Your Christians Are Not Like Your Christ

My faith is important to me. It has shaped who I am and who my husband and I are raising our children to be. We are Christians and my husband and I were both raised in Christian homes, by Christian parents. Lately, though, I find myself thinking a lot about the quote by Ghandi where he stated, "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

While my faith is important to me and while there are convictions I have based on this faith, I also like to think of myself as a fairly decent, accepting person. I don't begrudge anyone their religion (or non-religion) or personal preferences. I tend to take the approach that while I believe this way and my life is a reflection of that, you also have the right to believe and live how you want. That being said, as a Christian, there is a certain "code" I live by and expect others who claim to be Christians to live by as well. Some of that includes helping those in need, working hard, and generally treating others how we would want to be treated. There is a verse in the Bible, in the book of Matthew, that states, "Truly, I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." I take that seriously and think that we as people, but especially as Christians, need to treat people better. All people. Not just those we like or those we agree with, but people we may not like, or people we may completely disagree with or even struggle to tolerate.

This past year has been very bumpy for us personally and professionally and the people who I would have expected to offer support didn't. (And by this "support" I am not referring to anything tangible. I'm referring to emotional support, checking in, etc. As a disclaimer, let me also publicly state that I am not referring to my family. They have been wonderful and amazing and things would be unbelievably worse were it not for their help). While this hasn't rocked my faith it has caused me to take a hard (and painful) look at the church to which we belong and those we considered our church family. While there was initial concern, after a few months we heard nothing from anybody there. Nobody checked in to see why we hadn't been to church in a while (serious health issues with our son and my husband's work schedule being the two primary reasons) except for a really snarky email from our pastor after missing a few weeks of services. I had made mention to the pastor early on that as a result of what we were going through we were feeling rather depressed. He never once followed up with either of us to see how we were doing. Outside of one man who was wonderful to my husband in the early months not a single other attempt at outreach was made.

While I have pretty thick skin this hurt a bit. The other part is that it made me wonder if this was really a church I wanted to be a part of. If other people are hurt or struggling or ill do I want to be associated with a church that is viewed as cold and callous? The irony in all of this is that this church (and many religions in general) criticize the government and always advocate for private charity, church help, etc. This argument presumes that the church is willing or able to help. It was very disappointing to me, after hearing all my life, how Christians are supposed to help others, care about others, treat others as we would treat Christ, etc, that the church put none of this into practice. It will be hard for me to sit through another sermon hearing about how we as Christians are supposed to behave and treat others when I have witnessed and experienced the hypocrisy first hand.

This is not an indictment of all Christians, of all churches, of all religions, or even of all people in the church I am referring to. My husband and i had attended a few services at another church a few weeks leading up to the start of our "year from hell" and when I opened my email I had offers from people to bring meals, offers from people to help watch my other kids while I was running all over town to doctor's appointments, offers for people to do my grocery shopping, etc. These offers came from women I had met briefly and in some instances never met. These are the types of people that epitomize my perception of Christians. These are women with a servant's heart looking to treat others as they would treat Christ.

I have been a member of my "brand" of Christianity all my life. Considering leaving is not something I take lightly. There have been incidents throughout the years that keep bringing me back to a place where I really feel I need to make the move and start over. This may have been the final straw that serves as the catalyst for that move.

I am interested to hear your thoughts. Have you left a church or religion altogether? If you are not religious how does my experience match up with your impression of Christians? If you are a Christian how would you handle this situation?

