The Hypocrisy of Acceptance? (Updated two parts from 12/13 & 15/2014)

 Part 1

"Protestantism has the method of Jesus with His secret too much left out of mind: Catholicism has His secret with His method too much left out of mind; neither has His unerring balance, His intuition, His sweet reasonableness. But both have hold of a great truth, and get from it a great power.

-- Matthew Arnold (1822-1888)

Before I even start this post, I find myself at odds with my own title for it.  With what I've dealt with in the past few weeks, two terms have become near and dear -  acceptance and tolerance.

Maybe I should explain.

Several of us ministers bolted from faith-based "discussion" sites due to rules that were restrictive, seemingly without sound reason.  But, even that isn't completely accurate.  The reasons, though sound to the site managers, seemed to lack expected intellectual maturity to some interfaith ministers wishing to grow beyond the boundaries of "mainstream" church doctrine; doctrine many ministers found suffocating and hypocritical, and had hoped to find relief from in the Universal Life Church.  These various site managers, for all their good intentions in trying to create a different, friendlier environment, succumbed to complaints from a minority of "dark ages" clergy that probably should have stayed in the mainstream church, but, as we all know, the squeaking wheel gets the grease.  The sites became suffocating and hypocritical, closed-minded and intolerant, accusing us of fomenting conversation that any reasonable person would have seen as a simple mature exchange of thoughts.  These sites quickly became what we had already left.  

Once again we found ourselves intellectually persecuted and looking for other realms of religious and spiritual freedom.  New sites were formed to accommodate a freer exchange of ideas, discussion, and debate, encompassing a broader range of subjects deemed unacceptable by the previous "free thinking" sites.  But, as the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."  Both sites I recently became affiliated with fell victim to the same hypocrisy, if not worse.  The latest outlawed any but Christian thought.  So much for "acceptance" of all who come in peace.

Having started my Congregation for Religious Tolerance, I know full well the difference between tolerance and acceptance.  One may tolerate another's peaceful beliefs without accepting them.  What is happening in these other sites is blatant non-acceptance backed up by the intolerance of their "convert or else" mentality that is all too reminiscent of the Islamic heretics of ISIS, which bodes the uncomfortable question, "When do the beheadings begin?"  I do not ask this question to be flippant or make light of the horrors ISIS is visiting upon innocence.  I mention it because it seems, to me, peaceful Christians are beginning to walk that fine line between faith and terror when it comes to two groups, in particular, which they historically show little tolerance toward - Islam and the gay community.  If you want to find "humor" in something, it would be these two groups put in the same bucket by Christians.

I have had multiple conversations and written posts, ad nauseam, on these two subjects.  Two recent "conversations" ended with me asking the other parties when the lynching begins.  A third conversation began and ended with me simply asking for judgment to be left in the hands of God.  There was an agreement... just before the other party launched into another long-winded diatribe to excuse yet more judgmental opinion, which I think he felt the need to flaunt, to prove what a good minister, a good Christian, he was being.  Really?  I should have asked him if he believed like the other mainstream "Christians" I've encountered when it comes to Islam or gays - the only good one is a dead one.

To be honest, I was afraid to ask.

In the opening quote, above, Matthew Arnold addresses his thought toward the Protestant and Catholic churches, but I feel his point is all-encompassing of the Christian faith.  He is correct when he states, "But both have hold of a great truth, and get from it a great power."  A great power!  The power to mount a crusade, the power to form the courts of the Inquisition, the power to determine if one is a "witch" worthy of burning simply because they dabble in healing and science or they eat tainted bread, and, of course, the power to determine who deserves to be a Christian and who gets damned for all eternity.  More to the point, it seems Christianity, whether through fault or design, continues to miss the unerring balance, intuition, and sweet reasonableness that was Jesus.  I think Mr. Arnold was remiss in not adding His love, tolerance, and understanding, to that list of attributes.  But, then, maybe it's just because my family believes in a more loving God than many of these, so-called, "Christians" do.

The long-winded point that I've been trying to make is, if you're going to preface a mission statement with acceptance of all that come in peace, you should not pick and choose your membership.  It brings to mind the Methodist logo I came across during the Methodist "trial" of one of their own ministers who presided over the gay wedding of his son - "Open hearts. Open minds. Open Doors."  That is, unless you're gay, or preside over a gay wedding.  I mean, Christ's love only goes so far, right?  Gays, peaceful Islam, who else?  I'm certain there's probably a list of the unacceptable that man has determined God should not allow in heaven.  What God really meant to say was...

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at comeuppance time when they all have to explain why they felt it necessary to interpret God in order to excuse their actions.

I think we have lost the truth of our faith.  Oh, we spew forth the words, chapter, and verse.  Like the good hypocrites we are, we quickly proclaim our faith and just as quickly condemn others to hell and damnation in complete contradiction to the faith we proclaim.  

During a recent conversation, one participant was accused of not quoting the Bible properly.  Personally, I quote the Bible because I think it is a great guidebook for life.  When I quote it, however, I go to the source so I don't muck it up.  Well, since everyone seems so tied up in quoting it, let me use two well-known verses to evidence why I feel we suffer from interpretation issues:

"Judge not, and you will not be judged.  Condemn not, and you will not be condemned.  Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Luke 6:37 

"Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."

Matthew 7:1-2

Luke makes it pretty clear for those who don't like to think.  Matthew, on the other hand, finds it necessary to swim in the deep end.  I'm not an idiot, but I had to read it a couple of times to be sure it said the same thing only "in my face" with meaning.  Is it any wonder God refused to write anything more down for mankind to reinterpret?

