The Imperfect Church

A website to apologize on behalf of mean Christians?

Really?

Is this like reparations for slavery, only dumber?

If you were hurt by a Christian, wouldn’t it be better to hear an apology from the one who offended you, instead of this poor guy?

But then again, Christianity is all about having someone else held accountable for transgressions of others.

Wasn’t there a counterpart to The Friendly Atheist called The Friendly Christian, or something, in which the author tried to do something similar? IIRC, it turned into exactly what SarahH described — a place that appeared welcoming and friendly and all about open discussion, but turned into the usual Christian gangbang once the non-Christians actually showed up.

Josh:

I’m glad you’re receptive to feedback – that’s definitely a good quality in a blogger who’ll be dealing with sensitive subject-matter.

I think your goal of facilitating thinking is a good one, and I think there are plenty of atheists and Christians (and non-Christian theists as well) who’ve been hurt by churches and pastors and Christians. Sharing these stories openly might be a very good thing.

I guess I’m wondering where you think discussion will go once the stories start coming in. Is this site going to function like a support group that’s religion-neutral (in that Christianity doesn’t become a punching-bag but also isn’t offered as a solution to healing emotional wounds)? That’s what I’d like to see, and I’d be glad to share my story in a day or two, once I see how things develop.

ATL- Apostate,

The purpose of the website is not to apologize on behalf of Christians.

The purpose is to hear the stories of those who have been hurt by those that call themselves Christians.

The apology that is included on the website is an apology from me. It is an apology for the way that I have behaved at times. It is an apology for not always being the person, let alone follower of Christ, that I know I should be.

David,

Thanks for sharing your heart and for the encouragement. Admittedly, what I will post will be from a Christian perspective (as much as I try, I cannot help that). However, my goal is to refrain from proselytizing.

If I see that things begin to take that route, with those that post, we’ll have to lay some ground-rules and edit posts.

I want this to be as safe a place as humanly possible.

Do you ever wonder why people who are supposedly led by the holy spirit have to spend just as much of their time apologizing (maybe more?) as the rest of us poor slobs who don’t have magical guidance from heaven?

Shouldn’t we be able to “know them by their fruits”? The holy spirit doesn’t seem to do a whole lot of good, at least not in differentiating Christians from the rest of the population.

This realization was one of the puzzling things that led me on the road to examining my beliefs in skeptical fashion.

I disagree with his assessment: I do not think that the god of the bible, were he real, would be appalled at what has been done in his name. An objective and honest read of the bible will show you that god mastermined plenty of appalling things and commanded his followers to do even more appalling things.

An interesting side project would be to take all of these stories he collects, and provide scriptural backing for the bad treatment. It is there. Christians were very able to support their inquisitory murders with the bible…and still could today, the bible was not changed. Slavery…totally supported by the bible. Treatment of women…hehe…the bible puts women in their place…which seems to be pregnant or hidden away for most of the time…certainly not teaching, or thinking or being anything close to equal to men.

Christians like Josh think all of the bad is contrary to what the bible teaches…and he is 180 degrees wrong. The bible DOES support all of this appalling behavior…it is merely the humanist side of the followers that allows them to ignore what they once did not.

Lets look at this in one simple context: According to the god of the bible, if your child decides not to believe anymore, they are to be taken to the city gate and stoned to death. When that is how god views it…how can anything said to a non-believer be appalling to god? If a non-believer is to be stoned to death, then christians can easily justify anything they say or do, essentially. And have.

You see…the bible is a bad book and it has led people to do some pretty terrible things in the name of the god that calls himself love, but then gave us the bible (contradictory in the highest). I know…there are good things in there…yes, the Golden rule is good, but taught by the Buddha some 500 years ealier. We do not need the bible for the golden rule. But the book does have the above commandment that says it is ok for a parent to kill their own child. Any book, in my opinion, that commands parents to kill their unbelieving children…well that is a bad book, no matter how many tidbits of good are in it. And, Josh…that is the same book compelling people to do these terrible things in gods name. You think you are sticking up for god…in reality it is they who are following more in the spirit of what the book says, and you wishing it to be something nicer.

Aj,

While I respect your opinion, I just have a few quick questions and two responses regarding what you wrote…

First, when did I ever suggest that I tell others the mind of God?

Second, when did I use the term “Christian” as a synonym for “good person”?

Third, how did I bring my theology into things?

In addition, when I apologized, I apologize for the times when I have acted as less than I should. I apologize for those instances in which I have reacted someone else’s viewpoint in anger and frustration, rather than genuinely trying to listen and dialogue with them.

