Christian: You Are Upset About the Wrong Things
Sociologist Tony Campolo has been known, when speaking to Christian audiences, to begin by saying something like this:
"I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact I just said “shit” than you are that 30,000 kids died last night."
Detail from “The Cleansing of the Temple” by Raimondi | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
CCo 1.0
When citing this, I have had people prove his very point by responding something to the effect of, “Yeah, I get it, but I still wish he would make his point some other way ” Ummm, that is his point. His point, in my opinion, isn’t really about the children (although it is, obviously); his point is that we (Christians) get upset over the wrong things. Our moral sense of outrage is often misdirected.
The fact that we notice the language, our being offended, before we really register the fact that children are dying, tells us all we need to know. Any focus on a crude term and not on his greater point that children are dying of starvation or malnutrition and that we might be complicit proves his very point. If there was a tiny gasp from the crowd at that word or an awkward silence—such reactions were misdirected. These people were upset about the wrong thing.
The legalistic, simplistic, and shallow world of fundamentalism (and even many aspects of evangelicalism) breeds some rather odd triggers for what it is we are supposed to get upset about. Here are just a few:
If you become upset when hearing that gay marriage is legal or that a transgender person may use the same public restroom as you, but you are less upset regarding the hate, violence, and discrimination directed toward such people, often leading to suicide: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when people use the greeting “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” but you are less upset at the wasteful use of resources during this season and the rampant shallow consumerism while many live in poverty: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when the government uses its power to make corporations protect their workers and protect the environment, but you are less upset when those workers are exploited, injured, or the environment is critically harmed: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset at the grocery store when you see someone pay for their food with vouchers or food stamps, but you are less upset with the institutional and cultural structures that often create the very need for such help: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when you see people smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol, but you are less upset when you see people over-eating, knowing the health effects of such, or wasting food, knowing that people go to bed hungry every night: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when Hollywood puts out movies that contain coarse language or nudity, but you are less upset with the excessive, sadistic, and pornographic displays of violence, murders, gore, and bloodletting in war movies, action movies, or even movies like “The Passion of the Christ”: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when the government tries to pass reasonable gun restriction laws, but you are less upset with the amount of accidental firearm-related deaths among children and the general level of gun violence in America: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when you feel the government is restricting your religious liberties, but you are less upset or even applaud the restriction of the religious liberties of others: You are upset about the wrong things.
If you become upset when someone commits adultery or at the sexual lapses of others, but you are less upset when people gather around to stone them, or gather around to throw insults, or gossip, or shun them, or shame them, or pass laws to single them out: You are upset about the wrong things.
If the response to the above is still, “I get it, BUT... ” you have missed the point and made the point, all at the same time. Yes, you can be upset at those other aspects (rightly or wrongly). The point, however, is that those aspects pale in insignificance when placed alongside the deeper and much more important moral failing noted—the failing that should really upset us. It would be like someone telling Jesus, just before he overturned the money-changer’s tables and grabbed a whip, how upset they were at the price of doves that year. It isn’t a false dichotomy. It’s a problem of scale.
I am reminded of a scene in the movie “Life is Beautiful” where we see Guido (Roberto Benigni) so happy to think that his old friend, the Nazi doctor, will help him after the doctor recognizes him and makes his life easier inside the death camp. The doctor remembers how clever his friend was, and how he could solve difficult riddles. We begin to think the doctor realizes the moral wrongness of the death camp. Maybe he will try and save Guido and his family. But no, we finally realize, as does Guido, that the doctor simply wanted help solving a riddle. He doesn’t see Guido or the suffering. That doesn’t upset him. What upsets him is not finding the answer to something as insignificant as a riddle. He even says he can’t sleep at night because of it.
An extreme example? Maybe. Still, I think such is the sort of person we look like, and are perhaps in danger of becoming, when we get upset over the wrong things, when we focus on the incidental and miss the deeper moral issue. Christian: Don’t be that person.
Darrell Lackey has been a lead pastor and currently works in the private sector. He is part of a home gathering of some amazing, wonderful Christians and a graduate of the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (Now Gateway). You can follow him or read more of his writings at Divergence (A Journey Out of Funda-gelicalism). He and his wife reside in Northern California.
