It’s about CONVICTION

Anonymous says:

KR Wordgazer says,

I want to say how much I appreciated AdventuresInMercy posting that link to iMonk’s blog about how imperfect we Christians are and how hard it is to admit it.

So when Aimai says:

If any of the posters here who are sincerely convinced of what god wants, when, and from who were actually as true believers as they pretend to be they would admit that god’s plan for vyckie is probably beyond their ken and let her get on with living her life as she sees fit. Its all part of god’s plan, after all!

– she is absolutely right. I’m not as true a believer as I pretend to be. None of us are. We are all imperfect and struggling.

I get upset and angry; I say things I regret. I certainly have not intended to imply what Aimai says I did– that if Vyckie and Laura just had the “right” Christianity everything would have been fine– but if that is really what I have been implying, I am so sorry.

The honest truth is this: Vyckie’s story, as told so far, is confusing and disturbing to me as a Christian– and, I dare say, to most of the rest of the Christians who are posting here. The questions we ask are largely just attempts to have it make some kind of sense to the way we’re used to thinking about our faith. I myself get defensive because it’s hard not to be– because atheists are naturally feeling their views validated by the story, and Christians naturally are feeling their views are threatened. “Just what I would have expected” is the natural atheist response, and to Christians that tends to read like “I told you so.” And it’s hard not to react negatively to that.

The response of us Christians tends to be, “there has to be some explanation of this that will make sense to us according to our worldview.” So we conjecture, without having enough information yet with which to conjecture– and we end up sounding insulting. What we ought to be doing is simply relaxing and trusting God. But we’re human.

The fact is, we’re all just human– atheists and theists alike. Let’s be kind to one another.

And about “convictions” — I’ve been still thinking about it, and I really don’t see where the New Testament tells Christians to have “convictions.” It tell us to have “faith.” And humility. To me those are both much harder than having “convictions.”

PS. As far as atheist-in-the-bible-belt’s question is concerned, I don’t think there’s anything in the New Testament that tells parents to forsake their children. Ever. The part about disfellowshipping or excommunicating is talking about a church, not a family.

At least, that’s my take on it.

KR Wordgazer

Anonymous says:

Well, If we are not to eat with those who are in the church but are immoral,greedy, idoloter, or slander, etc. I guess non of us can eat with one another. The church as a whole is full of sinners like this. To be quite honest I found Kelly’s first post quite slanderous. I dont care how you try to nicely spell things out on here as diplomatically as possible, the damage was done. Look, personally I dont think any of us have it perfectly right, christian or not. All of us screw up. Even this post right now is just and opinion and not the truth persay.
Just let these ladies say what they wanna say, it is their lives and we are the people who are priveleged enough to be able to read about it. Let this whole commentary on conviction/vs/preference rest. It is redundant.
Melissa

Anonymous says:

Agreed, Melissa. There are far more injunctions in the New Testament towards love and mercy than there are about not eating with certain people. I feel we who are Christians should be very, very careful about how we apply verses like that, remembering who Jesus ate with and how he disliked it when the religious people of the time criticized him for it.

KR Wordgazer

Anonymous says:

(Madame posting from hubby’s computer)
Wordgazer
And about “convictions” — I’ve been still thinking about it, and I really don’t see where the New Testament tells Christians to have “convictions.” It tell us to have “faith.” And humility. To me those are both much harder than having “convictions.”

I so agree….

PS. As far as atheist-in-the-bible-belt’s question is concerned, I don’t think there’s anything in the New Testament that tells parents to forsake their children. Ever. The part about disfellowshipping or excommunicating is talking about a church, not a family.
That’s an interesting point. I wonder whether that passage is talking about not having Christian fellowship (worshipping together, praying, communion…) with people who call themselves Christians but live in overt sin, despite being told that their lifestyle of choice is wrong, and shown from the Bible why.
I could see how a parent of a teenager who chooses to live in sin would tell the teenager that he-she has to make a decision because God calls his people to resist the devil, put away sin, and so on.
But shouldn’t the church welcome all sinners?

Gem says:

KR Wordgazer said I don’t think there’s anything in the New Testament that tells parents to forsake their children. Ever. ENDQUOTE

I haven’t followed all the comments, but I do recall Laura saying how her husband would often quote- in a very hurtful manner- Jesus admonition “If anyone does not hate his… wife… childrren”

Sometimes I have wondered myself what it means? I accept by faith that God’s character is good and loving, and the problem is not GOD but ME if my understanding and application of it is coming out “unloving”.

aimai says:

KR,
I want to apologize again to you if my sharp words took you the wrong way. I think your recent post here hits the nail on the head for the ways in which we are all hearing and reading some stuff that hits very close to home for all of us, atheists, agnostics, christians etc…I’m reminded of passages in my favorite book “How to talk so children will listen/how to listen so children will talk” which (as I dimly recall it) points out that the things our mothers say to us are not the things we hear because we have years of other conversations blocking our ears. So when you are thirty and your mother says “its cold outside” you find yourself turning around and snarling “I know, ok? I already dried my hair and I”m going to wear a hat!” even though she doesn’t mean you to take that observation as a command.

