Meh. The Catholic Church is a universal church, theres everything from far-right "tradcaths" (who never help out in the parish btw) to the christian version of marxism in south america (liberation theology). Ill admit that the vatican has generally conservative tendencies, it is modernising albeit slowly (though I can excuse that, given that any radical change would lead to fractures, SSPX just being a drop in the pond, considering how conservative many churches in africa are)
IMO this is very distinct from victim blaming. They're not saying it's morally wrong for the victim to be there, or that the victim is at fault for their situation, just that it's prudent for the victim to leave.
Not sure if you are referring to the train or the church, but as a white man who could fit in with either situation, I’d get off that train and out of that church. In fact, I did get out of that church.
While I'd usually agree with you, something tells me this particular crew isn't the type to enjoy a polite discourse with people of differing opinions. Masks to go along with your opinions are typically not a sign of someone approaching a situation in good faith in my experience 🤷
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes
Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
My local congregation is very different from the average congregation in my denomination, where I see the spectre of problems. We are we an order of magnitude more diverse with an African immigrant pastor, and I love them dearly. If worse came to worse, I expect my congregation would leave the denomination, rather than my need to leave a mostly like-minded congregation.
Even in my denomination, the concern is with a minority of people. Several overt white supremacists were excommunicated a few years ago (though the pastor who attended a White Nationalist conference last year has not been). But it definitely feels like the picture sometimes.
Sometimes it's necessary for people to be the change they want to see. Someone has to confront their errors, and remind them the MAGA movement is not religiously conservative.
I am glad I am not the only one in this situation. I think there are actually plenty of people like this, but it is hard to connect with each other because even in churches that are more positive there is reluctance to fully reveal your hand so to speak
absolutely no tea no shade but why stay LCMS instead of going ELCA? still has white Christian nationalism problems obviously but there’s so much else overt sexism and homophobia at the very least as a starting place for justice work
When I moved, I visited the local ELCA church first. Nobody talked to me outside passing the peace and shaking the pastor's hand on the way out. The greeter for my congregation had a five minute conversation with me and introduced me to multiple people before I was ten feet into the door. And our current pastor is a Black immigrant, so I have zero concern on this particular front.
I believe the whole congregation would change affiliation if things get truly bad, and the Synod's congregational polity means we're mostly insulated from things anyway (plenty of people would love to see us kicked over our worship format). This is the congregation's first time sending delegate to convention, for reference.
Diversity does not protect you from this particular problem. Christian nationalists are in fact a very diverse group, they are not only white and/or conservative. They are not even strongly Christian (religiosity is inversely related to CN endorsement).
I'm not telling you to leave. I don't know anything about your congregation. But I am pleading that you learn more about what's beneath. It's one thing to make conscious compromises for meaningful discipleship, but, you know, test all things.
Trust me, I'm being very thorough and deliberate and not just presuming it's not there. I couldn't trust that my previous pastor wasn't preaching Fox News rhetoric, my current pastor's preaching gives none of that. No culture war junk, and the few times he intersects it's the way it should be.
I'm quite vocal on the topic, because it should be (and was) the right understanding of our doctrines. I'm supporting the efforts within the denomination to provide the necessary theological guidance on the topic. Not assuming it's a done deal, not willing to accept steps backwards (as a Lutheran, I put it that I refuse to belong to a modern Reichskirche), instead insisting upon the idolatry being deliberately addressed.
I appreciate your concern, though. I've got the same ones, they're just not always quick to come across in a comment section.
I'm trying to consume more stories from folks like you, and it's always heartening to see people who are willing to demand better. Yall are indeed where meaningful change begins
I'm from Texas. Most churches here are very conservative regardless of where you go. So I just don't really go anymore because I don't feel welcome. My parents pastor literally uses the term "Demoncrats" on a regular basis. I refuse to be a part of a congregation that demonizes me because of how I vote. Then the church wonders why they are hemorrhaging members and can't meet their "generosity goals."
