By our love, by our love

My favorite Sunday school song from my childhood among the fundies was called "They'll Know We Are Christians by Our Love." The song's optimistic lyrics were countered by its sad, minor tone, so even as a kid I had the sense that it was at the same time celebrating what ought to be and mourning that it was not so:

We will work with each other, we will work side by side
We will work with each other, we will work side by side
And we'll guard each one's dignity and save each one's pride
And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love

There's a nice version of this, set to a timely video, here, although this guy's bare-bones version is closer to the "Ghost Riders in the Sky" vibe of the way we sang it when I was a kid.

Nowadays, that song is commonly sung as a medley combining it with the more recent praise chorus "Awesome God." I'm not fond of that newer song. There's something a bit off-puttingly possessive about the possessive pronoun in the chorus: "Our God is an awesome God." That word "our" has become increasingly common in evangelical praise choruses. It no longer seems enough to sing that "God is an awesome God," or that "God reigns" -- we sing that "Our God is an awesome God," and "Our God ray-ay-ay-ayns, Our God reigns."

It might seem like I'm reading too much into what may be nothing more than an extra syllable added for the sake of meter, but the choice of this particular syllable reflects a larger change in the emphasis of American evangelical Christianity. That new context is all about Ours vs. Theirs, Us vs. Them.

That emphasis on conflict doesn't give Them much reason to like Us, which probably helps to explain the dismal findings of a recent Barna Group poll on the declining reputation of Christianity (thanks, Scott, for the link):

In just a decade, many of the Barna measures of the Christian image have shifted substantially downward. .... For instance, a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16 percent of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.

One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3 percent of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today’s young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25 percent).

The research shows that many Christians are innately aware of this shift in people’s perceptions of Christianity: 91 percent of the nation’s evangelicals believe that "Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity." Among senior pastors, half contend that "ministry is more difficult than ever before because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward Christianity."

Contrary to what Barna suggests, that last paragraph actually reflects an innate lack of awareness about the meaning of the survey's findings. It suggests, rather, that most evangelicals consider any hostility or negativity reflected back at them to be something wholly external -- something arising and existing wholly apart from their own attitudes and actions toward others. The dramatic increase in the negative perception of evangelical Christianity, they seem to think, is entirely in the eye of the beholder. The Barna researchers seem to share this notion -- framing their findings with all those assertions about an intrinsic "skepticism in the broader culture."

But as Barna's own data shows, this hostility and negativity is not primarily an external phenomenon. It is, rather, a rational and predictable response by Them to the attitudes of Us:

The study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

The respondents identify the key matter here: an antipathy that goes "beyond" any traditional opposition to extramarital sex, an unprecedented and inordinate "excessive contempt ... toward gays and lesbians." And this contempt is perceived as central to the meaning and substance of Christianity -- the "most common perception" of the faith for Christians and non-Christians alike.

This is a change, a new thing, a recent and radical alteration. It is an astonishing and deeply weird development. The great creeds of the church make no mention of homosexuality -- let along singling it out for particular and pre-eminent condemnation or suggesting that such condemnation plays a central role in the faith. Yet now the majority of Christians and non-Christians alike view this as the primary defining characteristic of Christian faith, practice and spirituality.

How in Hell did that happen? (That's a theological term, not a profane intensifier.)

The short answer is that this theological change has a political cause. The longer answer will take a longer answer, so we'll come back to that, ending here only with the lamentable recognition that the song quoted above has come to seem like some kind of bitter joke.

Comments

[Karen]

I've been thinking about this for the longest time, as have lots of other people. Dorothy L. Sayers has a wonderful essay from the 30's entitled "The Other Six," in which she discusses the six deadly sins NOT related to sex. It's based on a speech she gave to some society with "moral improvement" in the title and which was, unsurprisingly, devoted to worrying about sex in Britain. In the essay, she makes the wonderful point that we're really good at condemning what she calls the "disreputable" sins: anger, gluttony, and lust. We fall down completely on the ones that help us get ahead in life: pride, sloth (in the "it just doesn't matter" sense, not the physically lazy one), avarice, and envy.

In the case of homosexuality, it's easy for some to condemn it because they think it's all about a variety of sex act which is, to them, really icky. It's no different from condemning "fallen women" in the past. It's easy and reinforces one's position with the "In Crowd." Which is, of course, precisely the sin of pride.

[Edo]

Nowadays, that song is commonly sung as a medley combining it with the more recent praise chorus "Awesome God."

I'm so sorry to hear that.

We fall down completely on the ones that help us get ahead in life: pride, sloth (in the "it just doesn't matter" sense, not the physically lazy one)...

Huh. I remember reading Lewis Mumford saying something to the effect that sloth was the only sin that was still condemned, the others being cornerstones of the economy.

But it is late, and I have more homework to do, so I shall post no more for now.

[Reverend Ref]

This song was one of my favorites in Sunday school also (it wasn't just the fundies who sang it). The particular verse you mentioned comes exceedingly close to a particular portion of our Baptismal Covenant:

Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?

People: I will, with God's help.

Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

People: I will, with God's help.