In the same way, as you say, lots of people are reading these stories and saying “ha! just like I thought!” either because they themselves came out of the fundamentalist christian tradition and they recognize issues that they saw in the pews or because as outsiders to the tradition they were expecting nothing better, or as believing christians of a new sort they don’t want to see their (rightly) beloved tradition tarred by these practices which seem so hurtful to some families.

I confess that certain words that KR wordgazer used just flipped a switch for me, mentally. Because as a non christian I’m so used to being witnessed to and told that my understanding of the world, of faith, or religion, and of my place in it is flawed. In fact, it almost goes without saying in some interactions with fundamentalist christians or, until recently, with my own government and leading political figures that as a woman and a jew and an atheist I don’t have much of a place in the discussion. Some of that sense of rage spilled over into my posts here and I apologize. But I think its important to say that the same divisiveness, appeal to sectarianism, splittism, accusations of imperfection, offers to “pray for you,” desire to convert you, threats of hell, etc… are made all the time to men and women outside the faith, or outside the believers own sect. That’s not merely typical of fundamentalist christianity, of course–I have been approached to orthodox jewish groups, muslim groups, scientologists, hare krishna’s and moonies too. But its painful. And enraging. Because its so constant.

Every day I drive by two churches, I think I’ve mentioned that have what I call “punch in the eye christianity” up on their signposts. I sympathize with them because if I really thought every person who was driving by was going to hell if they didn’t come in and get saved I suppose I’d be obligated to do the same thing. But its incredibly painful and enraging at the same time. Because its so hugely disrespectful of all the people who for good reason are not, in fact, Christians and are not going to slap their forehead and say “wow, I could have been saved! just by paying attention to what pastor X said on his signboard!”

Still, I apologize for my harsh words. I truly feel I’ve been learning so much from everyone’s very generous posts about their own experiences and journeys.

aimai

Anonymous says:

US Supreme Court and Conviction vs. Preference

Molly asked: I’m trying to figure out why it matters or not whether Vyckie’s convictions fit your definition of convictions or not. Kelly, what is to be gained by this? What purpose does this serve?
When I first commented in this posting, it was with the purpose to cause Vyckie and others to stop and think of the words they are using and what they really mean, and how ‘conviction’ as it is appearing in many Christian circles, is not accurate. As well, I was trying to show how the test of having older children walk away from some of the ‘convictions’ the so called families had, are indeed not convictions but preferences.
Molly stated: Why does this matter?

Because the words are not being used correctly, cheapening the word. What I didn’t realize, at the time I wrote that initially, is that there is even a great legal definition to that word.

Through the progression of this posting, questions were being asked of me and Vyckie commented on things as well, which caused me to have further questions on how the word is being used.

Being a homeschooling family, my husband often times will ask the children to look up certain word, to make sure they know the meaning of the word they are using, thus expanding their vocabulary. Being that he works with legal contracts and such, ‘conviction’ was one of those words that was getting to me, in how many Christians were using the term.

The research I did at the time I wrote my post last year, was dictionary and related sources. I had no idea that others have written on this very topic. Usually I would Google that, but for some reason, I didn’t. This morning, in preparation for my answer to Molly’s question, I just Googled the two words and came up with a bunch of information. Ironically, the legal definition takes this word even further. When using the word ‘conviction’ in regards to Biblical matters and civil law, there are distinctions that have been made and the law speaks clearly about the two words.

When talking about Biblical matters, ‘conviction’ essentially means sin. For you to not do something you are convicted of, is sin. That would mean you believe anyone else, who is a Christian, not doing those particular things, is also sinning. There is no ‘tolerance’ for ‘this is sin for me, but not for you’, that would ‘legally’ put it into the definition of preference. When we use words incorrectly, they have the ability to cheapen a meaning. The way Vyckie was using this word, was showing that either the word did not mean what she said, or she flip flopped and changed her mind, bringing a different definition, which would line up with preference.

For Vyckie, since she has been re-examining her belief system, I didn’t think this was that difficult or hard of an issue to bring up. Why would it be considered incorrect for Vyckie, to now examine the real meaning of the word, to explain how she was feeling and what she went through? Do we think it will cheapen her story? For me, it will put a correct perspective on her story. While in her belief system, she was using a word incorrectly, like all the other people in her circle apparently must have been, and now out of the system, she is still using it incorrectly. Since Vyckie is adjusting her beliefs and trying to figure out the meaning of life for her, I don’t think it’s wrong to suggest that perhaps she should look at re-examining her use of that word.