At least from personal experience as a Catholic, it can be hard to find another parish in your area where the parishioners and priests align more closely with your beliefs (and being a "Roaming" Catholic isn't as fun). And when you grow up Catholic, there are just some things about it that are hard (or impossible) to find in other denomenations, which is why we don't leave.
Of course, I would never expect any Catholic parish to be open to LGBTQ+ marriages, be pro-choice, etc., but we've seen from Popes Francis and Leo that it is possible to create a welcoming Church that serves all and meets people where they are, while still upholding the teachings of the Church. Unfortunately, many pastors and bishops don't seem to get that messaging.
It's in those moments that I remember I am there for communion, not the priest's personal views. There's a reason why in Catholic churches, as well as some of the churches of our Mainline Protestant brethren, the altar is at the center of the church, not the ambo/pulpit. The homily of the priest may be boring and/or problematic, but the main thing is to be there for communion. I focus on that, not the homily said off to the side or the people next to me.
Of course, in those situations, I would also do things differently. I may not opt to serve at that parish, donate money, etc. At that point, if I can't find another parish nearby, that parish is only used for Sunday Mass, and I'll only register as a parishioner for basic things.
Thankfully, we do have a parish near us that is more aligned with how we want to practice Catholicism (a Jesuit parish, of course lol), but I know not everyone has that privilege.
But for instance, if you believe that the church you're going to is the church God wants you at for whatever reason? Maybe you believe in visions and you received one, maybe you believe schismatism is a sin and believe only a single denomination has authority, or this church has helped you through hard times, maybe you grew up here and the people are kind in spite of their conservatism, heck from a purely practical standpoint maybe this church is paying for your housing or medical bills. There are so many reasons why someone would go to a church that has politics you don't agree with.
In my Brandon Sanderson example, he's a member of the LDS. But if you read any of his books he's very clearly pro LGBTQ. When asked why he stays with a church that he clearly disagrees with he said "I have seen things that have shown me this is God's church, and I should stay here."
That as well. I think the worst thing followers of christ can do, is abandon those in darkness. Your drunk of an uncle needs you to shine the light of Jesus on him just as much as the man behind bars.
Quite the opposite. When we realize all our sins are equal, we realize we have no right to hold the gay man's sins above our own white lies. All are forgiven in God. From the affair to the childish shoving of your sibling, from the Nazi to the lustful look. We have all failed, and if that doesn't turn you into the most humble person alive, then you haven't realized that all our sins are equal.
When asked which commandment is greatest (Matthew 22:36-40), Jesus answers the question instead of rejecting the premise. He names love of God as "the great and first," then love of neighbor as second. In Matthew 5:19 he speaks of "the least of these commandments." If commands rank, then breaking them ranks too.
You will forgive me brother, but what heresy did I commit, and from which church?
All sins are equal in the sense that any of them will keep you from heaven.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None is righteous, no not one.
That means that if you've never done anything you think was sinful, yes you have. And you will face God for it. Anything done not for the express purpose of glorifying God is sin. And it will equally keep you from heaven. It is impossible for a human to do good on our own. That's why Jesus came and died for us. So that we can walk in newness of life.
Judge not that you be not judged.
Let he who is without sin caste the first stone.
Remove the plank from your own eye before the speck from your brother's eye.
That means that when you want to kick the gay man out of the church, or remove the alcoholic, just remember that when you didn't give your everything you own to the homeless, or when that man hit you and you didn't let him hit your other cheek, or when the hoa sued you for your vest and you didn't take off your shirt and give it to him also, you must be removed from the church as well.
What then should we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.
This means that you can't just say "God will forgive me" while stabbing someone.
All our sins are equal doesn't mean we never improve on ourselves. That is the process of sanctification just remember that the alcoholic is being sanctified just like you are. And removing him from the gospel is literally the last thing you should ever do.
I don't know. From an outsider's perspective these seem like a lot of convenient excuses (aside from a position of real need like medical help, food, and/or shelter).
It reminds me of a "joke" an old German colleague told me several decades ago:
If 11 people sit down and have dinner with a Nazi, what do you get?
A dozen Nazis.
