Ann Marie Cox will get some attention with her latest piece, which is really a rumination on her anxieties about how people will react to her public profession of belief in Jesus Christ. I think her particular path is unique to her and basically none of our business. Yet, at the same time, she’s inviting us in, trying to start a conversation.
And, she seems to be aware that her piece can be misconstrued as an attention-seeking desire for approval. I don’t think she really wants our reaction to be to her specific circumstances. If I understand her correctly, she’d rather open up a debate about how people are treated when they talk about their faith.
Part of it is that she runs in progressive circles where skepticism runs much, much higher than in the population at-large. Will people she respects think she’s a rube?
Part of it is that there are no shortage of conservatives who are willing to judge her for being insufficiently Christian. Maybe she doesn’t go to church enough, or maybe she hasn’t spent enough time reading the Bible, or maybe her political values are inconsistent with a true Christian life, or…
Depending on where you stand, what interests you about this piece will be different. What I find interesting is that coming out as a Christian can be as stressful as coming out as an atheist. After all, polls have shown that Americans would rather elect gay politicians than politicians who don’t believe in God. “Coming out” as a Christian is kind of a weird concept in a country where you’re expected to be a Christian, or at least a believer in some established religion.
But, conservatives have been so aggressive about grabbing the term “Christian” for themselves that there’s a backlash in progressive circles. It’s easy to see why a progressive might not be satisfied with telling their friends that they’re a Christian without explaining that they’re not an Erick Erickson Christian.
I think this whole social space is a construct of the Terri Schiavoization of our religious politics. Even devout Christians on the left begin to see “Christians” as a shorthand term for those folks who believe in Bill O’Reilly’s War on Christmas. They’ve begun a process of conceding control of the branding of their own religion to wingnut charlatans.
One consequence is that a Christian like Ann Marie Cox feels on some level that her personal faith needs explanation. “No, I’m not secretly playing for the other team.” She thinks she needs to reassure us of this, and maybe she does.
But if you look at the numbers, you’ll realize that the right doesn’t own Christianity and atheists/agnostics have modest cultural power and NO political power.
If you want to see anxiety, go down to Alabama and watch someone explain to their peer groups and family that they think Christianity is a crock of bunk. That’s a difficult conversation, too.
There are plenty of staunchly progressive Christians. As a non-Christian, non-theist Unitarian Universalist I know them as my brothers and sisters in arms in working for social justice. I hope that she will soon be able to stop feeling like an anomaly. Assholes whose mean, hate-filled politics contravene every word of the gospels should never be allowed to define what Christianity is.
@Steve LaBonne, I’ll say that your problem lies in defining Christianity by what’s found in the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded by the followers who sat with him, spoke with him, broke bread with him and taught with him. Most Christers don’t even mention the Gospels, for them it’s all Old Testament, Revelations and the Epistles from St.Paul. Comparing the Christers’ texts to the orthodox texts is like looking at what happened to the Gnostic gospels.
Agree. That’s why I pretty much stick to the Jefferson Bible…and the Upanishads.
I think John Fugelsang, and to a lesser extent Pope Francis, frequently remind us that at its heart, the New Testament is actually very progressive. The Old Testament is rooted in conservatism (eye for an eye, vengeful God, etc…) but Jesus’ teachings of love they neighbor, tend to the sick, take care of the poor, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s are actually good examples of how Christians (and any good person) really ought to behave. This is pretty much in line with how most Progressives think, and seems to be universally accepted by most religions in one form or another.
Unfortunately the right has managed to co-opt the Christian religion and have manipulated it for their own gain by whipping the extremists into a froth.
Right hasn’t co-opted the Christian religion so much as the Christian brand. They believe they’re “Christian.” They’re anything but. You nailed it precisely with your observation that the Christers focus on the Old Testament, plus, I’d add, St. Paul’s epistles and Revelations. It’s a very cramped Christianity, craving outside domination, focusing on punishment, abandoning charity, demanding respect, and ignoring the words expressed by their very putative Leader. I’ve never understood how folks who deliberately commit all of the seven cardinal sins every day can expect to be saved.
