How to respond to fundamentalists...

[revtj]

God, I love Jesus! Thanks for that gospel quote, friend!

It reminds me of that saying, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I know a way Jesus responded to a fundamentalist that still works to this day. Just say, "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor." Then go on about God's business.

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Legion

What did he specifically say that was wrong?

Reading quickly over the thread, several have posted what they think is wrong with what the pastor said.

I'm curious what specifically are the good points you mentioned earlier?

I'll probably post a fuller response later (time is short now!), but just wanted to throw that question out there for the moment.

hjh

[dewdrop_world]

Rereading the whole thread, I realized just now why it's caught my attention. I struggle (and I think we all struggle) with what to do when confronted with people who seem to refuse to engage with different viewpoints. I'm aware of a feeling of powerlessness as I read the fundamentalist pastor's words. How do you get through armor that thick? (How do you remain calm and nonviolent when someone has a gun at your temple?)

Serendipitously, I got an e-mail tonight from a member of the meditation community I belong to. The subject is "How to change someone" and it begins with the insight that trying actively to change someone can very easily bring more pain into the situation. The other person might get defensive and stop listening to your advice (however sound), and you might get frustrated because the other person isn't taking your advice (even though you "know" things would be better if he would).

So the first mistake is telling a fundamentalist that she's wrong. Actually, that's the second mistake. The first mistake is thinking that your opinion is so much more correct than hers. (That's "you" in general, not addressing a specific person.) You could also say the first mistake follows from labeling the other person as a "fundamentalist," in which mindset you might not be seeing her as she really is.

I think Joe's response is spot-on. At least from what I've observed in other places, the endless back and forth over homosexuality and biblical hermeneutics consumes a vast amounts of time and energy, and produces heat but dubious amounts of light. If we assume that light is the result of mutual understanding, then it becomes clear that someone has to break the cycle of misunderstanding. Generally it's up to the people who aren't satisfied with the status quo (i.e., us).

I suspect, though I haven't had many opportunities to try it out, that a good place to start is listening to the other person's spiritual journey. People don't stick with belief systems unless they're being nourished, or at least comforted, in some way. Is it possible to find some common ground here? In grad school, there were some meetings between members of one of the Christian groups and a few LGBTQ's, and hearing their stories was eye opening to me.

I'm mostly thinking aloud--actually, it scares me silly to think of sitting down with someone it would be easier to think of as an "enemy" and really letting go of the wish to defend my position. I think that's the next challenge on my path. I don't know if it really works. (If you define "it works" as "it changed his mind," it probably doesn't.) Whether it "works" or not, my gut says this is what's needed in this fractious time.

Any other thoughts?
hjh

[Zerbie]

Interesting, dewdrop. I was an ideological child, with strong beliefs in right/wrong. Nowadays I find I don't have those ideas anymore. They're simply gone. While I used to think in symbols, ideologies, concepts (and thought I was so smart because I did!) I find now they are unnecessarily distracting. It occured to me in the past year or two the distinction is over what we love. Do we love our IDEAS, or do we love LIFE?

If we love our ideas, if that is what we value, then we will go into any exchange with another person clinging and cherishing our ideas. If the other guy goes into an exchange with us cherishing his different ideas, BLAM. We butt heads.

If we love LIFE itself then we love the life in the other person as well as the life in us. That's so much more important than any idea. So much more important than "being right." If someone is not ready to relinquish an ideology and "change his mind," then he isn't ready. No amount of me being "right" is going to make him ready. That's when patience comes into play. If we get into a real dialogue with someone - wonderful! The difficulty is that it needs to be oh so much more (less?) than a bullet list of points, facts, anecdotes being rattled off towards the other guy. That isn't even relating to someone. Where is the relationship? You aren't even seeing the other guy - just an idea. And if he isn't seeing you either - just seeing an idea, you may as well try to persuade a cup of lima beans to change their minds (and maybe with more success). First, there must be *relationship.*

Last year I was at a conference on religion and the gay community and one of the panel speakers kept talking about Gene Robinson (the gay bishop at the center of all that controversy). He said, "Gene Robinson is a symbol." Right there I gritted my teeth b/c I wanted to shout, "No, he's not a symbol - he's a *person*". But you see, that illustrates part of what I'm now talking about. That it's so easy to get into a battleground of ideas, and neglect to see the people.