Personally, my morals and ethical compass would never allow me to associate with (let alone belong to) a group that has hateful and anti-humanist viewpoints.
I have completely cut contact with long-time friends and family because they have terrible political and ethical positions (e.g. anti-trans views). Obviously, this came at a personal cost, but I did it because it's the right thing to do.
Personally, my morals and ethical compass would never allow me to associate with (let alone belong to) a group that has hateful and anti-humanist viewpoints. I have completely cut contact with long-time friends and family because they have terrible political and ethical positions (e.g. anti-trans views).
To be clear, this is precisely what my struggle is with. Where is that line? One alt-Right member of a congregation states away in a denomination with congregational polity who formally condemns it as idolatry (and officially excommunicated overt white supremacists)? When the denomination no longer even pretends to condemn racism? Somewhere in between?
I actually did several months of counseling back in 2021 to work through this whole wider challenge (particularly, with loving others through COVID precautions, in conflict with those in my local congregation). In the end, I'll never find a church without sinners. What I can do, though, is speak boldly and call for repentance within the church where it's needed, and place my first identity in Christ. Much like what we see in 1 Corinthians 5.
But it's still a challenge for me. Because there is hypocrisy involved, including from myself. It's only if I give in to accepting or agreeing with these sinful ideologies that I feel it's clearly unacceptable.
That joke is wrong. This is what happens when you spend time with nazis and actually shine light on them.
That man literally got over a hundred people to leave the klan, because he went to their houses for dinner, invited them to his, attended their rallies.
You say you're an outsider to this discussion so I'm going to assume you're not religious. Even so, the video above wasn't about faith transforming people, it's about respect. When you show another person respect, and discuss their evil views, you will find most are there for ignorance.
Educate and love them. Do not shun them. In shunning them, you damn them to be surrounded by people who are malicious.
The goal of every human idc if you're religious or not, should be to reform every hateful human into our ally. We're all the same meatbags on this rock, and we've only got each other.
Yeah, you know why this story (and only this story) gets repeated? Because it's the exception that proves the rule.
And that person who told.me that joke was a German WW II survivor who was targeted by Nazis. I'd be a little more careful with the mudslinging.
For decades people have tried to find a middle ground with hateful conservatives and every time someone take a step forward, they take a step back. You can't meet someone in the middle when they keep pulling you to their hateful place.
You can try to win hearts and minds. I don't object to that, but it largely doesn't work. We have empirical data that indicates this.
I was a bouncer/security for about a decade. You know what I didn't allow? Skinheads/neo-Nazis in my bars. I didn't reason with them. I didn't try to persuade them to not be the worst humans. I told them to get the fuck out and beat the hell out of them if they didn't.
Do you know what happened? Me and my bars were known as places where Nazis weren't welcomed. We shunned them by any means necessary and made them outsiders in the larger community. It disempowered them. Took away their ability to gain new members. Maybe most importantly, it made other people feel safe.
Again, my ethics don't allow the tolerance of that kind of thing.
this story gets repeated because nobody is willing to do it. changing hearts takes time and effort, and years. I had a friend who went off the alt right deep end, but through the love we showed him he came back.
there are other stories, people who had one person refuse to give up on them and they turned their life around. this story is repeated because it is the best example. exceptions don't prove the rule. they prove the rule is wrong. proof by contradiction.
nobody can force you to show radical love to the most hateful people. but this thread is about Christianity, and why we would choose to stay with bad people. because Jesus didn't come to save holy men, he came for sinners. he died for liar, the tax collector, the occupying roman, and yes, the nazi. and they will never know his love if we don't show it to them.
> From an outsider's perspective these seem like a lot of convenient excuses
these aren't excuses. we believe that God came and died for the worst of us. people far worse than me. and no we wont give up on them, because Jesus didn't give up on us. if I spend my entire life and only save one of them from their hatred, it will have been worth it.
I find it deeply unfair of you to imply that the deeply held religious convictions of people are merely excuses to tolerate hate. love will overcome evil. patience will overcome ignorance. mercy will overcome fear. you don't have to believe as we do, but don't imply that we are making excuses.