Unfortunately, there's much more demanding of others than there is seeking; and there's precious little striving and respecting and way too much limiting and condemning.

[G-Do]

How in Hell did that happen? (That's a theological term, not a profane intensifier.)

The short answer is that this theological change has a political cause. The longer answer will take a longer answer, so we'll come back to that, ending here only with the lamentable recognition that the song quoted above has come to seem like some kind of bitter joke.

My curiosity is piqued.

Huh. I remember reading Lewis Mumford saying something to the effect that sloth was the only sin that was still condemned, the others being cornerstones of the economy.

Sloth is plenty profitable. Just look at the zillions of dollars Blizzard made off World of Warcraft!

[Doctor Science]

One of the most striking points to me in that article is when the author says:

I assumed that people’s perceptions were generally soft, based on misinformation, and would gradually morph into more traditional views. But then, as we probed why young people had come to such conclusions, I was surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly ‘unChristian’ experiences.

I wonder when this started -- when, for instance, non-Christians started dreading attending weddings or funerals at evangelical churches because we couldn't expect the minister not to take the opportunity to insult some of the guests.

After the 2004 election, Jeff Sharlet admitted that in Killing the Buddha, his study of contempory American faith,

We lied every time. We offered up sincere but misleading tributes to freedom of speech as the American devotion. We avoided the answer that had made itself as plain as the two-lane roads we drove on: The greatest common denominator of American belief is anti-homosexuality.

The Barna Group rarely breaks out opinions by/of Catholics -- who they classify as "notional Christians" -- but I would be willing to bet that young Catholics are less likely to feel their church is defined by anti-homosexuality than young evangelicals are.

[emjaybee]

Being against homosexuality is all mainstream religion has left. They lost on keeping women subservient, before that they lost on slavery, before that, on the divine right of kings, before that...squashing Protestantism, maybe killing the Jews, I suppose. And somewhere in there is the ineffectiveness at converting the heathen, though that effort is ongoing.

If they give in on homosexuality, then how will the church be able to separate itself from "the world"? By giving up avarice, selling all they have, and following Him? Too hard. Too messy. No profit in it. Hating on other people is so much more fun than helping the poor, comforting the sick, or visiting those in prison.

[Brian J.]

You guys are too much!

Barna didn't detect a new phenomenon, folks. The American Christian Church and its Grand Old Poltiical arm have been married at the hip, with little or no "Christian" objection, for thirty years. And now they're going down together.

A new generation has seen what American Christians stand for- endless foreign war, the rape of the natural world, political violence, discrimination and death threats- and they are rejecting it root and branch. Maybe if you try really, really hard, American Christianity will start regaining its reputation... in another 30 years.

We will bomb with each other, we will work side by side
We will kill with each other, we will work side by side
And we'll attack our en'mies, fags and blacks we'll execrate
And they'll know we are Christians by our hate, by our hate
They will know we are Christians by our hate

[aaron]

Hating on other people is so much more fun than helping the poor, comforting the sick, or visiting those in prison.

which is in itself a kind of emotional sloth

[Seminarian]

Vaguely concerned with guy number two's alteration of the lyrics: "We'll give up all our dignity?" Whatever happened to being fearfully and wonderfully made? Or, for that matter, having tact?

But such divisions and controversies are hardly news. A millennium and a half ago you could get excommunicated for misunderstanding the incarnation of Christ or the essence of the Holy Father in ways that are now par for the course in Christian radio sermons. I don't like the particularly personal ways that today's Christians discriminate against one another and society at large, but it does not greatly surprise me.

[Victoria]

"Awesome God" is a terrible song. Musically, it's catchy, has a singable chorus, so it's no wonder it's become so popular in that sense. But the lyrics are awful. Beyond terrible. Terrible metaphors of an anthropomorphic God who rolls up his sleeves and shoots lightning bolts like some sort of kickin' ass Left Behind-esque superhero God. I do nothing but cringe when I hear it in worship services, wondering what's worse -- that the people around me are oblivious to the awful image of God this song promotes, or that they are aware, and approve and are possibly even inspired by this image of God.

[Dylan]

On the subject of the music, Jars of Clay did a somewhat dirge-like rendition of "And They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love" on Redemption Songs. It'd been years since I heard the song before that, so I assumed that the darker style was something peculiar to their version done as a statement. (It doesn't take a survey to realize that many people in mainstream US culture don't associate Christians with love.)

If you listen to some of Rich Mullins' other songs (not that I've heard that many--just a few they play on the local Christian station) you get an attitude completely opposite of what Fred's describing about "Awesome God". It's kind of surprising that, compared to some of his other work, that particular song is so popular.

[rampancy]

A bitter joke indeed.

"I like Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Sadly, this saying has never grown old in my eyes.

[Consumer Unit 5012]

I think The Onion may have summed up the "Church as an exclusive club" attitude best:

No, Jesus Is My Personal Savior

[LL]

This reminded me of a story that appeared in the Dallas Morning News (about an uwed mother) and a response to it from a Dallas pastor, Rev. George A. Mason. If I could find a link to his op-ed, I'd provide one, but I can't find it in the DMN's extremely unhelpful archives. But I did happen to keep part of it on my own computer:

We rightly identify with admirable people. Good characters lift us all; bad characters drag us down. We need more icons to look up to; we want fewer Amandas thrust in our faces over morning coffee.