Part II in the Age Appropriateness Saga

The more I thought about the whole issue, the more bothered I became. I was certainly bothered by the video shown but I was more bothered by the Pastor's response. Prior to this experience I had really liked him, thought well of him, and would likely have never questioned his judgment. However, this decision and more specificially his continual defense of his decision has made me realize that there are deep pedagogical and practiccal differences in what he views as appropriate for children and what my husband and I view as appropriate. My husband and I, as I am sure most parents, make judgments all the time about what we feel is appropriate to expose our kids to. Sometimes we have been wrong and we acknowledge that and we know to do things differently next time. I don't feel that this was the case here. While he ultimately removed the Kindergarteners (and my daughter who is going into first) from further viewing of the movie in subsequent days he continued to defend its appropriateness for grades 1 and above. I feel like at home we work hard to protect the innocense of our children. Even sending her to a public school, where the fear among evangelical conservatives is that their children will be exposed to inappropriate content, be it sexual, violence, etc, she wasn't exposed to anything close to this. It is very bothersome to me that the place she was unapologetically exposed was at a church. (The irony is that my particular brand of religion, at least the one I was raised in, is pretty critical of public education and the influence of people affiliated with it. The irony is not lost on me that the place where my child was first exposed to grpahic violence was not at the public school but at a church. If my daughter's Kindergarten teacher would have shown a video with a similar graphic nature she would be out of a job. But that's another topic).

We were made aware that there were other parents who also were bothered by this showing and expressed concern as well. It was suggested by multiple people that maybe that time could be better spent doing something other than watching the video. This suggestion was rebuffed. My husband emailed the Pastor that evening after viewing the video himself and wanted to make sure our daughter would be revmoved from the viewing the following day. He also called into question the educational value of such a long clip (25-30 minutes) for that young of an age group.

A flurry of email exchanges took place. The Pastor's initial email response was pretty strongly worded and pretty defensive, which only served to escalate the situation a bit.. He continued to defend his choice, standing firm in his insistence that it has educational value. In fact he believes "the movie in general does a fantastic job of reinforcing the lesson...it tied in completely." He went on to say, "We thought so highly of the tone of the movie that it was worth the time to take to view." (To be entirely fair he did apologize for the "difficulty it has caused you and your family." However, there was no apology for the actual showing, just our perception of it being inappropriate).

My husband's concern at this point, with the Pastor's continual defense, was that:

As a parent who entrusts my children to the Pastors who are charged with protecting, teaching, and nurturing them it concerns me you find this appropriate and continue to defend its use.

I think it best that this discussion simply end. Much of this exchange could have been avoided had your response been different when my wife first brought the concern to you or even your initial response to my email. A simple, "I am sorry you were offended. Maybe we shouldn't have shown this. We won't do it again." would have shown a more genuine attempt on your part to understand and address our concern. Both my wife and I feel you have been more concerned about defending your decision than legitimately addressing our concern or showing any amount of empathy.

My husband and I were then a bit conflicted. We both would have liked to not send her back but we also didn't want her to know there was a conflict. So, we did send her on Thursday and she did not view the video. They put the Kindergarteners (and my daughter) in with the 3-4 year olds. When my husband went to pick her up yesterday grades 1-6 were watching another segment from the film. Those aren't my children so it wasn't really my business anymore, but because of this experience I would likely not allow my children to attend another function at this church. Or if I were to reconsider I would definitely want to view any curriculum or instructional aides ahead of time. If I can't trust the Pastor's judgment about what is age appropriate then I feel like I am playing a game of Russian Roulette each time I send my kids off there. It's a shame all the way around.

I don't want to bash religion or Christians. I am a Christian. We raise our children in the church. However, it is difficult for me when Christians behave in ways that are so antithesis to what the Bible instructs. Why would anyone who is not a Christian ever want to be one when things like this happen? VBS is used as a community outreach. The goal of every church who puts on a VBS is to not only provide Christian instruction for its members but also to maybe get unchurched visitors who would consider joining. While I am not a member of this particular church, I am at this church's sister church. What if I were just a random member of the community and this was my exchange with a Pastor? I would never go back. If that was my only exposure to Christianity and Christians I certainly wouldn't want to be one. Right or wrong, people are judge on behavior and in this instance I feel there were multiple opportunities for this Pastor to back off his stance that this video was age appropriate. But he didn't. He continued to defend it and continued to show it despite having concerns brought to him by multiple parents. To me that just seems like someone trying to dig in his heels and not someone who is interested in truly trying to understand where anyone else was coming from.