=============================
by Darrell Lackey
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
439 visitors
Not seeing the forest because of all those trees!
Who will be the first conservative Christian who will claim that others do not understand their religious beliefs and that being told to care for others is religious persecution?
Conservatives and evangelicals are more interested in controlling the lives of others with their religious views than to live the life as Jesus taught his followers to do in service of others.
The author sounds like a good pastor, a rare thing indeed.
EXactly so!
It ain't rocket science, "love one another"... It's very hard, but it's not complicated.
Wow, what a wake-up, or it should be.
BUT when your reasoning is based on faith the list of people you'll listen to is real short so no matter how right this man is he will be ignored. The Holy Church of (_______) tells them what they should and shouldn't be thinking about and what to get upset over.
DO you know how the banks and the Stock market regained all the ground they lost over the great depression? They tried all kinds of marketing schemes, but the one that regained it back and more is when they hired Religious leaders to sermonize "money is good and banks, Wall st and the wealthy may have all the money, but that's the way "god" wants it."
The name Bishop Martin Sheen comes to mind but that may be because he was also one of the first televangelists with that theme. There may have been someone before that, I'm too lazy to look it up. Sorry.
I am gradually coming to the opinion that "following Christ" is impossible within the context of an organized religion.
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' ”
Organized religion attract predators because religion preaches tolerance, love, acceptance, forgiveness and non-judgment.
What else could a predator want?
Great article below that explains how the sheep are devoured by the wolves because of the structure of organized religion.
Very intelligent and sadly accurate piece.
There are several good blogs on Patheos , from just about every point of view.
typical liberation theology nonsense. It misrepresents what real Christians believe. There are many ministries like the one I'm associated with that daily feed the hungry, clothe the naked, build schools, and meet other needs of the poor.
What the leftist "pastor" chooses to portray are stereotypes of those who usually are Christians in name only. Jesus pointed out the the path to life is narrow and the gate to destruction is broad. He also noted a number of criteria for who is really a disciple of Christ.
“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it” Matthew 7:13,14
But the question is: When I, the Messiah, return, how many will I find who have faith and are praying?” Luke 18:8
And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:12-14
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” John 14:21
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. John 8:31
And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ Luke 13:23-27
When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. Mark 8:34,35
Anyone can spout scripture, even Satan knows scripture. It's your deeds that define you. We know you by your deeds (words) here on NT
I’m sorry to hear about your lack of English comprehension
words are words not deeds. Deeds are the actions you take to carry out your words
And the actions that you carry out are right here in your own words
Is English your second language? Words are NEVER actions in the English language. And nothing I state is different than that of Jesus and the Aopstles
Jesus used strong language against political foes and did not hesitate to rebuke the reprobate
John 8:44 Jesus demonstrates very strong language and accusation against the political leaders of His day
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
In Luke 13:32 Jesus calls Herod a fox
In Matthew 23, Jesus gives a lengthy discourse against the Pharisees that is hardly mild in tone. Some examples of the names He calls them.
You are of your father the devil
Brood of Vipers
Serpents
Hypocrites (continuously)
Blind Guides
White Tombs full of dead man’s bones
Accused of devouring widows’ houses
Full of extortion and self indulgence
And finally, in verses 33-35
Matthew 23:33-35
Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
here Jesus instructed for all who are His disciples how to handle those who reject us bringing the Gospel
Luke 10:8-12, 16
Jesus said: “Whatever town you go into and the people welcome you, eat the meals they give you and heal the people who are ill there. Tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is very near to you now.’ But whenever you come into a town and they will not welcome you, you must go into the streets and say, ‘We brush off even the dust of your town from our feet as a protest against you. But it is still true that the kingdom of God has arrived! I assure you that it will be better for Sodom in ‘that day’ than for that town.
Then he added to the seventy, “Whoever listens to you is listening to me, and the man who has no use for you has no use for me either. And the man who has no use for me has no use for the one who sent me!”
Really doesn't matter. Unless you can access and translate the original scrolls from their original languages with the proper words then it is very likely that even the first translations into Greek altered the meanings of the original writers. And with each new revision and translation, the meanings of the ancient writings have been largely lost.
