Coalition on Revival

[mammal_mama]

I've been learning a lot about this organization that seems to be wanting to do away with our secular American governement, and implement a conservative Christian theocracy similar to what our country had in pre-Constitutional Colonial times (where each Colony was ruled by its church ... and, you know, they were the voice of God saying "witches" needed to be burned and so on and so forth).

The more I read up on this, the scarier it gets.

I think posting the link to their site would be against User Guidelines, because of the really horrendous sexist and homophobic views that are expressed there.

But anyone interested can easily find it by googling "Coalition on Revival." To the right on the main page is a section titled "Christian Worldview Documents" -- and in the one on Family, they affirm a man's right to have authority over his wife (so long as he stays within Scriptural parameters) -- and they even deny that he has to earn this right.

In their section on Medicine, they say every healthcare worker needs to know the Bible and apply it to their professional and personal life. I guess this means there'd be no healthcare workers who weren't Christian, if the Coalition on Revival got it's way, huh?!

The REALLY scary thing is, this is not just some weird fringe group. Just go down the list of the names on the steering committee!

I see organizations like this as an example of how things can go horribly wrong when large numbers of people cling to the doctrine that every jot and tittle of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Case in point: some conservatives on another forum keep going on about how Atheists like Nietzsche said more sexist stuff than Paul ever did. And Charles Darwin was sexist, too. The difference is that scientists don't treat all of Charles Darwin's writings as God's inerrant Word!

Science takes what's useful from those who came before -- and casts off any errors as soon as it identifies them. Scientists are able to honor Darwin and Newton, while still recognizing that as humans they were fallible, just as we all are.

Religion seems to take the opposite approach -- and assume that if some of Paul's words seem barbaric to us, it's because We'VE been deluded -- and there seems to be this assumption that the best way to get closer to the truth is to "get back to" the way things were before.

What do you guys think? All opinions are welcome!

[battymama]

I am not from the us and i have heard of this- i think i know of some of the forums you are talking about, or at least ones like it.

I dont think you are wrong to be scared of the prospect, but i would hope that this doesnt have a chance to be implemented, it really is nuts.

They do really hate darwin though its almost hilarious how much bile they spit towards him- you know if it wasnt sad. These people give Christians a bad name.

Sorry Naking a wiggly toddler.

[genifer]

In their section on Medicine, they say every healthcare worker needs to know the Bible and apply it to their professional and personal life. I guess this means there'd be no healthcare workers who weren't Christian, if the Coalition on Revival got it's way, huh?!

I personally dont see anything wrong with seeing the bible as the inerrant word of God but I still dont want the world run by people who think like them. I dont think that believing the bible is the Word of God, as in inspired by the Holy Spirit, necessarily leads to this way of thinking, I think its a spiritual thing. Its taking a few verses and becoming SO zealous about those, to the point that it takes the focus of Christ and His real reasons for coming and doing what He did. I can see how some of the bible, when translated into english from the original hebrew or greek, can be mistranslated, a word here or there, etc. But I think the message of the bible is clear. I think its more to do with a desire for power.

But yeah, it can be scary enough. And I, as a christian, dont want the world run by people like that. So-Called Christian or otherwise...

[mammal_mama]

genifer, I have heard people (such as the radio Bible Answer Man) talking like we should dismiss Darwin's ideas because he was sexist -- and yet Christians try to gloss over Paul's sexism by using some really convoluted reasoning.

I.e., someone recently accused me of ignoring "historical context" when discussing Paul's rules about women keeping silent in the churches, and not being allowed to teach and exercise authority over a man. This person felt sure that Paul's whole reasoning for placing these limits on women was to protect them from arrest, since persecution against Christians was so rampant in those times.

(As an interesting aside -- hasn't protection been used as the rationale for many misogynistic practices throughout history?)

In response to the person who insisted that Paul was just trying to protect women, I said that this explanation might have held water, except that Paul was very obliging about sharing his rationale for the limits he placed on women --

According to Paul, women were to keep silent because it was shameful (not dangerous -- SHAMEFUL) for a woman to speak in church -- and women weren't allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man because man was made first, not woman -- and woman was the one who got deceived and fell into sin.