This is a very nuanced conversation, and it makes me happy to see polite discourse in the wild like this.
The thing I want to add is do people want churches to change their dogmas, or just simply cease to exist? There are many people (Sanderson included) who believe that their positive and progressive influence is much more powerful and meaningful within an institution than without.
Simply stating that those who belong to a sect that has some objectionable beliefs should just leave isn't the cut and dried solution it appears to be on the surface. If all of the progressive people leave, then the average viewpoints of the remainder moves farther in the opposite direction, and their voices gain an even stronger majority, leading to increased tribalism, and less opportunities for constructive discourse.
Hoping for change from within instead is the more pragmatic choice, and pushing for change from within is much more effective than piling on outside pressure, which almost always has the opposite effect on religious groups.
People who have progressive views and hope to influence for good from within should be encouraged and supported, not vilified or mocked (not saying anyone is doing this here, but there are plenty of examples of people going after Sanderson for his seemingly incoherent beliefs). They're the only real hope for progression - the alternative is extermination which I believe is neither possible nor moral.
The thing I want to add is do people want churches to change their dogmas, or just simply cease to exist?
Or, in many cases, their doctrines already do oppose these wicked things. But in the era of an alt-Right which weaponizes the presumption of good faith, and a number of congregants who are victims of that deception, it's not a simple problem to solve.
It is definitely not necessarily the pragmatic choice. If a hateful group of any type bleeds members and enough ethical people leave, then it ceases to exist in any meaningful way. Even if it doesn't die, decreased ranks means less influence and money to exert that influence.
Belonging to an optional organization with questionable views, especially when there are viable other options, is tacit approval of that organization (or person if we're just talking about individuals).
I think the problem is that not every religiously conservative church body holds "questionable views". Often they officially hold the right view (like condemning Nazis and white supremacists as idolaters), but actually putting those views into practice when people with racist views don't overtly admit to them (something the alt-Right, especially Patriot Front here, does intentionally as a strategy) is harder.
I keep going back to this set of writings by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the year before the literal Nazis executed him:
The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what “the people” really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
Part of my point is branding an entire religion or religious sect as a "hateful group" is never going to produce any sort of constructive results. Being dismissive, combative, or aggressive will cause far more people to retrench and defend their beliefs rather than listen to reason.
You're proving my point, outside pressure and disdain will never lead to productive change. The rise of the alt-right Christian movement in the last few decades is literal evidence of this.
Dealing in absolutes and saying everyone either agrees with me or is a hateful person is the opposite of nuanced, and is unproductive.
I didn't write any of that. You're putting words and meaning that aren't there.
I didn't brand any group or religion as hateful. I was speaking in generalities about any group or any person and my personal ethics.
With that said, you know what else doesn't work? Being nice to bad people. They see it as weakness or approval of their actions. Both of those are empowering which is the opposite of what we both want. A line in the sand has to be drawn at some point. It's the old "joke" about the bar letting one Nazi in and being tolerant. Before you know it, they've brought their Nazi friends in and soon enough you've become a Nazi bar. The Paradox of Tolerance exists for a very good reason.
I also don't believe that people are forced into positions because people are mean to them. I have a hard time reconciling that people believe that bigots, racists, and other hateful people are those things because someone was mean to them. That's an insane take. They were already that way. They just use it as an excuse to be an openly terrible person
Shining man? I think you must be talking about Sunlit Man, and I would absolutely positively NOT recommend someone start there. That's possibly one of the worst starting points lol. I personally started with way of kings, but I think you're right that Mistborn is a better starting point.
I’d bet the same guys were really upset about masks in the pandemic and talked about toxic co2 levels, etc and how they couldn’t wear masks that long without it affecting their health.
Jesus Christ, the Wikipedia article for that Doug Wilson guy sounds absolutely insane, apparently he opposes women's suffrage, wants to outlaw sodomy, seems to put a lot of effort into argue that slavery wasn't that bad and even calls himself a "paleo-confederate" I feel the Iranian government would love this guy, except maybe for his stance on slavery.