We need to see Amanda, though - really see her. Even bad examples can serve as moral warning. More than that, however, when we really see Amanda, we will see something of ourselves we prefer to deny but must not. St. Francis of Assisi asked, "Can true humility and compassion exist in our words and eyes unless we know we too are capable of any act?"

Amanda is a mirror we would prefer not to peer into. What if a local church seized the opportunity to surround this family with love, persevering as it must through the ups and downs until things might change? People of faith are hopeful by nature. We believe in redemption. We do not believe the accident of birth is a sentence of death. We do not believe the Amandas are fated to failure. Change is difficult but possible. It is likelier within a committed community that loves lavishly and speaks truthfully.

This is the church. This is what we do. This is who we want to be.

We are a country of incurable optimists. From the first, we have dreamed of a better land and better lives. Lincoln pointed us to "the better angels of our nature" for healing hurts and righting wrongs.

This is America. This is what we do. This is who we want to be.

Why should we care about Amanda? Because God cares for her. Because Amanda can still surprise us. And because in caring about her we may be caring for ourselves.

Me (LL) again: if I discerned this attitude among most of the Christians I've encountered in my life, well, I'd still be an atheist, but I wouldn't be nearly as convinced that most religious people (not just Christians) are really just horrible people. Hypocritical, hateful, unpleasant to be around. This hateful face is the one that most religious people show in public, and they are reaping the results of that now. Typical that many of them (like the article Fred references suggests) see this not as a failing on their part, but as a hostility towards them based on nothing that they've done wrong, or anything they failed to do right. As usual, the fault is entirely ours, they have no responsibility whatsoever. Of course, this feeds their ever-expanding sense of persecution, which they seem to live for.

[LL]

Oh, and BTW, I don't mean to imply that homosexuality is the "bad character" by use of a quote that uses that description. Unwed pregnancy is the bad example the Reverend was referring to with that phrase, I just thought his view was worth sharing.

[G-Do]

Man, I don't know LL. That whole passage leaves me cold.

It seems like there is a truth which is painfully absent from the Reverend's entire train of thought, which is "Amanda is a human being." I mean, look at it! Look at how the guy talks about her in the quoted passage. Amanda is one of the "bad characters." Amanda is something that gets "thrust in our faces over morning coffee." Amanda is a "moral warning." Amanda is "a mirror we would prefer not to peer into," or "something of ourselves we prefer to deny but must not." The message is clear: Amanda is not a person, but a thing, definable in terms of her relationship with the community at large. The story isn't about her life, or her feelings, or her struggle, but about what she means to us. That strikes me as incredible self-centered.

This apparent narcissism is only reinforced by the relentless self-aggrandizement: "This is the church. This is what we do. This is who we want to be," and so on. Well, what about Amanda? What about what she wants or needs? Do we have no love for her?

The heartlessness of the whole thing is only underscored by the final bit:

"Why should we care about Amanda? Because God cares for her. Because Amanda can still surprise us. And because in caring about her we may be caring for ourselves."

Jesus Christ, do you really need a reason to care about someone? Do you really need God's permission first? Do you really need a guarantee that Amanda will follow all the rules in the future? And, most importantly, do you really see no other good in loving others, except that it makes you feel better?

This kind of thing from Christians absolutely flummoxes me. It's an infantile, hopelessly self-absorbed sentiment, completely devoid of recognizable compassion or consideration for others. The "committed community that loves lavishly and speaks truthfully" has got to be a farce; how the @#$% do you love somebody without feeling for them?

Sorry to rain on your parade, there. But man, stuff like that makes me so mad. Where the hell is the spiritual leadership in the US? It sure isn't coming from these guys.

[Isis]

Rampancy quotes Gandhi, but what did Gandhi mean?

The secular world has always had some respect for expression of spirituality that stand up for a real principle. It is inspiring to watch faith in action even when it is ill-founded. But few of today's Christians display such faith. It's one thing to buy a bumper sticker for your car that says “God hates Fags” and quite another to put your principles ahead of your personal life.

It's not about homosexuality. Don't get the idea that because your pastor doesn't stand up and wave a bible around and demand that God destroy San Francisco you're not part of the problem. If you actually believed you would be a man of action, and you're not or else you'd be doing something better than reading a blog. The problem is that Christians aren't willing to take the challenge, they dither, not sure enough to stop attending Church, or at least not enough to stop pretending they go, but also not able to trust in God and take action.

Kids are very sensitive to hypocrisy. They know that they're treated unfairly by adults and they resent the double standards. Practically every American Christian alive today is a hypocrite and kids can smell that. If they're brought up inside the church of course the smell is everywhere, it's hard to say where it comes from and it may be many years before they realise. But to outsider it's obvious where the stink comes from and they stay well clear.