Moreover, I think I have been pretty clear in my intent. I want to know what bad things Christians have done to people. I want to hear about the various experiences that people have had.

Thank you for your willingness to provide critique regarding what I am trying to do. Admittedly, I am not perfect at it, and I will need the help of people who both support what I do as well as those who do not. It is only with an honest critique that things can improve.

Zach,

Thank you for attempting to highlight my heartfelt desire. I appreciate the respect that you have shown as well as the effort you have given to be in open, respectful dialogue with someone whose worldview is different than yours.

@Karen,
Did you see the post on Daylight Atheism devoted to that same point you mentioned?

“the existence of hypocrites within the church does not prove that Christianity’s claims about the existence of God are false. There is no logical connection between those two propositions. But all these hypocrites, I think, do undermine a different supernatural claim: the alleged ability of Christian belief to transform people’s lives in a uniquely effective and beneficial way.”

The purpose is to hear the stories of those who have been hurt by those that call themselves Christians.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

In case you’re not aware, the True Christian(TM) tag has already been parodied extensively by the Landover Baptist Church.

You can’t claim that just because a person acts detestably that he or she is not Christian. They get their justification quite easily from the Bible, and I have no reason to doubt that most act that way (or at least feel justified in doing so) because they believe the tenets of Christianity.

Josh,

Likewise, your critique and response to what I have had to say conveys your theology.

For most atheists, atheism is a lack of belief. There is nothing to study, we don’t have a theology. A theology is the study of God, it would be like suggesting we have a fairyology because we lack a belief in fairies.

Regarding my use of the word “Christian”- I would not engage in this project if I did not truly believe that Christians were to blame.

Then why suggest that they only “call them selves “Christian””? This is common in religion, e.g. they’re not true Christians.

Josh,

Theology is indeed the study of God. That study can either lead us to believe or disbelieve in God. By choosing not to believe in God, I would suggest, you are still positing a belief about God.

I don’t know what you mean by “choosing not to believe” I don’t think we choose to believe in anything. Clearly this is not the case for many atheists if you speak to them. A lack of belief is not positing any belief, it is not a belief. An absence of belief in gods is not a claim about anything. It might be convenient for the religious to think otherwise, but that’s just another delusion.

As to your question about my use of the phrase “call themselves Christian,” I would suggest that I have used it to distinguish those who refer to themselves as Christians vs. those who are self-proclaimed Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, Wicken, etc.

The problem is that you did not write “call themselves Christians”. You put Christians in quotes that will be recognised by everybody as to indicate you’re only quoting them, you don’t accept their idea. Your denial of this is absurd. It’s not worth my time to reply further to someone who is dishonest about trivial things. Either rescind or come up with a reasonable explanation.

Josh,

The point of me putting the term “Christians” in quotation marks, as I mentioned, was to distinguish those who profess the Christian faith from those who don’t.

Explain to me the convention of using quotation marks to distinguish between those that profess something and those that don’t in another context. To put it in a much simpler fashion, why would you need to put Christians in quotation marks to distinguish them from Mormons, Wickens, or Muslims? What was the purpose of the the quotation marks, if they weren’t there would people have read “Christians” as “Muslims”? Your response isn’t making any sense.

Note that when I use quotation marks I am using them to quote you or a phrase I’m refering to, to separate those from the expression of my own ideas.

Maybe I am missing the obvious, I am not quite sure. However, I am puzzled over some of the other comments that you have made. What idea you feel I am not accepting?

When you put something in quotes it is commonly to distance oneself from the ideas within. If I were, and I have, to write “they call themselves “atheists”” I would be expressing a belief that they were not in fact atheists.

Listen, I like being friendly, but I can’t see any other goal for this than as a proselytizing tool.

In order for perceptions to change, the Church needs to hear the stories of those that have been trampled on, beat up, and hurt by those who call themselves “Christians.”

a)”Perceptions” says it all. Much like focus groups in marketing, you learn your market better so that you can overcome sales obstacles and anticipate objections. Actually, this would be good if you could respond to or concede the intellectual defects of the doctrines and the Bible. It would at least save a lot of time.

b)You convince us that not all xians are assholes (which I already know very well)

c)You get to claim that you’re open-minded and have done the research. But, many claim that they have atheist friends, but still never seem to “get it.” Just like guys I know who hide behind the fact that they’ve got “lots of black friends” but are nonetheless racists. (this is only an analogy.)

In the end, I’m just not on board with helping to spread religion.

Polly,

Some Christians may use this as a proselytizing tool. Yet, it could also be argued that by asking people to post views contrary to the Christian viewpoint, that I am in fact opening the door for doubt to slip in.