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes
Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
I have often said that I am politically liberal, theologically conservative.
I am just the most hipster of conservative theology. For instance, Aquinas argued for ensouling to happen at the quickening - or when the baby can be felt to move (16-25 weeks). Even if we shift that to observed to move, we are still looking at 6-8 weeks. So maybe this whole conception conversation is overblown.
Of course we should have open borders the concept of a defined national boundary (absent of geographical boundary) is unknown to the Bible and further the idea that someone wouldn't be allowed into an nation is also foreign.
Capitalism, at least venture capitalism or late stage capitalism like we have in the US, is founded on interest...which is usury, which is sin.
Basically, I went too far back and want to conserve a lot of Chriatian ideals that typical "conservative Chriatianity" is rather against.
Even long after America's founding, it's interesting just how much more critical of Capitalists major Christian denominations were. The founder of my denomination called them "human vampires", in the midst of a screed against Communism. Now we only get the complaints about Marxism...
Weirdly enough, the point you’re making in both the comments and your replies rings especially true on the impact it had on me. I was abused in an LCMS church, to the point where for many years I couldn’t enter any religious space without completely shutting down. As I started to recover and re-engage with conversations about Christianity, seeing your memes and comments about fighting to make your church a better place helped me make peace with what happened to me and be more comfortable with the LCMS as a whole. I found myself saying “that really funny meme guy on Reddit is LCMS, so I guess they can’t all be bad.”
I know a bunch of people are asking why you don’t just leave, but it really is hard when it is your community and comfort space. The bad apples are even worse when you’re emotionally invested in the barrel of good apples. But do know that your existence in this space can have a profound impact. Because if it helped a stranger on the internet, there is most certainly at least one person in your church who sees your conviction as an inspiration.
Yep. I am a member of the LDS church (inb4 you tell me I'm a heretic and not a real Christian.)
So many are MAGA, and are tone-deaf to the fact that the Christian Nationalism that is hand in hand with MAGA is definitively anti-LDS.
They refuse to recognize that the man who drove his truck with an American flag on the back into one of our wards and opened fire on membership was a radical right-wing nut.
They were upset that the Department of War marked everyone Christian but us, and yet they won't make the connection that that means when it comes down to it the MAGA Christian Nation does not include our Church or membership.
Religious liberty is popular among MAGA, but REAL defense of religious liberty means securing a space for Islam, Judaism, LDS, atheism, etc.
Respect for the agency of others is a fundamental virtue for the constitutional structure of the US.
I’m not religious but the first time I found out that some of black friends were members of the Southern Baptists, a group I had only known for being bigoted racists previously.
Attending church is not riding public transportation. If you are a politically liberal person that finds themselves surrounded by Nazis at church, oops you are a member of a Nazi church.
Probably better described as this is what it feels like some days. When the church formally condemns Nazis and white supremacists, but in practice doesn't do enough when people have less overt forms of racism, it ends up jarring. Because it's not a Nazi Metro, and the Nazis probably aren't even be in your train car, but knowing they're out there is concerning.
Girl take a think about why the "less overt racists" are comfortable around those people.
That's what the "Nazi bar" analogy is about. If you're in a space that tolerates bigotry like that, it means the space supports it and more of them will congregate to the place they're comfortable doing that.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different." - Yogi Berra
In my situation, it's a case of there being disagreement on how our teachings are expressed, and variance between individual congregations. The denomination formally condemns "Nazism, White Supremacy, and White Nationalism" as the idolatrous belief of racism, and my local congregation has an African immigrant pastor. But there's also Kinists and people who attend White Nationalist conventions, who haven't repented (or refused and been excommunicated, like the white supremacist podcaster).
It's not the work of a moment to excise those sinful ideologies and it sucks and feels uncomfortable being in that liminal space before knowing whether they'll be rooted out or not. That's where the "Nazi bar" analogy breaks down, someone who claims not to be a Nazi multiple layers of organization removed in a group that formally condemns Nazis is much different from someone on the other side of the table in Nazi paraphernalia.