Those with a deep understanding of Judaism get that it’s not as simple as “Old Testament = Law; New Testament = Love.” There’s so much in the Torah that doesn’t immediately reach the eye. One has to really dig for it. I’ve done this exercise with a wonderful rabbi. For months, I’d scratch and scratch and get nothing. There were times when I would get so frustrated. One time I told him I wanted to tear the thing up and flush it down the toilet. I didn’t think it was useful and I thought the world would be better off if it were set aside for at least a few hundred years.
With patience, he kept reassuring me that if I kept going the Torah would eventually open to me. Eventually, it did. The first time, ironically enough, was in studying a passage called, “The Rape of Dena.” These men rape a young women and then her brothers kill them. Worse, they kill them not for raping their sister but because they weren’t Jewish. They convince these guys to convert, which requires circumcision, and then while recovering (dealing with the agony of having part of your dick ripped off), they come in with swords and slaughter them.
And somehow through this terrible passage, I began to have insight. What opened were messages of tremendous love and compassion. Hiding within the terseness of the Hebrew were midden messages and meanings.
The Qu’ran is very similar. A cursory reading will seem horrible. As one reads deeper, it opens more and more. It’s said that the Qu’ran meets the reader where he/she is. If one approaches from ego, it’s a wall of fire. If one approaches from the heart, it’s an ocean of love. If one approaches from the soul, it’s pure ecstasy.
So much of this commentary from people advertising their own spiritual journeys is no more than abject submission to their own intellectual weakness in the face of our universal lot: we die, it’s scary, something will save my little ego.
Suck it up. Life is good, then it’s gone. If you don’t like it, don’t feel a need to tell us.
We’re not really listening. We’re waiting, all a-flutter, for you to join us in apprehension of the real thing. Our shared fate.
Thanks for your comment, but the New Testament is pretty deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians and Muslims sometimes call the “Old Testament”). Jesus’ teachings, as written down by the authors of the various New Testament books, come almost exclusively from the Law and the Prophets.
Presuming Jesus was a real person.
The evidence is very ambiguous.
The only religious experience I’ve ever had as a Christian was when studying the gospels as a philosophical and political text in a college course.
the mushy ones are White left-leaning Christians.
I don’t know anyone Black who concedes Christianity to the right.
I’m quite comfortable with the social gospel teachings of Jesus and hammering on the right-wing lunacy.
No one – not ever – needs to explain their religious belief(s)!
What they need to explain, is why some of them want to involve politics to make sure their religion is the primary one.
The beauty of the 1st Amendment, is that it allows people to pray without government interference – and government to function without religious interference.
Our Founding Fathers weren’t too far removed from the religious wars in Europe, where millions of people died due to wars between countries run by different sects of the same religions.
And that is why, in their wisdom, they included that in the very 1st Amendment – to make sure nothing like that happens over here.
But, unlike previous generations, today’s “modern” conservative Christians, believe in an alternate reality – one where America was created to be a Christian nation.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
But, you try telling that to someone who doesn’t believe in science, or evolution, or math, or history!!!
You can’t.
Faith trumps everything.
And I wish I knew the solution.
But, I don’t think there is one.
You can’t talk to people who don’t and won’t listen.
You might as well try to talk to your houseplants about Quantum Physics.
Actually, you might be better off – plants, unlike our Christians, have evolved.
Thanks for your comment. I don’t know if it’s any source of consolation (or if it just makes you more depressed) but today’s “conservative” Christians in American politics are heirs to a longstanding tradition that goes back to before the nation’s founding. It’s not the only tradition, or even the dominant one, but there are many ways in which what they’re doing is nothing new.
Thanks!
Oh, and btw, yeah, I’m aware of it.
It’s just that, if that attitude wasn’t completely dormant, which it wasn’t, at least it wasn’t front-and-center like it seems to be now.
I too appreciate your comment. At the same time, I can relate to the author’s words. When one professes religious belief, one faces criticism on all fronts. Liberal intellectuals will think you an idiot. Some within the faith will judge your sincerity.