Eliminate the hypocrisy and you would undoubtedly have a much smaller church, and of course as an atheist I think you'd eventually have no church at all. But prove me wrong, if the spirit is real it cannot be diluted by eliminating hypocrisy. A thousand true believers are more powerful than a million people who mumble along to the words on a Sunday morning without really believing in Christ.

One of my favourite books of the late 20th century is Whit. The protagonist eventually understands that the foundation of her faith is uncertain, even fraudulent, but she still recognises that it is powerful, and can be a force for good if it is not tainted by hypocrisy and greed.

[Jesurgislac]

Dr Science: but I would be willing to bet that young Catholics are less likely to feel their church is defined by anti-homosexuality than young evangelicals are.

They would be wrong, though. When Pope Rat was head of the inquisition, he wrote homophobia into Catholic doctrine: and one of his first acts as Pope was to specify that only self-hating extreme closet cases (such as, Italian gays say, the Pope himself) should be allowed to be priests. No other branch of Christianity defines itself by homophobia as solidly as the Catholic Church has done in recent years. The Catholic Church has even closed down (or threatened to close down) adoption agencies, claiming that to Catholics, homophobia is a far more central principle than caring for children. (Admittedly, you could make a fair argument that the Catholic Church is equally defined by misogyny, and has been public about that for far longer.)

Fairly obviously, Catholic grassroots disagree with a lot of this: nuns in London pass out condoms to streetwalkers and encourage them to have safe sex; Catholics walk out of church services when the priest tells them activist homophobia is a part of their religion; and regular confession has ceased to become a part of Catholic life in most developed countries because Catholic women would rather use contraception regularly and have children when they choose, even if Catholic doctrine says they're committing a mortal sin by doing so. (In some countries, of course, women opt for the peculiarly Catholic course of sinning less by having abortions at need, each of which is a mortal sin that they can confess to and be absolved of, than daily committing a mortal sin which they cannot be absolved of by using contraception.)

But most Catholic women I know have long ago learned to balance the official misogynistic doctrine with their own beliefs. Catholic homophobia, however, is more stringently enforced, and harder for LGBT Catholics to ignore.

[scottbot]

Scottbot stands ready to serve in the name of True Christianity - just tell Scottbot who to exterminate with Loving Compassion(TM). Though not any of that icky torture stuff - Scottbot hates the smell of vomit and blood in the morning, even if it seems like victory to many Americans.

Besides, serving an Awful God(TM) sounds like just the ticket for a poor persecuted pipsqueak parroting paragon with delusions of priapism - not that Scottbot needs any meth OR back rub specialists to love the sin while hating the sinner.

Though a Scottbot is unlikely to understand the human logic, but is it just possible that many of the fundamentalists are looking for hate so they can justify their own self-hatred? After all, self-hate is a lonely, unfulfilling hatred, but if everyone joins in, it becomes an orgy of hatred, and Christianity seems to specialize in that area (until the Muslims got into that self-flagellation act). And besides, only that kind of orgy is something which a Good American Christian is even tempted by.

When will witch burning return to God's Own Nation(TM)? Because Scottbot is waiting.

And waiting.

And waiting.

And well lubricated, Scottbot might add, with a little bit of foot tapping added to its wide stance.

[MikailBorg]

Sloth is plenty profitable. Just look at the zillions of dollars Blizzard made off World of Warcraft!

Cute, but the raiding player in the end game of WoW is putting in four to six hours a night, anywhere from three to six nights a week, as part of a tightly-organized group performing carefully-coordinated activity in the pursuit of the treasures that will allow him or her to be a better contributor to their shared goals.

There may not be a lot of physical exercise involved, but somehow "sloth" doesn't seem quite the right word for this pursuit.

[Jesurgislac]

How in Hell did that happen? (That's a theological term, not a profane intensifier.)

If that's a genuine query, Fred, the answer as I see it is:

(1) Homophobic evangelical Christian leaders objected to equal civil rights for LGBT people;
(2) These leaders told their congregations/followers/the general public that opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people was a necessary part of being a Christian;
(3) This opposition was widely reported by the media as a given, and used to structure stories about legislative equality for LGBT people (positive quote from a LGBT org, negative quote from a religious org).

It's possible that this could have been reversed or the perception changed if leading religious figures had been willing to speak out against the negative comments being made about civil equality for LGBT people, and to do so consistently, whenever they saw a leading religious figure argue that Christianity requires opposition to gay marriage, for example. I believe this is what happened when Christians were arguing against the black civil rights movement, which is probably one reason why today people do not believe that you have to be racist to be Christian.

[Lurker]

Jes, I agree. I also think that the practical issues that have little to do with actual doctrine move very easily between congregations. For example, I think that the Calvinist position on predestination is horrible, the anabaptist stance on believer's baptism is blatantly incorrect and that the position of many "Evangelical" churches on the trinitarian nature of God is unclear at the best. However, for most people, such doctrinal niceties have no significance, although they are much more central to the traditional orthodoxy than any sexual mores. They find unity in condemning others' sexual vices, instead of diving into the ocean of religious thought of centuries. It is much easier to accept the practical ethics of another group, even if they were based on quite different first principles than your own faith.

