When Neither Atheists Nor Christians Offer You a Safe Space

[rug]

September 29, 2016
by Holly Baer

Despite what many atheists would say, a lot of problems within Christian and other religious groups are mirrored in atheist groups. Both groups claim to be open minded, but there’s a reluctance to explore certain kinds of ideas within each camp. When exploring your beliefs while in a Christian group, they are certain that the answer is somehow always Jesus. Likewise, when questioning your views within an atheist group, the answer always must be god-less.

I’m currently reading Shane Claiborne’s Executing Grace. The book’s subtitle, “How The Death Penalty Killed Jesus And How It’s Killing Us,” sums up the book nicely. I originally bought it because Claiborne’s The Irresistible Revolution completely shattered my life in high school and caused me to more fully consider what my relationship with God was. I actually still have the original receipt for The Irresistible Revolution as a bookmark. It was purchased on November 15, 2009 in a Borders bookstore (which sadly no longer exists) by an atheist friend I still have and cherish. He purchased this book despite not believing himself, and paid $14.99 for the book, plus $3.99 for a children’s book donation, coming to a grand total of $20.31 (after tax).

In Executing Grace, Claiborne is discussing the death penalty, something that has been dear to my heart for a long time. In fact, I’ve had a project in the back of my mind for years regarding capital punishment, but I haven’t pursued it because of my personal wrestling for how to uncover the humanity of those on death row while acknowledging and honoring the pain of their victims—both dead and alive. Because he is a vocal and passionate Christian, his arguments revolve around Jesus. This isn’t a book for non-believers who are against capital punishment. It is more of a plea to Christians to remember that their savior was the victim of a corrupt criminal justice system who found his fate via the death penalty.

I Want What He’s Having

The book is littered with examples of incredible grace and forgiveness. He shares stories likes those of Maria Goretti, a young Italian girl murdered by Alessandro Serenelli. At her death bed, she repeatedly called for forgiveness towards her murderer, and her mother forgave him. Each chapter ends with a long example of radical forgiveness and mercy show to those who have committed what many would regard as unforgivable crimes.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/09/29/when-neither-atheists-nor-christians-offer-you-a-safe-space/

[Igel]

1. Xians have a problem.

And it's why few of those writing probably fall into that category.

Take Xian reconstructionists. They're bad. They want to reshape society and have OT law imposed. (In this, they're like those into liberation theology from the '60s and afterwards, the Social Gospel folk from a century ago, the WCTU and such from the 1880s and the Abolitionists from a few decades before ... and many more, some of whom many DUers would say good things about and some of whom they'd say truly bad things about. But we always assume that our views are justly imposed on everybody else and their views are just unjust, and we say this in the name of liberty and democracy. And, somehow, with a straight face.)

So let's go the opposite route as many do: If Jesus didn't condemn something, it's fine. Like incest and pedophilia. Oh. Not that.

But Jesus didn't approve of jails and whippings and indentured servitude, not really. His basic attitude (since we're talking about a person in a narrative, let's stick with the narrative's Jesus) was it was none of his business. Oppressive Roman invaders? Just do your job, don't be cruel. Taxes imposed by the imperialists? Render to Caesar what's Caesars. His kingdom isn't of this world.

So where do Xians in juries come up with fining somebody $50k or sentencing somebody to jail for 10 years for rape. (Wait: Did Jesus mention rape?)

It's easy to argue against the death penalty. It's equally easy, on strictly "what punishments did Jesus approve" grounds to argue against fines and incarceration.

What's left is unpalatable for most. It's either "societal punishments are non-Christian and are what they are--neither un-Xian nor Xian per se' or "since Jesus spoke of righteousness and the only understanding anybody that listened or who wrote down what he said had in mind a very well defined definition of righteousness, then we're stuck with the OT laws. And that includes when Jesus' God mandated the death penalty."

Like I said, unpalatable.

This kind of half-baked "I'll cherry pick and sing la-la-la loudly when necessary" works in other contexts. Immigrants are, Israel was told (nasty OT, there), to be dealt with kindly. But the same OT also said there is to be one law for both immigrants and Israelites--so if Israelites were to deleaven in spring, to keep the Sabbath, to not eat pork, then there was to be "one law" for both. Sounds like mandated assimilation to cultural and religious norms as a condition for treating the "stranger" like a native born. (With some exceptions. Like sacrifices.) So those who argue loudly that point, well, really are just wresting the texts and dropping things to be able to say how right they are and trumpet their righteousness from the street corners.

Mostly what you get is people employing a lot of motivated reasoning to show how God and Jesus are on their side, picking and ignoring what suits them to make sure they can say God is at their back and thinks highly of them without the need to actually consider that maybe they're on their own. Ultimate invocation of authority for believers.