As to my use of the word “perceptions”- having read what you had to say, I now recognize that it may not be the most appropriate word to use. On that note, as well, I would be more than happy to discuss with you what you think are “the intellectual defects of the doctrines and the Bible.” Please feel free to email me at ImperfectEkklesia@gmail.com to begin such a discussion.

I am also glad to hear that you have a balanced view of Christians.

Regarding your comments in c): Your statement highlights an important point- we can all put on masks and fail to “get it.” Racists can, Christians can, and so too can atheists.

That is why dialogue, it seems, is so important.

Aj,

After reading what you have written, I have made the decision to remove quotation marks. If you were to venture over to http://theimperfectchurch.blogspot.com, you will now find that the quotation marks have been removed.

I do not want anyone, including you, to think that I am trying to pass the buck and somehow blame anyone other than Christians, let alone somehow excuse the harm that has been done.

Thanks for your help and input.

Josh:

You edited version looks much better, and I’ll be watching to see how the site works out. Thanks for being so patient with criticism and answering all the posts here. Whether or not it will work out, I think your idea came from a good place and has the potential to be a good thing.

“In order for that to change, the Church needs to hear the stories of those that have been trampled on, beat up, and hurt by Christians.”

I don’t think that suffering at the hands of Christians is so foreign to Christians; they heap it on each other, sometimes with good intentions and sometimes with selfish ones. Maybe they should start with listening to the wounds they cause each other. I think it is the nature of a community that is vigilant about traditional received moral standards (many of which are obscure and/or interpreted in a variety of conflicting ways) to be noticing and judging things in others (and in themselves) constantly. It goes with the territory and I’ve been there, so I’ll cut everyone some slack. That said, onward:

I have seen church splits, abuse of authority, anti-intellectualism, hateful gossip, and the smoothing over of these things with spiritual words. I have many wonderful Christian friends and acquaintances, not to mention my family, but have experienced as much if not more grace from unbelievers, and this was a real challenge to the life-changing claims of the Bible. I’m still not sure where I stand, spiritually speaking, but I know I will not subject myself or my loved ones again to an environment similar to the fundamentalist and evangelical ones I experienced. Fool me once…

Karen,

Sorry that it has taken so long to respond. I have been busy and have been traveling quite a bit. Thank you for linking the article, I will be sure to stop by and check out the suggested essay.

Now as to what you wrote. You said:

My concern is that if such a large portion of Christians are so willing to ignore the guidance of the holy spirit, what use is it? Also, the outcome seems to contradict so many of the New Testament verses that talk about how Jesus’s followers will be so changed and so transcendant (presumably following that heavenly advice!) that perfect strangers will be able to identify and admire them purely by their stellar behavior – and I don’t think the bible was talking about their church going habits or their clothing, but about their kindness, patience, love, peace, etc.

I completely agree with you that the bible was not talking about church going habits, but rather about a true transformation and change.

To be honest, I do not think that the biggest problem comes from people who ignore the leading of the Holy Spirit. I think the big problem comes when Christians do not take the time or energy to read their bibles and really understand the nuts and bolts of what they believe. For them Christianity is simply about escaping hell when they die, rather than a truly life-changing relationship such as the one that you described.

You go on to write:

My bottom line is that if the guidance promised by the holy spirit is widely rejected, or ignored, by people who are supposed to be spirit-filled, what good is it? Why would a god who placed such a high priority on providing the holy spirit put it in place with a system where it seems to be widely ignored or ill-used?

While I agree with much of what you have said, I have to ask a question in response. Our bodies are made in such a way that we have sensations that signal pain, letting our bodies know that something is not right. Why, then, do so many people ignore these pain signals and allow are bodies to function in a state of ill-health until things get seriously ill?

Unfortunately, in my experience as a pastor that is what happens with people and the holy spirit. They tend to ignore the spirit’s leadings and nudgings until they come to a point where they are at rock bottom or their life is an incredible mess.

As to your last comment:

And while it seems you are sincere and good-hearted with your apology efforts, as someone who was racked with guilt for 30 years as a fundamentalist Christian, the last thing I would applaud is another place where Christians have to apologize and feel guilty. It’s very tough on one’s self-esteem and confidence to live like that.

My intent is not to rack people with guilt or even create a forum in which people can apologize per-se. My hope and intention is that religious and irreligious can come together and engage in discussion that leaves both groups enriched. I hope that those without religious underpinnings can come and share their worldview, helping Christians and other religious people truly understand their worldview (although they may not embrace it). Further, I hope that those with religious underpinnings will be willing to listen to what Christians and other religious people have to say in response to what is shared.

Thank you for your time and your response!