Scientists and philosophers today believe we can improve on the theories of the scientists and philosophers who went before. But many religious people see it as sacriledge for anyone today to presume that we can improve upon some of the ideas written in our ancient texts.

I do see this latter attitude as harmful, because it holds us back from being able to critically evaluate the portions of Scripture that are demeaning to women. Literalists will often accuse me of "ignoring historical context" -- but actually I am not. I am not demonizing religious leaders like Paul in the way that many of them demonize scientists like Darwin.

I realize Paul (like Darwin) was only human, and couldn't help but be influenced by his surrounding culture. I am willing to acknowledge the many wonderful things Paul wrote -- while accepting that he had some sexist views like many men of his culture.

The one thing holding back genuine dialog about the sexism in the Bible, in my opinion, is the literalist view that there are only 2 ways to read the Bible: either you accept it in its entirety as God's inerrant Word (every jot and tittle), or else you discard it and discard Christ too in the process.

So to me it's really the literalist view that wants to disregard the fact that the Bible was written by people who added their own biases into the text. They talk about reading everything in its historical context -- but I also hear preachers preaching that the Bible says women are more easily-deceived than men are, and therefore need a male covering for anything we try to do.

I hope I am making some sense here, and also that I am not creating offense by calling it as I see it. I'd really like to keep the dialog here open!

[genifer]

I guess what I was trying to say was that its possible to see the bible as the inerrant word of God and still not think like the people you described. I see SO much wrong with the church today and throughout history, infact. I dont think its helpful to assume that all literalists think along those lines. For me, its about discovery. Seeking, searching and waiting for the answers.

The one thing holding back genuine dialog about the sexism in the Bible, in my opinion, is the literalist view that there are only 2 ways to read the Bible: either you accept it in its entirety as God's inerrant Word (every jot and tittle), or else you discard it and discard Christ too in the process.

So to me it's really the literalist view that wants to disregard the fact that the Bible was written by people who added their own biases into the text. They talk about reading everything in its historical context -- but I also hear preachers preaching that the Bible says women are more easily-deceived than men are, and therefore need a male covering for anything we try to do.

I am a literalist but if we wanna talk about it, I realise Im not the kind of literalist described here and I find it equally unproductive to assume that all of 'us' think like that. ykwim? To be honest, I find it impossible to have a dialogue with people who think along the same lines of you AND the literalists you describe.

For me, Im taking my bible study slowly. Im taking my time with it, even if it takes a lifetime. I dont study darwin, or his writings. The more I study the bible, the more I realise... it does know what its talking about as far as life, humans, sin, our relationship to God.

As far as finding the literalist view that you are talking of as harmful, I actually totally agree, really and truely, but I find it really foolish to try to argue or engage with them. I find the more I walk with Christ, the less and less I can relate to just about everybody, Christian and nonchristian. There are days and times when Im cool with it but there are other times where I find it difficult, but there's no way Id go back.

This is probably not the kind of discussion you were hoping for. I just feel it is a white elephant in the christian room. What the pp-er said was that they give Christianity a bad name, but thats happened throughout history. In a way Im kind of like a silent protester. I just dont engage. I walk and live the way I feel called to and its not my responsibility to try to change the tide of Christianity, thats God's job. My walk, I believe takes a different way then that anyway.

Has it ever occured to anyone that its possible to SAY one is a christian but really know nothing about Christ? Its not my place to judge another's heart so I dont walk around saying that one's a genuine believer but that one musnt be. Its just my job and responsibilty to keep a close eye on my walk with God. When I do that, I realise how I wax and wane, days, seasons Im close... other times Im not close at all, but often, I only realise Ive not been close AFTER Ive walked that way a while. So... that helps me understand where other individuals are, or may be and is helping me have compassion, patience. As far as big movements like the COR and such, there's different forces at work. Something bigger that we cant see but is designed to distort and take our focus of what it should be on. Thats my firm belief. To find out what we should be focused on... that takes time, effort, and a desire to know and accept nothing less then the truth... and to seek it from there. Ive found that absolutely none of all that matters more then that.

[mammal_mama]

genifer, I think I may be confusing literalism with inerrancy here -- I tend to use the terms interchangeably, when they are really not the same thing.