She’s at least swimming in the dominant cultural paradigm. I’m a total freak — born Jewish, having studied many spiritual traditions and then finally finding a home in Islam. My place in Islam is with those Sufis who value the Qu’ran and traditional teachings (as distinct from Westernized forms of Sufism that have discarded the traditions and teachings of Islam). Sufism was born in that world and it magnifies and illuminates those teachings. It is the rich inner part of the path.
With just the outer part of a path, one gets fundamentalism. It’s just an empty glass. What does one do with an empty glass? Worship it? Use it to beat others into submission?
Similarly, if one takes just the rich inner teachings, with no vessel in which to hold them, they run out between one’s fingers. Maybe one tastes a few drops. This is the problem with new age spirituality. It’s like trying to hold water in one’s cupped hand. The glass is necessary if you want to carry the water out into the world. To really walk a spiritual journey one needs the inner and the outer.
If you’re Buddhist, that means daily meditation. If you’re Jewish or Muslim, it means prayer and remembrance (in slightly different forms).
Alas, many who claim to be religious understand this no better than those who claim no religion. In fact, sometimes they’re much worse. So one gets it from all sides. There are those who profess to be Muslims who reject Sufism. In ISIS, they kill Sufis. Even mainstream Muslims often have prejudices about it.
I find myself wanting to share these incredible teachings with those who are sincerely interested but mostly avoiding the subject because, even though many want exactly what this is, their prejudices keep them from listening with openness. Many within my Jewish family totally misunderstand what this is about. Of course those people have barely a clue about Judaism either. A true Kabbalist would get it. Not wanting to be misunderstood, I don’t even tell most of my friends I’m Muslim. I don’t mind sharing about it here because I don’t know anyone by face or by name. At the same time, I know that most of what I say will be tuned out.
It’s an oddity of the desert religions: bearing witness. Maybe we can throw Hinduism in for good measure. Basically USAians can’t live the difference between religion and the state, the USAian state is sanctioned by religion, despite the first amendment. In practice, that’s what i comes down to: confusion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism have the need to occupy space, literally and figuratively.
There is no ‘God’, meaning an overlord that looks in on us. He did not inseminate a virgin for the purpose of sending part of himself to show us the way to be ‘saved’ so we could be by his side, eternally singing hymns to his everlasting greatness.
And anybody who says that happened is delusional, and is not on the side of progressive thought, simply because they will eventually start to preach.
.
I admit to being repelled by organized Christianity and Catholicism due to the works and deeds of the most powerful right-wingers in the flock, and the thoughtless herd behavior practiced by their followers. I recognize these views are not Christ’s, but it is possible for me to lose that recognition at times. My life has become permeated by the destruction wrought by people who effectively claim
among other absurd notions.
Gotta say that my disgust has increased in recent years, as the main religious powers in the U.S. and elsewhere have used faith as a cudgel to create hate. I used to see the KKK’s use of crosses at their large events in previous decades as a curious demagoguery that made little sense to me. Boy, do I see the perverse connection between terrorism and fundamentalism now.
This was the beauty of the First Amendment: when held to, the separation between Church and State mutually protect both governance and faith. The tearing down of this separation in recent decades threatens the foundations of each.
Agree.
The author would claim ‘reasonableness’ and not believe any of that. But there is no ‘reasonableness’ in believing in a supernatural being that punishes the wicked., and rewards the holy with eternal salvation. If you got her alone, with a little wine, the truth would come out……that those who do not believe as she does are condemned. It’s not her fault she would say, and she would change it if she could. But He said it was so, and that makes it ‘truth’.
nalbar
Jeremiah 44
If one must worship a supernatural being, I’d go with the Queen of Heaven. Haven’t seen a time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.
since the appearance of the OT God or NT Jesus Christ. Erasing the Queen of Heaven from the minds of the people was the whole point of the OT. Indirectly she appears the NT — a god can’t be born of a women born with original sin; thus, her immaculate conception and demi-god status. Slowly made her way into Christian prayers and iconography, but always remaining subservient to the father and son.
Protestants rebelled against the idolatry of the Catholic female demi-god. The one the NT opened a window to letting back in. Getting “back to basics” meant the OT. And each new protestant sect that appears reaffirms that position by doubling down on the OT. And/or reinforcing patriarchal religion with a new text of their own — The Book of Mormon.
