer” as anathema to Bible-believing Christianity. Some of that response was necessary, but some of it has been singularly unfortunate and overblown.”

    Wow. A balanced response to a period I got sick of. Does “priesthood of the believer” mean, as the moderate/liberals insisted, that I or a seminary professor whose salary I helped pay could believe/teach ANYTHING I wanted (biblical or not) and hide behind this sacred doctrine?

    On the other hand, can we both be biblicists, and completely, albeit respectfully disagree?

    And to my fellow conservatives, do they ever reach a point where it’s OK to stop attacking SOMEBODY? When they decided they’d won the inerrancy war and started aiming at seeker churches, charismatics, and anybody else they could find, I said, “this is where I came in” and left the show.

    Since this post is mainly a defense/explanation of why you do what you do, Michael, may I add that if ALL you did was dissent, you would be just another, well, Baptist. The fact is, some of your greatest criticisms come from those who take issue with whom you affirm. Thanks for that.

    Like

  55. I’m sorry to hear that being polite to Papists gets you labelled as a non-believer, Michael.

    I certainly don’t think you’re going to swim the Tiber, and that’s fine. Though for those of you who believe in signs and omens, I did actually have a dream a couple of weeks ago that Michael and I were at Mass in the Parish church (I woke up during the part of the dream where we were saying the Creed going “Who was that guy? I know him… wait, it was – !”)

    Dunno about you, Michael, but I’m worried 😉

    Like

  57. Michael,

    Your blog depresses me sometimes, often makes me mad, always makes me think. I’ve been ungracious to you on this blog before and you’ve probably returned the favor at one time or another. I often don’t “get it”, that’s for sure.

    And, doggone it, may God bless you. You’re a great writer, a prophetic voice, and a needed part of the blogosphere.

    In other words, thanks for what you do. And thanks in advance for making me think (and maybe even get mad at you) the next time you post.

    Like

  58. As one who reads the “signs,” :), I couldn’t help but notice that in paragraph 13, if I counted correctly, the first letters of the words in lines 2-5 spell “snob.” I don’t believe that needs anymore comment so I’ll shut the heck up and dissent no longer.

    Like

  59. My only experience with dissent in a christian context: I was part of a college campus ministry as a student, and the campus pastor did some things that were kind of wrong, or at least a lot of us felt they were wrong. I was one of the student leaders and so I was instructed by the campus pastor to discourage people from ‘gossipping’ about him, since gossip is a sin. So a lot of us bottled it up inside and only ever got round to discussing some of the issues we experienced after we had graduated. i wish now that I’d been more willing to speak my mind.

    Like

  60. Hey, just noticed that there’s another Mich making a comment here. How do you like them apples? I’ll be the Mich with the pedestrian vocabulary.

    Good post. If it’s not to much trouble, can you explain the “soul competency” term? Gracias.

    Like

  61. Michael…I love your writing, your choice of topics, your courage to be “out there” and your allowing us to think this stuff out together on your blog. Thank you and please keep up the good work. I am impressed by the volume of things that you write!

    Like

  62. Michael (not iMonk) writes:

    “If there’s been more like you around at the time, I might have stayed quite a bit longer.”

    My co-worker, an Atheist, thinks that I am an anomaly in Christian circles, but there are lots of us around. The internet just makes it easier for us to find each other. 🙂 Michael, please continue to join us and participate in our discussions. I am sure we can learn much from each other.

    Like

  64. I think any effective system has a way of encouraging, allowing and profiting from dissent. Evangelicals are so threatened by it, however, that we really handle it poorly. We over emphasize the wrong kinds of unity.

    Like

  65. It seems like there is a fine line between healthy and unhealthy dissent (for lack of a better terms.) I think you are on the right side of that line Michael.

    At some point the need for community overrides the desire to dissent. I.E. I disagree with you (speaking generically here and not about iMonk) but I am going to keep my mouth shut because I want to be part of this Church.

    Keep up the healthy dissent!

    Like

  66. Michael. That’s the best comment I can imagine. Thanks.

    BTW, I’m far more impressed with honest unbelief than phony religion. I recommend it all the time.

    peace brother

    ms

    Like

  67. Thanks for this post. The last paragraph just about says it all as far as where I am right now; in the midst of a crumbling (or about-to-crumble) evangelicalism and trying to make sure that some chunk of it doesn’t fall on my head.

    Like

  68. As a dissenter who oftentimes dissents in a completely off-the-wall direction, I appreciate this forum, Michael, and your management of it. It is thought provoking and oftentimes convicting. Thank you for the opportunities.

    Like

  69. Not a Christian. Abandoned my faith in god a long time ago.

    If there’s been more like you around at the time, I might have stayed quite a bit longer. As it stands, you’re a credit to your religion and the sort of upstanding human being I’d be proud to have as a neighbor.

    Like

  70. “Many Christians brought up in a fundamentalism with all of the answers have discovered things are much different than they would have anticipated.” – Amen

    Like

  72. IMonk, you’ve opened the door out of the post-evangelical closet for me. Reading your blog and the buffet of comments is a banquet for a starving woman. Don’t shut down the kitchen now.

    Like

  73. IM,
    Provocative post–as usual.
    The reason believers love your blog, is you have created a space for informed dissent. When Jesus teaches in the Gospels–he always engages in give and take; and Paul is always preaching a radical, liberating Gospel, but the ‘message’ often preached in Church seems far removed from either Jesus or Paul. We hear the call of this great, loving, freedom inducing Gospel, and then we’re deposited on the rubbish heap of bad theology and bad preaching.

    Would the Bereans be allowed in Church today?
    🙂

    Like

  74. >>I don’t endorse all these views or their opposites. There are a number of issues where I’m not sure what I think, but I am determined to not be railroaded into being told that I must endorse or bow down to positions that I do not hold, am not required to hold and are not my conviction. I’m just as determined to tell my audience that other views exist as held by REAL PEOPLE.<<

    AMEN brother AMEN

    Like

  75. Amen, Michael.

    You seem to be challenging a particular mindset, one that is almost Borg-like.

    I believe that the Lord wants a person’s faith to be his own, not someone else’s.

    We need to have our own relationship with the Lord, and not try to ride the coat tails of others.

    Being in community with other sheep, and following the crowd as they go over a cliff are two different things entirely

    Thanks again,

    Like

  76. “I consider IM a public service to people who need to get out of the way before a chunk of crumbling evangelicalism falls on their head.”
    You’re like our own personal “The More You Know” public service announcement 🙂 Thank you!

    Like

  78. I would never use dissent as a synonym for truth, right, good, etc. Dissent is dissent. That’s all.

    And I also made it clear there are limits to how much dissent can be aired in any particular situation. I allow my students to dissent, but there are forms of dissent I don’t allow.

    Like

Leave a comment