What we now possess as a religious text for the Christian religion contains a lot of violence, doom and gloom. It is little wonder that the majority of people, with a positive and loving attitude, have chosen to ignore the violence and cherry pick only the words of love/hope/forgiveness.
I don't know why the Jewish Torah is not used to replace the OT instead of the translations approved by King James many centuries ago.
I’m sorry you have such an ignorant knowledge of Biblical manuscripts. This thread doesn’t have room to provid3 a basic knowledge of biblical manuscripts. I always marvel how Christianity is the one topic where people think they have more knowledge and expertise than we who are theologians who have dedicated our lives to the study of the scriptures
But just a basic lesson for you. The reason for the use of the OT Greek Septuagint text rather than Hebrew is that Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known complete OT text and it is a Greek Septuagint text. The NT writers stayed with the Greek to be consistent and ease of reference back to OT references by Jesus
Lesson 2
we have 5800 Ancient Greek Texts of the New Testament and over 10,000 Latin Manuscripts dating between the 2nd and 16th centuries.
Depending on the analysis, the accuracy between manuscripts, we have 95-99% agreement on the text.
From the writings of the Apostolic Fathers 1st thru 3rd century we can reconstruct the entire New Testament
You are a Christian theologian and not a Jewish one. The Jews of Jesus' time, including Jesus spoke Aramaic and some Greek. But the Torah, was written in Hebrew. Prayers were done in Hebrew and Jesus would have known how to read Hebrew, even if he couldn't speak the language.
And Mocowgirl is right when asking why isn't the Torah used for direct translation. It is the original source material regarding the OT. The answer is very simple. It does not match up to the various versions of the NT translations.
You are being rude, and you are off-topic.
Please cease these behaviors, or leave this conversation. Thank you.
Even if that were accurate (does not seem to be so) are you suggesting that modern translations of the Bible have that level of veracity?
Plenty of material exists for both sides: those who claim the Bible - even modern forms - is the inerrant word of the supreme entity and those who suggest this might be a bit of an overstatement.
Bart Ehrman is one of the leading biblical scholars who would certainly counter a claim of high 9x% veracity of the Bible. From his book: Misquoting Jesus :
Given we are rather limited with comments and people are unlikely to read full works of biblical scholarship, here is a summary rebuttal: THE BIBLE: SO MISUNDERSTOOD IT'S A SIN:
Although I am not a biblical scholar, professional biblical scholars like Dr. Bart Ehrman do exist and have spent their professional careers studying and communicating their findings. This makes a claim (if you are implying this) that modern translations of the Bible are highly accurate a bit difficult to accept ... on faith alone.
The seed has nothing to do with liberation theology. Please read the seed and comment on the seed. Thank you.
Christianity fails because it worships deceit, division and despair.
The reach of Lucifer is long. His Shadow is longer.
anti-christ lies
Or anti-christ truths.
I would say that these Christians worship money
Second only to worship of themselves.
That is why they believe that they will be forgiven all of their "sins" and other people won't.
They should call themselves the "United Narcissists of Christ" or the "First Narcissists Church of Christ"...or, you get the drift.
That statement has nothing to do with the seed. Please read the seed and comment on the seed. Thank you.
Perrie,
Please take note of this conversation, for the upcoming CoC debate.
I did not insist on my usual "read the seed / comment on the seed". The result is that after a few Comments that were effectively about the seed, someone posted completely off-topic... and lots of others went along with the derail.
I don't think anyone intended to derail. But at the same time, nobody seems to pay the slightest heed to the seed.
I seeded this article because I considered its content worthy of discussion. But visitors wandered off elsewhere. And that's how NT works.
Why should I seed another article? What's the point?
Bob,
I write articles and they wander off, too. I redirect and they come back. Sometimes I enjoy the unexpected path.
Personally, I don't think it wandered off that much. One must establish what the Jesus' main message was first, before one can discuss what modern day Christians are or are not following. Whether they focus on crossing the "T"s and dotting the "i"s, that they miss the whole sentence. You came here with your perspective of where Christianity has gone wrong.. did you think that it wasn't going to meet with some resistance... and other theological discussion?
