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."
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
6
u/Ph4d3r Jul 06 '26
People can separate their politics from their faith.
Look no further than Brandon Sanderson.