Sorry, the official progressive position on religion, all religion (1), was worked out years ago.
Religion is a tool of the oppressor, a club of the patriarchy, and a crutch for the weak-minded. No one will be free before the last aristocrat is strangled with the guts of the last priest.
[Insert obligatory references to child molestation. and perverts in dresses, here.]
People like Cardinal Romero and Michael Harrington and the Berrigans, and Sojourner Truth, and Anthony Benezet are all imaginary.
(1) Does not include the Dalai Lama’s brand of Buddhism. He is cool, and was in an Apple ad and stuff.
Are you saying you agree with that which you set forth as the established progressive position on religion? If so, what do you say about MLK, Jr. and Gandhi? One must at least acknowledge the deep religious roots of non-violence, which has been one of the most effective tools for the advancement of progressive ideals. What about the Deism of Einstein (a political liberal) or Jefferson or Lincoln (who were progressive by the standards of their time)?
The progressive standard you put forth, hopefully with irony, is that of Karl Marx. Though he was from a progressive tradition, those who followed have been anything but. All cling to that same postulate of religion as the opiate of the masses.
Religion can be misused to manipulate and controlled. It often is. But to throw out religion itself because it’s so often misused would be like burning a house down because you don’t like the people living within.
So sue me. It’s a very widespread POV among progressive people who aren’t snarking, either. Right here. At the Frog Pond.
I know. Such views are prevalent on the left. They alienate us from mainstream culture, which mostly gets that religion is more than fundamentalism. Dawkins and his ilk create straw men to cut down precisely because they think that all religion is fundamentalist. Much of the progressive community thinks the same way. But this view is grossly distorted. One can study religious teachings with an understanding that the stories are apocryphal and symbolic. As such, they’re full of meaning. But as a substitute for science, they’re garbage.
Religion is misused when its aim is to close down the search for meaning. As a source of pat answers it’s not only misguided but dangerous. However, used to open up and stand in the profound mysteries at the heart of life is extremely valuable and useful. Used in this way it gives life meaning. We live in a wealthy culture with very little true spiritual sustenance. The results in high levels of isolation, loneliness, alienation, depression and suicide. When religion is done well, hearts are open and connected. People are generous. Life is rich and meaningful. People stand in awe of all that is and feel gratitude.
My impression of many pundits/columnists is that they have managed to score a job that allows them to self-indulgently explore/publish their ordinary life choices and make them sound more dramatic/interesting than they are. I don’t care what religion a pundit belongs to / does not belong to.
Attention whore is the first phrase that comes to mind. But maybe her readers are unserious people who care about what she eats for breakfast, too.
It’s something, but it’s not something relevant to policy, politics, or anything I’m interested in learning about.
The scariest part of her public declaration is her fear that other Christians might find her not Christian enough. Is there any better the social pressure Christians use to instill dread (in the name of XP of course). After all, even Brigitte Bardot went to Rome to beg forgiveness and kiss the pope’s ring. Of course she kept the money she made showing herself off. She uses it save stray dogs—good Christian charity.
Correction: ‘is there any better evidence of the…
Most of it has to do with the silence of the church people who aren’t radically politicized into partisan camps.
Most of the society assumes that other people are in their same milieu. If the default assumption in Beltway culture is that if you are progressive, your are at minimum churchless, at a further extreme an evangel of Richard Dawkins. They will make those assumptions about people who have strong personal religious conviction unless challenged.
Outside of the secular zone, the default assumption is that as a faithful attender of your religion of choice, you have nonetheless been given the call to follow Jesus and what’s the holdup? Or you are assumed to have a Christian upbringing and a Biblical understanding from church and Sunday school when no one admits that those two things are close to the last things one gets out of church and Sunday school. Indeed, Sunday school begs hard to use the word “school” at all (well, maybe not the No Child Left Behind kind of school). If you’ve never had the experience, I’ll bet there’s a friend who will take you; just remember to be charming and take nothing as serious thought; it just isn’t; it’s a habitual pasttime. The point is showing up regardless.
It’s not just the default assumption in Beltway culture.
Cling is a very strange and troubling choice of words. Actually, that entire piece is troubling. Glad she’s happy but, yes, I don’t need to know folks’ individual beliefs.