NT is no different than a discussion at a dinner party. You can't control every aspect.. but you can guide it and enjoy even some of the detours.
No. I seeded an article about misplaced outrage: "Yes, you can be upset at those other aspects (rightly or wrongly). The point, however, is that those aspects pale in insignificance when placed alongside the deeper and much more important moral failing noted—the failing that should really upset us."
The question "What is really important for a Christian?" underlies the seed. That would not have been a derail... but that is not where the derail went.
I don't mind a conversation slipping sideways a bit, but simply ignoring the seed in favor of a totally different topic does bother me.
Jesus main message can be summed up quite easily. Of course I paraphrase, but here goes, 'Men and women should all love our others as your love ourselves and should treat them as we want to be treated. We should not judge others for judgement is only up to God upon whose grace we are all dependent as all fall short of God's glory thus no one deserves salvation nor redemption other than through the grace of God owing only to God's infinite forgiveness of and unconditional love for all mankind'.
Sadly, Christ's main message has been misappropriated and misrepresented by right wing fanatics, small c christian fundamentalists and evangelical Paulists unto the point it has made being even referred to as Christian nigh onto a pejorative anf s slander. Who would logically want to be associated with all of those flat earth fundies and intolerant haters anyway?
Bob,
I think that the misplaced outrage is because of what is emphasised in Church (and for the record, I did read the article). Let me take your first example.
This one is a no brainer. Fundamentalist Christians are focused on homosexuality as a sin. End of story. The fact that gays get abused is not on their radar and they might even think that they had it coming to them because they sinned. They are going with the literal translations and interpretations. On the other hand, liberal Christians think about the more global message of Jesus, which it love one another. The old "Do onto others" part. So you may say that one is a micro-Christianity and the other is a macro-Christianity.
Christians would be better off IMO recognizing the Bible (in all its forms) as quaint but important literature - not the divine Word of God. Take the positive teachings of Jesus, condense them into a very short set of principles and then back up each principle with parables (or whatever). Basically, Christians would then be those who seek to be good human beings who care for each other. No declarations of damnation for being a non-believer, no intolerance of differences such as homosexuality. Just peace, love, good will.
Yes.
That's precisely the point that the seed is making. If a person claims to "follow Christ", then they should not allow themselves to be distracted by futilities (as the Apostle John argues very nicely). They must never lose sight of the essential, "love one another". This is their responsibility as "followers of Christ", and if they fail then they may no longer claim that title.
I agree completely. That is exactly my approach.
Oh, wait... maybe there's a better word than "quaint"...
... ... ... 
Very authoritarian of you and very impractical viewpoint.
I will debate many things concerning world religions with people who want to debate. I can argue both sides of the issue most of the time because I feel it is of prime importance to understand the opposing viewpoint and the environment that shaped that viewpoint.
About a decade ago, when I was still a Christian with a Christian "mindset", I told my daughter about how I was raped as teenager by a male authority figure. I told her how I struggled to understand the environment that made him a sexual predator and how to "forgive" him. My daughter looked me in the eye and coolly, calmly stated that "It is not your duty to help, understand or forgive your rapist or any other rapist. You need to heal yourself." She was 100% correct. Being bombarded with the "Christian" message of "forgiveness" creates victims and empowers predators.
"Love one another" is great only as long as the other person isn't a con man, predator or other assorted vermin that enriches their own life by destroying someone else.
On NV, if you recall, the Age of Enlightenment nation was designed to promote thoughtful discussion. We noted up-front that train of thought side threads were cool. Not 'tolerated' but rather embraced. The reasoning was much like what Perrie just suggested. We felt that it was natural (when people are truly engaged) to veer off on related tangents. We asked that the tangents be organized by threads and be reasonably tied to the original topic.
While I understand your point, I am not sure I would want to be so strict here on NT with tangents. Especially since NT has a three level structure to help in the isolation of tangents.
Anyway, this is an unrelated tangent and is meta. So all three of us are really off topic in a bad way.
Fine. That was what you wanted. That was the "local CoC."