First there must be relationship. Then, maybe maybe maybe, there can be dialogue and change.

[Legion]

List of Questions (not accusatory, just interrogative):

If life is the highest good, (do I interpret your post aright?) then would I be correct in assuming that you also believe in eternal life beyond death? Yes? Or something else? It wouldn't really be worthwhile to worship life if life is as finite and weak as it seems...
Also, do you mean physical or spiritual life?
I use the word "worship" because I get the impression that you love life above all else, above ideas, above God, above whatever.
By "dialogue and change", do you basically mean communication among human beings? Why is change and communication good?
Should we value life at the expense of our intellectual integrity (ideas)?
Can a person not be a symbol?

[Zerbie]

God IS life. It exists before we see ourselves born or see ourselves die. God IS that life and the source of the life that's in us. If I see a fresh cut flower and love it, I do not really love the flower, I love the LIFE in the flower. That is why we throw out cut flowers when they "die."

Intellectual integrity is just a game we play. Integrity is just a word. If we love life, and can really truly demonstrate that love of life, then integrity will happen on its own.

LIFE!!!!! Not the silly daily grind. Not my boring thoughts, or even my sublime thoughts. LIFE!!!!!!

[Jennifer5]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

God IS life. It exists before we see ourselves born or see ourselves die. God IS that life and the source of the life that's in us. If I see a fresh cut flower and love it, I do not really love the flower, I love the LIFE in the flower. That is why we throw out cut flowers when they "die."

Intellectual integrity is just a game we play. Integrity is just a word. If we love life, and can really truly demonstrate that love of life, then integrity will happen on its own.

LIFE!!!!! Not the silly daily grind. Not my boring thoughts, or even my sublime thoughts. LIFE!!!!!!

Well said Zerbie

[awediot]

A genuine, lovingly expressed concern that, when all is said and done, you hope that he has helped lead more people to Jesus than he has driven away, can leave a tenacious, growing ringing in the ears (of all of us). It is positive, honest, founded on the Bible (but not IN it), and triggers a bit of that humbling self doubt that alot of us could use.... If subtlety is useless, be blunt and inform him directly that people Hate Christianity, Hate 'god' because of his example. Because of him directly, and his unique focus on a minor point within a much grander message. Let him know that it makes perfect sense to prefer answerring to God as merely a queer, than an arogant fool who caused permanent damage in His name. If a minister is of such a nature, (I have met one, but see evidence of them all too often), the satisfaction of knocking them down a couple pegs, is nothing if you are meant to intercede on behalf of their future victims. A truley bad minister is much more than an annoyance. They can cause horrific, unnecessary anguish, isolation and suicide, and a Holy anger seems made for them.
This is not how I thought this blurb would end. I underestimated the seriousness till I wrote through it (and relived some it again) and I must admit to jumping in without reading the complete story or purpose of this post. Guess the gut reaction brought on by " responding to fundamentalists" carried me away a bit. I'll read the thread more clearly after I post this and anticipate a foot in mouth, how off the subject, did it backward retraction. But I'm good at those... If this didn't help, hope it didn't hurt. Huge luck and God's Blessing go with you. Awdiot (Dean)

[pnggrad79]

What I understood this pastor to say was that if we believe the Bible to be true, we MUST interpret it according to established hermeneutical rules. Says who? That leaves room for no discernment by the Holy Spirit. Do we really think the Holy Spirit gives a flying flip about our "hermeneutical" rules? Those are man made rules made by fallible men who struggled with a divinely inspired word from God who says our ways are not His ways. We are an arrogant people who pretend that we know what God would do in any given situation.

This pastor is steeped in legalism and religiosity. Not the religion of Jesus, as Nate champions. I side with Nate on this one. This pastor is blind and comfortable in his blindness.