I think inerrancy is what says every jot and tittle is directly inspired by God -- therefore you can't just throw out what Paul said about women being the ones who got deceived and fell into sin, you can't just dismiss this as Paul being human and fallible -- you have to accept this as God's inerrant assessment of women --

And inerrancy also says if you don't accept every "jot and tittle," then your whole faith will crumble like a house of cards.

Am I making sense, or just being offensive and hard to dialog with?

[lilyka]

as i started reading the medical part I was thinking "not good for a nation but great for a clinic. everyone has the right to seek the treatment they want in the environment they want and so long as things are clear...." but then i got to reproduction...interesting that they did not address chemical birth control (clearly an abortificient but most protestants pretend it is not) and made an exception for in vitro (which often results in loss of life for concieved people and in the implantation of a child in someone other than its mother which they seemed quite against....) convinient.... I also noticed when they were talking about the different people on the board they were going on about how vast they were but still all protestants. no catholic or Orthodox Christians.....not that it surprises me (it actually comforts me).

[genifer]

Am I making sense, or just being offensive and hard to dialog with?

No, your not being offensive, and I hope I didnt come across that way too. ~Enter the mutual anti-offensive communication committee~




I think we are talking about the same thing tho actually, even if we do come from different perspectives. I find it impossible to get my head around half the stuff in the 'christian world'. Thats why I said Ive stopped engaging in the discussions... There's just too much to do getting on with living the life. ykwim?

And inerrancy also says if you don't accept every "jot and tittle," then your whole faith will crumble like a house of cards.

However, this last bit Im not sure I agree with. Well actually Im certain I dont agree with that statement. I think it could be a good thing to dismiss this myth. It is a myth. Im disagreeing with the statement, not you. Its more a case of those who SAY you have to accept every jot and tittle or your faith will crumble like a house of cards who FEAR their own faith crumbling if they dont believe every jot and tittle, so they teach that to new believers, causing a stumbling block. Making it impossible for honest, fearless, intellegent discussion... So, I agree that this way of thinking is not helpful. Ive thought that for a long time, actually.

I have my own personal emerging views on what paul said about women. I dont think he was sexist tho. Mind you I am only developing my views on that subject at this stage of my walk. To go into it would take a long time and the thread ot, so... Ill just not go there...

That coalition, I want nothing to do with anything like that. THAT is for certain. I think as christians we should be known for Who and what we stand for as opposed to all they myriad things we are supposed to be standing against.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

genifer, I think I may be confusing literalism with inerrancy here -- I tend to use the terms interchangeably, when they are really not the same thing.

I think inerrancy is what says every jot and tittle is directly inspired by God -- therefore you can't just throw out what Paul said about women being the ones who got deceived and fell into sin, you can't just dismiss this as Paul being human and fallible -- you have to accept this as God's inerrant assessment of women --

And inerrancy also says if you don't accept every "jot and tittle," then your whole faith will crumble like a house of cards.

Am I making sense, or just being offensive and hard to dialog with?

I don't think that this is quite what inerrency says, though you might say it says you have to accept every jot and tittle if you have understood it correctly.

So one can believe in Biblical inerrancy, and still not believe that women must cover their heads at all times, or that they may not speak in Church. Or that evolutionary theory is ok in light of what the Bible says. But one would have to understand that Genesis, though inerrant, is not literal, and that some of what Paul advocated was intended to reflect appropriate cultural norms for his time, based on more primary principles that are unchangeable. (That women and men are different; that Christians should not deliberately seek to flout cultural norms if that will reflect badly on the Church, such as ideas about what is modest; that different cultural norms for gender are not necessarily evil; that whatever station we find ourselves in, we can be true followers of Christ; that there is real value in being a servant as Christ was; etc.) So those principles, set in a different cultural context, might need to be applied differently.

Biblical literalism says we have to accept all Biblical statements at face value; a difficult task, given the nature of the Bible. It also tends to disregard tradition as a tool for Biblical understanding. In most cases, it doesn't happen that anyone can really work with the Bible this way - one can't take the whole thing at face value, without it being a senseless and contradictory document, so Biblical literalists, IMO, end up taking literally the statements THEY think are especially important, and explaining away the difficulties.