In practice, it is easy to understand how the churches' position is radicalized. When the other pastors are preaching against gays, what about you? Do you have the guts to go against the flow? It takes a strong church to resist the temptation to follow the contemporary moral doctrines. It also takes strong theological base. You cannot resist fanatics easily, because they have all the easy answers. The moderation requires much more thought. The problem with the small American churches is that they cannot afford to have enough strong theologists to do this thinking.

[Jesurgislac]

than daily committing a mortal sin which they cannot be absolved of by using contraception

I have just noticed what an abominable mixup that sentence is.

What I should have written was: "than daily committing a mortal sin (by using contraception) which they cannot be absolved of".

Bring on the grammar Nazis. I lose.

[Scott]

Scottbot who to exterminate with Loving Compassion(TM)

Funny thing is this is where I agree w/ the left that religion and politics shouldn't mix and the govt should stay out of peoples' lives. I just wish they'd be consistent in that position, instead of thinking Geebus was only talking to the GOP when he talked of judging others.

[Sarah Jane]

Seminarian, I, too, was startled and disturbed by that change in lyrics. There's a pretty big chasm between "And we'll guard each one's dignity and save each one's pride," and "And we'll give up all our dignity and sacrifice our pride," and it really makes me wonder just what made the singer so uncomfortable with the original line.

Perhaps it's easier to throw out my dignity and pride (the rightful kind which recognizes all human beings as having great worth in God's sight), rather than striving to live in a way that reflects the belief that I, and all these others, are singularly loved creations of Almighty God. It's also a big responsibility to be entrusted with protecting not my own, but my brother's dignity, my sister's pride -- particularly if my brother happens to be a gay man.

Dylan, I agree with you about most of Rich Mullins' music being really strong, particularly when compared with the rest of the nonsense that's being written these days. (I don't know how you can stand to listen to Christian radio long enough to hear even one of his songs -- I turned mine off years ago and haven't looked back!) I'm not a big fan of Awesome God, but in the context of Mullins' other work, I don't read that nasty us-against-them attitude into it because I'm pretty sure that's not how Mullins saw the world. It is interesting to note, however, that Awesome God is the one song that you hear regularly sung in churches these days, while many of Mullins' best pieces (All the Way to Kingdom Come, or the eloquently simple Hold Me, Jesus) remain forgotten and unknown. I suspect that implies less about the songwriter, and more about the worship leaders and congregations who so dearly love Awesome God.

The great creeds of the church make no mention of homosexuality -- let along singling it out for particular and pre-eminent condemnation or suggesting that such condemnation plays a central role in the faith.

True, but in all fairness it's important to recognise that society in general had no real equivalent to our modern concept of homosexuality. Sexual preference was not considered so much to be part of an individual's inherent nature as it now is. There was no such thing as 'a homosexual'; there were human beings who engaged in homosexual acts and/or experienced homosexual desires. Which, naturally, made it harder to reject or hate a person because of their sexual history/identity - but shifted the 'blame' far more onto the tempter and made institutionalised misogyny oh-so-easy.

[alfgifu]

Oops - 07.38am was me (it's 12.38pm here, I'm not that keen!)

[not]

Actually, a lot of things in life aren't left or right - this duality is one of the more pernicious aspects of thought hindering thoughtful debate, much less leading a decent life.

Separation of religion from government is not a 'right' or 'left' issue - it has just been framed that way, roughly from the time that socialism/Marxism/communism started successfully competing with Christiantity for political and social power.

Before that, 'free thinkers' were simply viewed as too dangerous to tolerate, though when the Age of Reason started to gather strength, it became less common to hang such threats to public virtue.

Tar and feathering was good enough for those unable to accept God's love. Except for those Mormons - nothing like ''the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace - their outrages are beyond all description.' ... The Saints, considered to not even be citizens anymore, were to be driven out or killed.'

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Missouri.shtml The link is basically Mormon propaganda, but it is very thorough - ah, back when American Christians really knew how to wield the sword when defending the land of Maroni - or is that Abraham? or is it God's own?. Well, whoever's, as long as the body count is pleasing to god, with the smell of burnt flesh. Though I don't think Jefferson's Bible contains any of those passages.

[lalouve]

The saddest part is that homophobia doesn't have to be part of the 'creed' of a Protestant church. The Church of Sweden (Lutheran) recently decided to create a ceremony for same-sex marriage, pushing our government into considering legalising it - we currently just have partnership. They also showed a photo exhibition depicting Christ among gays, lesbians, and transvestites (I liked the last supper, with transvestite disciples and Christ in a pair of heels, sumbolising walking in their shoes...) in the archdiocese's cathedral. As a result, our archbishop was not received by the pope on his next visit to Rome; I have rarely been so proud of an archbishop.

[Andy]

When I heard (and sang) "Awesome God" as a kid, what struck me about 'Our God is an awesome God' was Our and an. It always sounded to me like an acknowledgment of polytheism. If not, then was it just referring to other faiths, without saying flat out that they were wrong? I didn't much like singing the song because of that -- either it lacked the courage of its convictions, or it was heretical. (I was a weird kid.)