It's not what I want. When I seed, I want visitors to read the seed . I am not tossing a random series of words on the screen; I am presenting a coherent series of ideas that I find interesting and would like to share. My purpose in seeding is to share ideas. If visitors would like to talk about those ideas, then youpee! But the discussion is entirely secondary to the sharing.
I often seed science or history articles which do not call for much conversation. They are just cool information that I feel like sharing.
We're going to be discussing meta soon. I think we should be taking note of pertinent examples. If you don't want to discuss this here, don't worry... I'll include it in a post on Monday.
It is clear that members have varying purposes when the post, and that those purposes should determine the "local CoC":
- Open message board. No particular topic. Post whatever you wish.
- Topical message board. Free association within the context of the seed.
- Open discussion, starting with the seed but free to wander a bit afield.
- Narrow discussion , sticking close to the seed.
Each case (and there may be more than these four) requires a different "local CoC".
My little list is based on the seeder's purpose in seeding... so we come back (always and always
) to the question: Does a seed belong to the seeder, or is it public property? Does the seeder have any greater role than the visitors?
Just a suggestion so that we do not engage in a lengthy derail of your seed.
Democratic values are Christian values while the Republicans are the epitome of the money changers Jesus threw out of the temple. It's almost unfathomable that a Christian would choose the Republicans over the Democrats, yet most of them do. Jesus was a socialist and a total bleeding heart liberal. Read the bible, this much is about as obvious as can be.
I’d rather be a Republican and not a Christian. I no longer have to worry if somebody else thinks I’m doing it wrong.
The Bible thumper wars are entertaining to watch as an outsider I must admit.
For fifty years all of us who were not a part of the evangelical fundamentalist movement have been more or less told that unless we supported the republican party and republican candidates that we could neither be real christians nor real republicans. All one has to do is peruse the last seven or eight republican party platforms to see how the gop has used the name of Christ and the invocation of God to advocate for ungodly wars, torture and state sponsored exections and against helping the least among us in favor of giving more advantages to the already wealthy and powerful which is the anti-thesis of what Christ would have advocated and would have, in fact, appalled Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Is it any wonder the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now commonly known merely as the gop? A silent majority of Americans including a majority of Big C Christians and Big R Republicans are pretty damn sick and tired of the gop flogging the name of The Almighty to advocate for their very own godless quite this worldly vain and greedy political purposes. Everyone with social views anywhere to the left of The Flat Earth Society has been labeled as queer godless baby killing degenerates for so long it really has lost its sting. More and more I am convinced that religious fundamentalism or all stripes is the bane of our human existance and will be the source of all our undoings. All fundamentalistd, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim in fact do worship the exact same One God of Abraham no matter which of His innumerable names they may address Him as. The extremists among the children of Olde Father Abraham all draw their "beliefs" that they and they alone own the one true God from the exact same Olde Testament Texts of the first five books of the Jewish Torah. If you ask me, Olde Father Abraham and The Great Prophet Moses have a lot to answer for considering the mayhem their fundamentalist children, nomatter their demominations, are up to today...
That is complete BS.
Well, to be fair i'm sure it's not 100% bullshit, because i'm sure some "fundamentalist" Christians have said such things to the folks you speak of. That's just human nature. Both sides of this have their extremists. In reality most Christians could care less what your politics are or what you believe in. Including me.
However, i see just as much if not more bashing of theological beliefs from the left. Many on the left just seem to drip with a haughty sanctimony in that regard. They have no moral high ground in this matter. Far from it actually.
Great seed, Bob Nelson. Things to think about for sure. Thanks for sharing!
Wonder if we could be equally upset about "Both Instances" and not "If you ARE upset by "A" but NOT upset about "B". How about being upset by "A" and "B", both. But not as upset by one and not the other, for sure.
Example: ""If you become upset when someone commits adultery or at the sexual lapses of others, but you are less upset when people gather around to stone them, or gather around to throw insults, or gossip, or shun them, or shame them, or pass laws to single them out: You are upset about the wrong things.""
You can be upset when someone commits adultery. You can ALSO be upset that people gossip, or shun or shame those who commit the adultery. (Again, just one example.)
Glad you found it interesting. That's why I seed stuff!
As the seed says,
I agree! It's the failing that should upset us! Thanks again.