Bottom line is the issue is over. It happened. I now know that this is how this particular Pastor responds to issues of concerns brought by parents and knowing that I will make decisions regarding my children accordingly.

An Issue of Age-Appropriateness

So, I want to share with you an experience I had today and get some feedback on both my reaction and the response I received. My almost 6 year old daughter attended Vacation Bible School today at a church affiliated with our usual church. At the end of the day they were watching a video about the story of Joseph and Potiphar's Wife. A quick recap for those who are unfamiliar: Joseph is sold by his brothers to Potiphar. Potiphar's wife seduces Joseph and then lies to Potiphar, telling him the reverse and making up other lies about Joseph's behavior. The portion of the movie I walked in on was when Joseph was being whipped for his supposed transgressions. I included the video below (please fast forward to the 2 minute mark and watch until the 2:32 mark). This was shown to the class today, including kids as young as 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-SWodAV0sY&feature=related

I was bothered. I felt it was a little intense for that age group. It further bothered me when the entire first row of little kids gasped and put their hands over their eyes (my daughter included). We are very careful about what we let our kids watch. Their exposure to television is very limited and we certainly don't let them watch shows with graphic, violent content.

At the end I approached the Pastor, who in general I feel is a very nice man. However, his response today was very disappointing. In a very non-confrontational way I told him that I was a bit concerned about the graphic nature of the video as that is not something I would choose to show my children. His initial response was that because it happened that way in the Bible he does not believe we should alter, modify, water down, change, etc. the specifics. I pointed out that, while I agree that the stories shouldn't be changed, I didn't think it was then necessary to show the visual reenactment of something that could possibly be upsetting to young children. I stated that while my children knew the details of Jesus' crucifixion I wouldn't go home and show them Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ until they were older and it was more age appropriate. He disagreed. My response was that when I was teaching in a public HIGH SCHOOL I would not have been allowed to show that clip (and not because of the religious nature, but because of the graphic content). I further pointed out that any clip I did want to show had to be approved by the principal first and then I had to send out permission slips that gave parents the opportunity to opt their child out. I explained that I felt like we should have been given some notice that this type of video was going to be shown.

His “solution” was that tomorrow I could put my 1^st grader in with the 3-4 year olds because they watch a cartoon version. I just wanted him to understand that while some kids are exposed to that or aren't bothered by that, I KNEW that this was something that was going to bother my daughter. He dismissed that concern. There was more, but essentially he disagreed, which is fine, but also completely dismissed and invalidated my concerns about the content and the fact that he made a decision about what he felt was appropriate for my child to view without giving me the opportunity to have any input. Further there were some very patronizing “solutions” offered.

My daughter, who had no knowledge of my conversation with the pastor, came and found me and the first thing she told me was about this “terrible movie where this bad man whipped Joseph and his blood went all over.” She was very bothered and has talked about it ALL day. Further, she drew a picture for my grandmother depicting a man getting beat. She explained, “This is Joseph. He's getting whipped and this red part is his blood going all over.” Not really something I am happy about.

While the showing of the video bothers me, the Pastor's response bothers me even more. He could have said, “You know, I made a judgment call. I felt it was appropriate. I'm sorry if it offended you. Next time I will ask.” End of story. Instead he made excuse after excuse and pretty much tried to make me feel like it was ridiculous that I would be concerned about the content.

So, I am curious about your take on this? Mainly, is this content that would bother you if your child viewed it and what is your take on the Pastor's response to my concern?

Crisis Averted

My grandma picked my daughter up from VBS today because I had a doctor's appointment for my son. When we got back I asked my daughter if she had fun. She started to tell me about all the things they had done and then wanted to show me an art project she had done that was apparently kept in this folder she had made. She was so excited, explaining the story behind the project, until she pulled it out and realized she had been sent home with the wrong project. Her face fell and she was so upset. In fact she kept repeating that, "Oh, mom I am just so upset. This is not my project. Oh, I am just so upset." I felt horrible.