That is deeply troubling. My biggest problem with too many believers is this need to treat people who do not believe in the same way as wrong or deficient somehow. It says nothing good about the person’s confidence in and comfort with their own decisions.
I agree. I can’t imagine that she didn’t choose that word specifically since she’s discussing the skepticism that Obama’s a “true Christian” (considering the 2008 gaffe). I skimmed the rest; it’s difficult for me to read/listen to people’s deep spiritual thoughts without rolling my eyes and showing my cynicism and wanting to hold up a mirror and make sure that they understand just how silly what they’re saying is. I don’t like thinking like that; if it’s working for them, it’s none of my business. When they condescendingly throw it in my face, though, that’s my involuntary reaction.
But I think this article was targeted at Christians, so throwing those of us who aren’t Christian a least a little under the bus serves to let them know that she’s one of them. As one of them, I wonder if she would vote for a progressive atheist who more closely matched her positions on the issues or a Christian who was more conservative (stipulating that both of these hypothetical people are Democrats and it’s a Democratic primary)…
This is the one thing in her article that left me quite dumbstruck. This single sentence tells me that she has never really seriously entertained the concept of non-belief. Does a child “cling to non-belief”? Everyone on this planet is born a non-believer. It is our default condition when we leave the protection of our mothers’ womb. This includes Ms. Cox. Belief is strictly a cultural inculcation, and while there is conjecture that the human brain might be hard-wired for a God predisposition, it is still an unproven assertion.
Ms. Cox is free to believe whatever she wants to believe. But if she decides she wants to venture into the realm of public “faith”, essentially willing to pronounce her willingness to believe things for which there is no evidence, then she should well be prepared to answer questions from people much like myself, who find it especially troubling that so much of our media, politicians and the country at large, consider this very worrisome point of view to be the highest of virtues. To those of us on the outside looking in, it is a very scary state of affairs.
Thanks for pointing out that disturbing word choice. Wonder if it was a deliberate choice on Ana’s part.
I took particular notice of this:
“Because before I found God, I had an unconsciously manufactured higher power: I spent a lifetime trying to earn extra credit from some imaginary teacher, grade-grubbing under the delusion that my continuing mistakes – missed assignments, cheating, other nameless sins – were constantly held against me.
And I knew in my heart that failure was inevitable.”
I know by personal experience that when a person constructs for themselves or others a higher power like the one Ana names here, they are setting themselves up for a life of unnecessary pain and dissatisfaction. It’s completely valid to dispense with this pain-delivering concept without replacing it with a monotheistic God, or any God at all. That’s the essence of Ana’s faith, I suppose: she sees Christ’s God as the higher power which needs to take the place of the inferior, false faith she describes above.
Tonight, I find myself thinking of evangelism as an evil concept, given how consistently it delivers hate, pain, war and death. I’m surprised that this is rising from me tonight.
I’m glad Ana is finding salvation through her faith. I want all of us to find healthy salvation which places us closer to all others, whether within or without organized religion.
I find this insightful. Thanks for pointing it out.
For every person who finds true spiritual meaning in some form of organized religion, there is at least one other person who is, in their heart of hearts, an atheist (or at least doesn’t actually believe in any of the trappings of the religion), but is “Christian” or “Islamic” or whatever because that’s their social network.
And that’s ok. You don’t need to convince me of your purity or your sincerity; I really couldn’t care less. It’s your life, and you are entitled to your own motives. The things other humans do and think that make no sense to me could fill an internet (and it does!); religion, to me, is just another one of those things. It can be an inspiration for good or evil; it’s really up to the individuals’ personal choices.
What I object to is the idea that people’s religious beliefs get to be some sort of trump card for rational discussion. “My religion says all society, regardless of whether you’re a believer or not, should like X because special book Y demands it” is not a valid argument, and me saying that isn’t “religious persecution”.
But as a method of working out your personal place in the universe? More power to you.
“If you want to see anxiety, go down to Alabama and watch someone explain to their peer groups and family that they think Christianity is a crock of bunk.”
Oh Booman. I could see that by simply walking down the street where I live in Massachusetts.