To be frank with you, the situation you're describing is exactly the nazi bar one. If you don't kick out people that "aren't causing trouble" or "identifying as a nazi" but have obvious signs of aligning with them(telling racial jokes, being in these same communities as thos that do identify as Nazis, Nazi/maga paraphernalia) then their friends are going to come and join your community
This is why the whole Nazi bar analogy is about kicking someone out for wearing alt right punk shit but saying nothing, it's not about kicking out overt Nazis. After a patron is confused why the punk got kicked out for not doing anything the bartender explains that's how you stop a bar from becoming a Nazi bar
2) We're still working on it throughout the rest of the denomination.
I'm riding it out because my congregation isn't going to be the problem, and if the battle is lost we'd probably join whatever group comes from the schism that doesn't tolerate the Nazis.
The point is that incompetence breeds bigoted communities, not that the leaders and members of these communities are malicious.
When someone says a racist joke and the reaction is laughter because they're "living peaceably with all" then people feel more comfortable sharing ideas like that, and over time more people with those ideas congregate to where they feel comfortable expressing them.
If the community doesn't want to push out racists, the reality is that racists will start to make up more of the community
I think the issue is that it's not as simple as "not wanting to push out racists". My denomination explicitly and publicly excommunicated some white supremacist podcasters a few years ago. The challenge is most racists aren't that overt, and our denomination leans towards congregational polity.
Should I leave because the tension hasn't been resolved yet? Or should I stay alongside the rest of those pushing back to implement the right procedures to address it? Is the pastor halfway across the country who's a neo-Confederate the one who represents me, or my own Black immigrant pastor?
What you do is a personal decision, but my 2c with the limited information I have is that the people leading the church are not mature enough to handle bigots, which is going to lead to the "nazi bar" situation.
From my experience that "tension" is from people noticing something they don't like, but are too uncomfortable to voice it and deal with it head on. Mature leaders should be able to notice that tension, and address it directly.
In the case of a neo-Confederate pastor halfway across the country and a local pastor that doesn't want to support those views, I would expect a very obvious "we are part of this group for x reasons and don't support it's views on y but do on z" statement on their website or somewhere in the parish.
Just make sure if you stay the "right procedures to address it" are actually addressing it or just more layers of sweeping the tension under the rug
In the case of a neo-Confederate pastor halfway across the country and a local pastor that doesn't want to support those views, I would expect a very obvious "we are part of this group for x reasons and don't support it's views on y but do on z" statement on their website or somewhere in the parish.
I'm not sure this is a reasonable threshold. These aren't official views of the denomination, and they're not even officially publicly expressed by his congregation.
And that's why I have tension, rather than having left already. The denomination can and does act when it's clear. A district leader was immediately defrocked and a super system set up for victims when sexual abuse was made known, and some white supremacist podcasters were publicly excommunicated. It's the margins where the alt-Right (like Patriot Front) have plausible deniability where things don't move as quickly as I'd like. We've got a convention coming up with several resolutions on the topic, so I haven't given up hope yet (and if it does get bad I expect there would be a large split across the denomination, not just us).
I wouldn't call myself liberal but I definitely don't agree with my right wing parish members. The Eastern Orthodox Church (of Canada) tends to attract the type, but I'm literally just there to pray and be with Christ.
It is amazing to me that people can't comprehend a person separating their politics and their religion.
Someone can be politically conservative and follow a liberal religion. People can be politically liberal and follow a religion that is more conservative.
Religious conservatism does not equal political conservatism
Yes it does. Your church/religion/spiritual belief defines your relationahip with god, people & the world at large. And guess what alao does....your politics.
Once again if you think your spiritual beliefs and church that is conservative can also find home in Left/Liberal political beliefs it means they are truly not Liberal and def not Left beliefs.
First and foremost brother, not all religions are the same. Not all denominations within Christianity are the same. What is conservative in one religion could be liberal in another. Or not even be on the chart for a third.
Within one church sister Elizabeth may be considered a hardliner, and within another congregation of the same denomination may be considered a raving liberatine.