I kept asking to make sure that it wasn't hers. (I should know better. This child remember everything....in detail.) It definitely wasn't. She told me how she colored hers, what colors she used, and was adamant that this was not the right project.

So, I spent the next 20 minutes, remaking the necessary materials in order for my daughter to recreate her project. Let's just say that I am not the most artistic person in the world. However, I will admit that it ended up coming out looking pretty darn close to the original. We sat down and redid the project the way she said she did initially and all was right with the world again.

Promise Breakers

I find it a bit disturbing the number of politicians who end up embroiled in scandal because of an affair. I have a bit of mixed feelings about the role ones morals play in his politics. On the one hand I tend to think that ones morals or lack thereof isn't necessarily reflective of his/her ability to represent or lead a people. On the other hand it certainly calls into questions one's credibility. If someone is willing to lie to his family, supposedly the most important people in his life, then what is to prevent that person from lying to the rest of us, those that can't hold him personally accountable?

When President Clinton admitted to his affair with Monica Lewinsky I thought less of him as a person but I never really felt that undermined any decisions he had made as President. I realize there are many who feel differently. Likewise, there have been other good politicians who have made poor choices and I am reticent to condemn them in their profession even though I may condemn their immorality (John Edwards comes to mind).

Where I feel a bit more strongly is with those politicians who make it part of their political agenda to regulate morality and then they themselves end up having an affair. It's almost as if there are some politicians you know are less moral and in some ways you expect it from them. Not that it makes it any less wrong, but there's not the stench of hypocrisy with it. Then you have guys like Ensign, part of the Religious Right, very outspoken in his criticism of Clinton and Larry Craig, calling for their heads, a member of Promise Keepers and various other "moral code" groups, who admits to and apologizes for an affair and expects to just move on. Why? Others have given similar statements and this man was not quick to forgive and move on. He made it a mission to connect these moral decisions to their ability or inability to perform the functions of their jobs. So, why should he be any different? Shouldn't he be held to the same standard that he used to judge others? There would probably be a lot less judgement if everyone agreed to be judged by the same measure they judged others.

I think cheating in any form is wrong and an affair definitely makes me think twice about the quality of the individual. I also think it is incredibly stupid for one who lives in the public eye to think he/she can get away with something of this nature. Someone knows something and eventually it comes out. But for me it is almost worse when you have someone portraying himself as morally above reproach, making morals a part of his political agenda, dictating what aspects of morality should be legislated, and has cast judgement and demanded penance for others who have strayed, and then this person is caught in the same type of personal shortcoming. It's enough to make me want to shout, "If you are immoral enough to cheat, go cheat, but then don't be preaching morality to the rest of us.....who aren't cheating."

When Politics Trump Family

So, tonight I have some questions for you. Do you and your family (extended) share similar religious and/or political beliefs? If not, how do you handle those differences? Do you silently agree to disagree? Do you have knock down, drag out disagreements? Do you have mutually respecful conversations about those differences? Do you refuse to discuss religion or politics with them at all? Are the differences divisive?

I guess the lesson I have come to learn the hard and frustrating way is that religion and politics don't mix well in a family where people have drastically different views. In the past few months I have bowed out of discussions that involve politics or religion with certain members of my extended family (I will say that 80 percent of us share the same views on both politics and religion, so it's a small minority). It's just not worth it to me to cause hurt feelings or attack someone for believing differently and I really don't like feeling attacked for my beliefs.

I guess the bigger question is how you would handle it if you were constantly barraged with political criticism after repeatedly asking to be left out of political discussions. I am at a loss and for the sake of harmony am trying my hardest to not just walk away from it all. There are other people who would be hurt by that decision, my children mostly, and I am not selfish enough to allow my children to suffer the consequences of adults behaving badly.