I'm not sure my fellow minister's critiques of quoting the Bible correctly are as important as knowing the Bible at all.  I have found it an interesting book of historical scripture, written and compiled by men that had the best of intentions while living in cultures fraught with politics, social castes, and social classes.  To think their lives weren't reflected in what they wrote would be giving them credit without the support of evidence.  This becomes more evident, however, as we discover and study lost gospels, and gospels deemed not worthy of inclusion in the Bible.  When we find verses that seem to be gleaned from a monk's margin notes, than from any worthy text, it makes the entire document suspect.  But does this all detract from its basic message?  Absolutely not!  The Bible remains a text revered by the faithful as a basis for faith and life.  Just as with the Qur'an, It is how we interpret it that causes us harm.

Christianity is not a "members-only club" and the fact that many presume to dictate who can worship seems offensive.  I am not a member of the Christian faith, I am a Christian.  I am not a practicing Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, or Evangelical.  I am a Christian.  Over twenty years of my military career my dog tags reflected my religious preference as Christian, agnostic, Buddhist, Taoist, and Not Applicable.  When I finally found myself, I realized my mother was right, as always.  I am, for better or worse, a Christian.

I leave you with one more quote, one of my favorites that I try to remember when I get into braying contests with jackasses.  I hope you will see the point.

"As for one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.  One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.  Let not one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?  It is before his own master that he stands or falls.  And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.  One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

Romans 14:1-5

They are gay.  They live, work, love, marry, raise children, and want to worship God as Christians.  Maybe it's time we started acting like Christians.  Heck, maybe it's time we take a page from the Christian gays and started acting better.

Part 2

"One should not be too quick to judge how websites are operated and how they choose what content they want posted in their websites. If anyone wants to complain that one website or another does not allow them to post whatever they want, then, they should start up their own website and they will see that running your own website is not an easy task to control content according to the website motto. 

If anyone wants to join a website, they must agree to some TOA (terms of agreement). you can not ask the website owner to change the content just because they do not like it.

As a website owner, I am willing to tolerate some activities but not when the activities do not follow the basis in which the website was created for. No website owner should be told they have too allow any content. It is like the gay community wanting to convert a heterosexual into a gay person.

I am a Christian who will tolerate many things but there are limits. I do forgive those who cause me distress and will continue to be friends with those that cause me distress."

The above statement is a comment left in response to a post I wrote, The Hypocrisy of Acceptance.  You can readily tell that this is obviously one of the offended website owners.  The fact that you can easily surmise this, is part of the larger problem - denial.  I understand that more of this site's membership has bailed due to the new transparency of the site's intent which, by the way, was not made obvious or he would not have gone out of his way to woo a woman of Wicca to be one of the officers of the site and then disrespect her for being Wicca after all the work was done.  He knew what she was when he invited her in to assist in setting it up, just as he knew I wrote on subjects of controversy and never said a word to me concerning my post about the LGBT Christian community.

I feel the Terms of Agreement for a site must not run contrary to the mission statement or welcome statement on the homepage of a site.  Personally, I don't remember there being any "terms of agreement" and if there were I would have scanned over them assuming they were simply "boilerplate," reflecting the intent of the welcome statement and asking for the usual courtesies.  Again, no one ever complained about the content of my posts.

No one asked the owner of this particular site to change the content.  I most certainly did not.  The owner took it upon himself to change directions in mid-stream, deleting and changing content, posts, and philosophy.  It was our understanding this site would offer the freedom to discuss, in a mature manner, those topics forbidden by the other "conservative" minister sites.  This is what I was led to believe.  The comparison made of content requests being similar to gays converting heterosexuals is pertinent only in that it mirrors the site's Christian attempt to convert the Wiccan.  This was a clear case of misunderstanding nurtured by a lack of clear communication and feedback as to the purpose of the site.  Personally, after all of this hoopla, it would seem these sites tout the "all accepted" philosophy as bait, if you will, and, once many members are inside, the doors were closed and reality sets in as the smoke and mirrors were removed.  I find the tactic very reminiscent, for me, of Scientology.

But, to state one is a "tolerant" Christian after perpetrating this hypocrisy on the membership?  No, sorry, I'm not buying into this.  The final paragraph, for anyone with a background in psychology, is telling; this is the narcissistic shifting of blame when the deceptive mechanisms used to achieve goals become all too apparent to the target audience.  I'm not sure that the "site owners" understand that they are doing this, or even care.  It does seem that they fail to predict the outcome of their actions, however.

I apologize if our "revelations" caused this particular site owner "distress."  Honesty comes with the territory of running a website, especially a faith-based website, and he should be well aware of it.  But, "distress" can also be also indicative of guilt.  I'm not sure that continuing to be friends with those that cause you to feel guilt or distress, is in any way healthy for him.

My prediction, for these sites of hypocrisy, is that they will, sooner than later, become populated by the same narrow-minded mainstream Christians we were all trying to escape.  These sites seem to, whether by accident or design, prey on those that have been hurt or are hurting.  They seek out those that have a need to belong and hold out the carrot of faux "acceptance."  As with religious and spiritual cults, they only seem to exist on the off chance no one will see through their thin veil of hypocrisy.

The path to hell is indeed paved with intentions, good and bad.  Watch your step.

Editor's Note

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint. 

I fervently hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 22 years with the United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and, finally, a senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world-renowned, Western Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research.

Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteered as the lead chaplain at a regional medical center.

Feel free to contact Pastor Tony: tolerantpastor@gmail.com