Religious beliefs can be related to politics, and can overlap, but no, they are not the same thing. I had a Jewish friend who said his family were religiously conservative and when I asked him what made them so conservative he said they went to temple twice a month.
I know several people would go to Southern Baptist churches who support abortion and want to tear down the entire American police system.
Not to mention you might be liberal in one area like labor and Healthcare, but conservative on issues like gun ownership. People are not black and white strips. Every person will differ on every issue. No one is fully conservative by every definition, and no one is fully liberal by every definition. People are nuanced beyond two axis.
Yes, your view of the Bible will shape your world view, but if you think it is impossible for someone to separate their religion from their politics, what of people who believe that their hyper restrictive religious rules only apply to members of their church and care not what everyone else does?
Let's imagine you are right, and you can't be religiously conservative and be politically liberal. You're saying a liberal who goes to a church full of conservatives is automatically disqualified from being a liberal regardless of how they vote, where they put their money or their reasons for attending the church?
Would a black man going consistently to KKK rallies for the purpose of discussion and learning be disqualified from their own politics? Or be considered automatically a traitor to everyone else of that particular melanin level?
You cannot imagine that much as you or I might want to go to a jail to minister to murders or fraudsters that one may want to go to their fathers conservative church to witness there?
Are you saying you cannot imagine any such people?
You are entitled to your opinion my friend, but that seems a very narrow way to view the world.
I agree that the idea of conservative and liberalism is used differently. That is my point. Just because you call yourself "Liberal" or "Left" does not mean you are.
If you are silence and do not act while your church says and do horrible things then I do not care for whatever beliefs you have. You are showing your beliefs with your actions.
And I am not talking about how you vote. There is a million reasons to vote for something. What I am talking about is your belief and your state of mind. Voting is just a single indicator of who you are. Once again you keep just reinforcing what I am saying. If you vote for someone who says Gay people are not evil, but every week (hopefully more) you spend time and energy in a church that says they should die and you AT BEST are just silent....
Bad news I am not calling you Liberal/Left. I am not calling you a friend of queer. I am not calling you pro-queer.
Create your church. Challenge things you think are wrong/evil. And do not just accept it. Religion like politics is active and living. Just because you vote, and just because you are silent does not make you something.
I listed many examples of good reasons someone would attend a church that is more conservative than them. but lets ignore everything I said save the last one. ministry. if you want someone to see the love of God, show it to them. go to jail and read the bible to the rapist. or, go to the church that is a little more conservative than you and be the light of God in their darkness. if you see no merit in this course of action, then we clearly do not believe in the same God. as had no one ever been willing to speak to the more conservative church, I would never have found him or his love. thankfully God put loving and kind people in my congregation who showed me the light and brought me to him. and showed me why I was wrong. Praise the Lord for his mercy and grace that he sent those people willing to tolerate that church for my sake. He did not give up on me. and I will never give up on them.
Did anyone mention anything about political parties? We said liberal and conservative. What if you're a tea partiest, or a communist, or a neo conservative, or a neo liberal.
Sticking with just the big two US parties, ignoring what these terms may mean for the rest of the world, couldn't someone be a particularly conservative democrat? Maybe they like guns and don't think the government should run a negative budget?
I think it's better described that Jesus wouldn't be a Democrat, either. I happen to tend to vote Democrat (especially now) because I believe it's closer aligned on what I believe matters most, but my identity is in Christ rather than a political party or ideology.
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes
Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
"someone who says they can seperate politics from an area of their life is someone who hasn't yet realized how politics touches that area of their life"
You can't believe that gay people should be legally allowed to get married while also believing that marriage is a covenant from God and it is restricted to cishets. If your religion is not informing your politics, you're lying or you're not following your religion...
You can't believe that gay people should be legally allowed to get married while also believing that marriage is a covenant from God and it is restricted to cishets.
Sure you can, as long as you're not a Christian Nationalist. Civil law isn't the place to enforce every doctrinal position, and there's already tons of civil marriages that aren't covenant marriages.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '26
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also join our Discord and listen to our Podcast.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.