The Death of Critical Thinking

Each year one of the units I taught in my Junior and Senior English classes was a Speech and Debate unit. I would have students draw teams, draw topics, and draw sides to those topics. Inevitably, there would be some students "stuck" on the side of an issue with which they personally disagreed. Abortion, Immigration Reform, and Parental Consent for Birth Control were always the topics that elicited the strongest reactions.

I always began by explaining the research process. I would walk them through the importance of finding statistics and facts to support their position and also to start anticipating what the opposing side would use for support and then finding evidence or information to refute that. Without fail I would have a handful of students that would say, "But I don't believe that. I can't argue that. That is not what I really think." I would explain that part of being an effective communicator is being able to "see" the other side and whether you agree with it or not at least be able to acknowledge that there is another side and try to understand what the reasoning for that belief is. With that I would require them to find information that "the other side" might use to help support their cause or beliefs.

Some of the best persuasive arguments were done by students who were able to separate their personal feelings or biases toward a subject and focus solely on the facts of the issue at hand. Or by those who were able to channel the passion they personally felt into truly trying to understand the other side and doggedly trying to find information that someone on that side might use to explain his/her beliefs. It would always amaze me how passionate pro-life students could argue effortlessly and convincingly for pro-choice legislation. It stunned me when a Hispanic student, one whom I knew was not in our country legally, argued solidly for the deportation of all illegal aliens. While arguing for the other side rarely changed their personal views it at least made them realize that people who had views different from their own weren't these evil, ignorant people that they were made out to be by many of their like-minded peers. They were people just like them who took information, much of it the same information, but simply interpreted it differently, maybe saw shades of grey where they only saw black or white, and felt just as passionately that they were right.

I loved teaching this unit because it encouraged critical thinking skills. It forced them to be able to find information that defended the position they were charged with supporting. It made them think about what the "other side" would use for support and in so doing made them think two steps ahead and find information to refute those claims. Talk about seeing and having to understand an issue from all sides. Beyond that, the sheer research and organization of information and then being able to articulate all that information in a concise, coherent manner requires critical thinking skills that many simply do not have because they have never been forced to use them.

Of course there was an elaborate Rubric that I used to grade them. The one "rule" I always had, year after year, issue after issue was that there were to be no personal attacks. Never. A violation of this rule would result in a serious loss of points, enough to potentially lower their score two to three letter grades. I wanted the focus to be solely on the issue, never the person. They were to attack flaws or misrepresentations in the other side's facts and statistics. They were to point out examples of faulty reasoning. They were to attack holes in the information the other side presented, but under no circumstance was there to be name calling. There was to be no condemnation of those on the other side. I reiterated constantly that we debate the issues, not the people. Only once in six years did someone break that rule and get docked because of it. Once. These are high school kids I am talking about. By definition they are kids which means they are impulsive and sometimes lack judgment. Yet, year after year they sat in my classroom and argued issues without attacking or name calling.

At the end of this unit I always came away so impressed with the level of commitment they displayed and the seriousness with which they took this task. Kids were pushed out of their comfort zones, forced to think outside the box, and each year most of them exceeded all expectations. When I think about teaching this is one of the things I truly miss.

You may be asking at this point what this story has to do with anything. For starters, the fact that a lot of the general population lacks crucial critical thinking skills. In the absence of knowledge, ignorance breeds. Those who can't rationally and logically defend themselves result to name-calling and personal attacks and this leads to a further breakdown of critical thinking skills. In my personal life I like to surround myself with a variety of people who think differently, believe differently, act differently, and in general are just different than myself. Sure, I have many like-minded friends and family members whose company and discussions I cherish and enjoy. In the same vein I don't feel that my way of life is being threatened if others believe differently than I do. I acknowledge that they can be just as passionate about their ideas and beliefs as I am mine without it being an assault on my morals, values, and ideals.