[MikhailBorg]

I was listening today via podcast to Alan Deshowitz's same-sex marriage solution, which I thought had a certain elegance to it:

Give "civil union" the legal status of marriage. A civil union would give a couple all the legal rights relating to taxes, insurance, health care, funeral arrangments, etc. that a married couple has now.

Then, give "marriage" back to the churches. Define marriage as a religious ceremony, between the supplicants and their church and deity.

Let any church say to any couple, "We won't marry you for this arbitrary reason." The couple is then free to find another church if they wish, while still enjoying the legal benefits (or disadvantages in some cases) of their arrangement with the state.

According to Dershowitz, this is the practice in several European countries, and many people on both sides of the issue seem pleased with the arrangement.

[MikhailBorg]

It always sounded to me like an acknowledgment of polytheism.

There are several passages in the Old Testament which can be read as Yahweh's acknowledgment that there are other gods, but I'm Number One and don't you forget it.

[Ursula L]

What a horrible change in the hymn! It changes it from a call to moral action to a boast of spiritual oneupsmanship.

I had to Google the lyrics for "Awesome God" - it must have become popular after I stopped going to church, or never caught on at the liberal Baptist churches I did attend. It's horrible. "Oh when He rolls up his sleeves He ain't just puttin' on the ritz"? (Lyrics here: http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~aruljohn/lyrics/lyrics.php?ad=&cat=ce&song=Awesome_God for others who are as mercifully ignorant of the thing as I was.)

[Geds]

I had a junior high leader who hated "Awesome God" because he said whenever he heard the line, "He ain't just puttin' on the ritz," it made him think of Ritz crackers. I thought he was weird at the time, but now all I can think of when I hear that line is Ritz crackers, so hey...

Meanwhile, I'm going to second or third or whatever those who mention that it's not a good idea to judge Mullins' entire library by that song. It's a horrible song and completely uncharacteristic of the rest of what he did. I don't actually know what the deal is, but most of the time he wrote songs with grace and power and excellent imagry, but "Awesome God" has none of that.

Judging Mullins' entire catalog by that song would be a lot like judging the Beatles only by the Yoko Ono years...

[Jesurgislac]

Mikhail: According to Dershowitz, this is the practice in several European countries, and many people on both sides of the issue seem pleased with the arrangement.

It isn't the practice in any European countries.

What is the practice in many European countries is that civil marriage is clearly distinguished from the religious ceremony. A couple who wish to marry must go to the office where civil marriages are carried out. They may also go to a place of religion and have a religious blessing on their relationship.

Let any church say to any couple, "We won't marry you for this arbitrary reason." The couple is then free to find another church if they wish, while still enjoying the legal benefits (or disadvantages in some cases) of their arrangement with the state.

That is already the practice in the US, is it not? Any church may refuse to marry any couple for any arbitrary reason connected with their religion. But civil marriage is (or should be) open to any couple, regardless of religious prejudice. Why is Alan Dershowitz billing this standard practice in the US as a "change"?

[MikhailBorg]

That is already the practice in the US, is it not? Any church may refuse to marry any couple for any arbitrary reason connected with their religion. But civil marriage is (or should be) open to any couple, regardless of religious prejudice.

Not for same-sex couples, unfortunately. A same-sex couple that somehow manages to get a civil union in the US has few if any of the advantages that a married couple does. Hospitals will refuse to allow civil partners to influence care, or remain after visiting hours. Provisions for civil partners in wills can easily be overturned. Civil unions get none of the marriage tax benefits. Et cetera...

The majority of authorities treat "civil union" on a level with "college roommate", except more icky.

As for Mr. Dershowitz's information, I could easily have misunderstood him - I am not at my most coherent at 7:30am. Or perhaps he just didn't have his facts in order.

(My spell-checker thought that "cvili" was a legitimate word. Perhaps it thought I wanted a Roman numeral.)

[BelovedBright]

I wonder when this started -- when, for instance, non-Christians started dreading attending weddings or funerals at evangelical churches because we couldn't expect the minister not to take the opportunity to insult some of the guests.

I couldn't tell you when it started. However, I went to a wedding about five years ago. The Pastor took the opportunity to specifically emphasize that "marriage is only between a man and a woman." I was feeling pretty irritated by the end of the ceremony, but, you can't walk out of a wedding without seeming rather rude.

[Jesurgislac]

Not for same-sex couples, unfortunately. A same-sex couple that somehow manages to get a civil union in the US has few if any of the advantages that a married couple does.

I said "or should be". Same-sex couples can legally marry in the US, and according to Article IV of the Constitution, a legal marriage in any state of the US must be recognized by all states, even if (plenty of case law to establish this) it wouldn't have been legal to form the marriage in the state in which that couple lives. A good deal of unConstitutional and homophobic law has been made to overturn Article IV of the Constitution with regard to same-sex married couples: I would hope, however, that in good time the Constitution will be upheld. (Not least because the current patchwork system is insane.)