I mentioned before my frustration with the constant political debates that we are bombarded with. My problem with them is that very few of them focus on the issues. Almost all of them attack the people holding these beliefs. Sadly, many are incapable of differentiating between the person and the idea. They assume that because they believe one way and that one way is different from the way someone else believes then the person who has that different belief is bad, evil, wrong, a threat, and the list goes on and on and on. If discussions on politics remained about the actual issues at hand, much like I demanded in my classroom, instead of resorting to name calling and accusations it would be a different story. But to call someone you disagree with “evil” or “stupid” or “unwise” or the host of other insults heaped upon those who think or feel or believe differently is immature and quite frankly says more about them and their character than it does about the person they are attacking, not to mention that it does nothing to defend or support the issue they are trying to fight for.

Sadly, where most of this name calling is coming from is the religious-right. I am a Christian and so I say this cautiously, but I think Christianity would be much better served if it took the rule from my classroom and applied it to its daily dealings with those who differ politically and/or religiously from them. The relentless criticism and condemnation flies directly in the face of Christian principles and that bothers me immensely. While Christians used to be lumped into one category, "Christians" we now have the "religious right", Liberal Christians, Christian Democrats, yada yada and a hierarchy of holiness is being handed out by the "heads" of this religious right contingency and their minions.

I just wonder when the issues stopped being about the issues. It seemed sudden, like the flip of a light switch. I just wonder who deemed "The Right" the moral authority. I was recently told that I was an “unwise Christian” for voting for Obama. I was told this by someone who claims to be a Christian. I am proud to be a Christian and I take my faith very seriously. Part of how I interpret my faith is a general respect for all other faiths even ones that aren't my own. While I may not share your beliefs I respect your right to your beliefs. I don't take my vote lightly. I weigh ALL issues and unfortunately sometimes have to vote for a candidate that doesn't share ALL of my same beliefs but shares MORE of them than the other candidate. I would venture to say that this is true for most voters. I refuse to be a one or two issue voter. While my faith and beliefs help guide my decision about who to vote for I don't vote for who the majority of those in my religion believe I should vote for simply because I am a member of that religion.

So, while I am proud of my faith, when Christians attack other Christians and attempt to minimize or discredit their faith based on a belief that their ideas are wrong because they are not the exact same as theirs it embarrasses me. If this is the witness that non-believers see, if this is the glimpse of Christianity they are exposed to, why would anyone want to be a Christian? If all people see is the religious-right railing against those who care about the environment, railing against those who think a 14 year old girl who is raped should be able to abort that baby, railing against those who think our government shouldn't torture, and railing against those who want the education in this country funded appropriately, then what picture of Christianity are they getting? I doubt it's an image that is going to be sending them scurrying to the nearest church anytime soon. If I were not already a Christian, I have serious doubts that I would want to be one, based on what I have seen from the self-appointed “Moral Voice” in this country.

Feeling compelled to say any of this is upsetting to me and what really disturbs me is that the people who cry the loudest about Christianity being ruined or eliminated in this country are the ones who are doing the most to contribute to is extinction. It worries me that Christians are doing themselves a great disservice by making every issue a personal attack on one's character and one's Christianity. Mark Twain once said, “If Christ were here, there is one thing he would certainly not be – a Christian." I think there is a lot of truth to that statement. The Christ I know is a loving one, a forgiving one, and yes, when necessary a vengeful one. He has His rules and there are distinct consequences for breaking those rules, but anyone, Christian or not, who has read the Bible knows that he ate with tax-collectors (lowly and dishonest in Biblical times) and hung out with sinners, he washed his disciple's feet in an act of humility, he took care of the poor and needy, he be-friended and forgave prostitutes. So, why are his supposed present-day followers so quick to condemn the modern-day versions of those Biblical "sinners?"

For me, I can only hope that we as a nation and we as Christians or members of any religion can return to a healthy debate of the issues void of any personal attacks, name calling or character assassinations. I hope that Christianity isn't associated all over the world as a right-winged extremist religion that hates those who are different from them. We are raising our children Christian, to stand true to their convictions, to take a stand when things are wrong. However, we are also raising our kids to be kind, and compassionate, to understand that people are different and to respect those differences instead of condemn them, and most importantly to love and to forgive. Will it be enough? I hope so.