As for Mr. Dershowitz's information, I could easily have misunderstood him - I am not at my most coherent at 7:30am. Or perhaps he just didn't have his facts in order.

I suspect the latter. (Me too about 7:30am, though.) But I've heard Dershowitz and others bloviating about this before, and it never seems to occur to them that civil and religious marriage are already legally separated in the US...

[Dave Lartigue]

But isn't this Barna group poll GOOD NEWS for these Evangelicals? After all, one of the three most odious things Jesus says in the Gospels is:

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

which has been interpreted as, "If people don't like you, you're doing something right, and boy howdy will you get 'A++++++++++++ WOULD SAVE AGAIN' in Heaven!"

As far as these folks are concerned, being disliked is not only par for the course, it's a sign that what they're doing is, in fact, God's will. This news also feeds into their "persecuted Christians in America" myth that they can use to whip up the fan base. (Let's also not discount good old American "If someone doesn't like you it's because they're jealous" sentiment used to explain away all sorts of things from elementary school bullying to class inequalities.)

It's not just Christianity that feels this way, either. American "Asshole Culture" has been on the rise for at least 20 years. How many times have you heard someone say, "I may be an asshole, but at least I'm honest about it."? How many people take pride in their ability to be "politically incorrect" and "tell it like it is" and "say out loud what everyone else is really thinking"? Our culture no longer sees anything wrong with irritating those around us. This is evident from our movie theaters to our foreign policy. We get what we want and everyone else can get bent. If you don't like my stance against homosexuals, too bad, it's getting ME a ticket to Heaven.

There's nothing surprising about this and I don't think anyone who needs to see this as a bad thing will. On the contrary, I suspect they'll be heartened by it.

[balt]

Jesurgislac:

There is a subtle difference that you are missing. In some parts of Europe, the religious ceremony is of no legal effect. That is what Dershowitz is advocating. You can have the "marriage" in the church if you want -- but without the prior civil ceremony you're still going to be filing your taxes seperately. If you undertake the legal action to create a civil union, you can file jointly, whether or not the couple is MM, MF or FF, and regardless of whether there is a religious ceremony. This would be theoretically distinct from the current "civil ceremony" used to create marriages outside a church, although it probably in practice would look nearly identical.

It's a stunningly rational plan. It also ignores the fact that many -- perhaps most -- people who object to homosexual marriage are not simply afraid of sullying the supposed sanctity of heterosexual marriage but rather also want to affirmatively deny marriage-like legal rights to people they consider to be subhuman embodiments of evil.

[Jesurgislac]

balt: In some parts of Europe, the religious ceremony is of no legal effect. That is what Dershowitz is advocating.

In the US, the religious ceremony is of no legal effect unless the religious celebrant who carries it out is registered to perform the civil marriage at the same time as the religious marriage. The legal effect in the US is by civil registration: it's just that the setup permits people to carry out the civil registration of marriage simultaneously with the religious ceremony - and in some European countries, you can't do both at the same time.

It's a stunningly rational plan.

It's an astonishingly stupid plan, based on a profound ignorance on how people get married in the US.

[Jesurgislac]

I am not saying you are astonishingly stupid, Balt, I thought I should make that clear

But seriously astonishing numbers of people, married or not, do not seem to have the first notion of how to get married in their own country. Dershowitz appears to be one of them. It is astonishingly stupid to sound off about how you think marriage legislation in your own country ought to be reformed, without first looking up how marriage in your own country currently works.

[Ursula L]

It's a stunningly rational plan.

The plan may be rational, but most objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage aren't rational, they're emotional. People afraid that a change in the law would force their church to change its beliefs, people frightened of the idea that a marriage performed in their church would not be legally binding, people still upset at the idea of legal divorce not being able to deal with yet another change to their concept of "marriage", people who have seen, in their lifetime, homosexuality go from completely closeted to very open, and who are freaked by the change.

However rational a plan is, it won't be accepted or workable if it ignores the emotional issues it is supposed to be addressing.

[Zorya]

That was me at 10:48.

[Zorya]

Interesting how the evil du jour changes. Back in the 1970's the big evil in my local Charismatic Church was divorce. I was told by one of the church leaders that God hated divorce so much that if a couple divorced and remarried that God would break up the second marriages so the couple would reunite. Stupid man.

I wonder if the social acceptance of divorce in the US encouraged the more fundamental branches of American Christianity to focus on homosexuality as" teh big evil".

[hapax]

Darn. A long, detailed and cogent post was eaten by my NetNanny. I'll try again, breaking it up.

@Isis: If you actually believed you would be a man of action, and you're not or else you'd be doing something better than reading a blog. The problem is that Christians aren't willing to take the challenge,.../snip/... Practically every American Christian alive today is a hypocrite and kids can smell that.

How can I put this politely, elegantly, and comprehensively? Oh, I know. F*ck you.

[hapax]

@BelovedBright: I was feeling pretty irritated by the end of the ceremony, but, you can't walk out of a wedding without seeming rather rude.

It's even harder to walk out of a wedding when you're wearing a long dress, carrying flowers, and your brother is the groom. Nonetheless, I came very close three years ago, when the minister chose to chastise my new sister-in-law from the pulpit, because she had objected to "submitting to the headship" of her husband during premarital counselling.

[hapax]

@Jesu: It is astonishingly stupid to sound off about how you think marriage legislation in your own country ought to be reformed, without first looking up how marriage in your own country currently works.

It is also astonishingly, er, provocative, to sound off about the marriage customs of another country, when you don't know what your talking about.

Jesu, no matter how much I wish it were otherwise, the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine the standards for marriage within their territories. As of this moment, only one state allows for same sex marriage; forty four specifically prohibit it.

Federal law trumps state law under the Equal Protection Clause, as established in Loving v Virginia. The (ptui ptui) Defense of Marriage Act currently states that as far as the Federal govt. is concerned, there is no same-sex marriage.

The ultimate determination of what is or is not Constitutional is US Supreme Court decisions, not what we believe or think they should rule. So far, the Supreme Court has refused to overturn the state prohibitions or the DOMA. Therefore, ipso facto, same-sex marriage is NOT a Constitutional right in the U.S. God willing, and the actions of me and millions others supporting, this will change.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: Federal law trumps state law under the Equal Protection Clause, as established in Loving v Virginia. The (ptui ptui) Defense of Marriage Act currently states that as far as the Federal govt. is concerned, there is no same-sex marriage.

Yep: but the "Defense of Marriage" Act is unConstitutional. It overturns Article IV. Go look it up.

In any case, I think you are confused about what I was saying. Dershowitz is advocating a separation between religious and civil marriage that already exists in the US. Dershowitz is talking nonsense because he doesn't seem to realize that legal marriage, with all the privileges that pertain to it, already is an exclusively civil institution in the US. There exists the functionality - if you want to use it - to have a religious ceremony at the same time as your civil marriage is made legally binding, but it is the civil marriage which has legal status in the US.

[Geds]

However rational a plan is, it won't be accepted or workable if it ignores the emotional issues it is supposed to be addressing.

Not to mention the source of the emotional issues.

First, lots of straight people in America get married in civil ceremonies. They don't care about church, they've been told they're not the right sort of people to get married in a church, they don't want to deal with the B.S., etc. It hasn't exactly ruined marriage as an institution. Hell, as someone who grew up in one of those RTC environments, I couldn't imagine not getting married in my church. Now I kind of figure it might be better to not get married in one. It's easier and I won't have to deal with pre-marital pastoral counseling unless I want to (a friend of mine is getting married in my old church and my old high school youth pastor is doing the counseling. I've actually lost respect for the man having heard some of how that's going).

Anyway, long story short, I don't actually think that civil ceremonies "ruin the sanctity of marriage," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Second, I don't know of anybody, ever, who has made a decision about marriage based on looking at who else has gotten married (save, possibly, someone whose parents both went through a couple divorces or something and they just don't think marriage works). I'd bet almost everyone knows a couple or two who are married but really, really shouldn't be (I'm slated to be the best man at a wedding I'm not so sure I agree with...). I'd also bet that most people know someone who's married and who makes them think, "Ew, who'd marry [insert person here]?" When it comes time for a couple to start thinking about marriage, however, does that factor in to their decision on any level? Or do people get married because they want to and they think it's a good idea?

I've always seen the decision about whether or not to get married as one of those deeply personal decisions that a couple makes (well, unless pa is standing there with the shotgun...). I've also never really seen it as a rational thing beyond trying to decide if it's right for the two involved. I also really, really, don't see it as the sort of thing that (most) couples get in to as an investment with an expected return. In short, I don't think anybody sits around and says, "Well, Bob and Jill's marriage sucks, and that's really going to cut in to our own future marriage profits. And don't get me started on how Adam and Steve's marriage is tarnishing our reputation as a married couple. I'm really expecting fourth quarter losses in my marriage stocks." Moreover, if Bill and Jane, a good, church going couple who have been married for ten years, wakes up one morning and sees a news report that Adam and Steve were just married down at the town hall, does anyone really think that Bill and Jane are going to look at each other and say, "Well, guess that just about does it for our marriage?" and separate then and there? Come on.

Which brings us right back around to the beginning, I suppose. What emotional issues are we addressing, here? I certainly don't think it has anything to do with worrying about the supposed "sanctity of marriage." I think it's all manufactured fear mongering and that is the emotional issue that we need to address.

I think the whole church marriage v. civil ceremony is an attempt to address that exact issue. In principle I'm not really against the idea, as a church marriage isn't necessary for civil recognition and the civil recognition is more important for a larger number of reasons (inheritance, insurance, civil liberties, etc.). It's also, I'd hazard, more important to a larger sector of the population, as not everyone who wants to get married is going to want to do so in a church, anyway. After that, I say leave the theistically inclined to deal with the churches as they so choose (which might be more effective, anyway, if it can't be dressed up as the army of godforsaken secular humanist strawmen marching on the church to dictate terms).

Of course, over all we ultimately have to figure out how to convince the country as a whole that the evangelicals don't actually own America. Imagine the progress if we can make that happen.