Here’s one of the passages I found today regarding law and the word, the shortened version:
Conviction versus Preference
Difference between a conviction and a preference, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. A preference is a very strong belief, held with great strength. You can give your entire life in a full-time way to the service of the preference, and can also give your entire material wealth in the name of the belief. You can also energetically proselytize others to your preference. You can also want to teach this belief to your children, and the Supreme court may still rule that it is a preference. A preference is a strong belief, but a belief that you will change under the right circumstances. Circumstances such as: 1) peer pressure; if your beliefs are such that other people stand with you before you will stand, your beliefs are preferences, not convictions, 2) family pressure, 3) lawsuits, 4) jail, 5) threat of death; would you die for your beliefs? A conviction is a belief that you will not change. Why? A man believes that his God requires it of him. Preferences aren’t protected by the constitution. Convictions are. A conviction is not something that you discover, it is something that you purpose in your heart (cf. Daniel 1, 2-3). Convictions on the inside will always show up on the outside, in a person’s lifestyle. To violate a conviction would be a sin.

David C. Gibbs, Jr. Christian Law Association, P.O. Box 30290, Cleveland, Ohio 44130
The full writing of this appeared at another site, which, by the way, was great reading. You can find that here: http://freedomlaw.com/con_pref.html

Having our terms and definitions defined, clearly, is important. Otherwise, what you think you may be saying, may be misinterpreted, giving a completely different meaning to your words. OR, you may be cheapening the definition of words, which is not wise. We need strong words in our vocabulary, so that we can speak with boldness, expressing with strength, and accuracy the depth of our feelings.

Kelly

Vyckie says:

Just a note to say that discussion on the topics in this comment section is being continued here: OOTP: Finding meaning/purpose apart from God, "42," John Shelby Spong, Christians & self-help, Why do we care what skeptics believe?, etc.

If you are commenting about “conviction vs. preference” ~ that discussion can stay here. Thanks.

Coleslaw says:

The US Supreme Court did indeed make a distinction between a religious conviction and a social preference in Wisconsin Vs. Yoder, but I don’t think it is the same distinction that either Kelly or David C. Gibbs make. I am fairly certain that Vyckie’s beliefs back in her QF days would have met the Supreme court test. Here is a link to the decision so others can read and decide for themselves:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/406/205/case.html

Jadehawk says:

what coleslaw said: words have different definitions in different settings (most well known example: the word “theory” as used in common speech, as opposed to the way it’s used in science).
So there’s a Christian definition of “conviction”, and there’s a legal definition, and there’s a common speech definition.

and Vyckie’s convictions would have met the legal definition of “conviction” at the time she was still quivering. why? because courts can’t predict the future.

Anonymous says:

Same Supreme Court Case.

Actually, Coleslaw, if you looked at the link I gave, to the full article, it was that case that Mr.Gibbs was quoting as the example of what took place, legally.

Kelly

ps I will try to later look at the two side by side.

Anonymous says:

Jadehawk,

Not according to how Mr. Gibbs interpreted the legal case. That case was back in 1972, I have not had time to see if there is a more current Supreme Court ruling, but it would be interesting to find out.

Words change meaning, but ‘conviction’ is part of the legal system, so there would have to be some major changes to change the word, ‘convicted’, ‘convict’ or ‘convictions’.

If we go further up thread, you can read where people thought conviction meant nothing like what Vyckie mentions, they thought of it in terms of legal/criminal. I don’t think we can say ‘common usage’ with this word, at this point in time. You *might* be able to say that the common usage, in Vyckie’s circle might use the word that way, but with the examples of the Scriptures that were abused in that circle, would tell me that perhaps this word was just another word, use wrongly, to motivate them to various deeds.

Kelly

aimai says:

Kelly,
Really, give it up. What you, or mr. gibbs, or the supreme court in a single case, want to call “convictions” or “preferences” is simply neither here nor there. Words are arbitrary symbols placed on concepts. The question for Vyckie, and for her posters, is whether it is useful to think of a given concept–like a “conviction” as an absolute. To you, perhaps, it is–since you are convinced of an absolute god who absolutely rules your world and despite your own desires, or with reference to them, struck you with menopause rather than urging you or allowing you to use any kind of free will in choosing how many children to have. All well and good, for Kelly. To my mind a perverted and infantile relationship with both self and creator so, not good, to me.

Your insistence of bragging on about the article you wrote–without googling (!) and with an eventual cherry picked quote from a legal decision–is just the last word in solipsism and self worship. Vyckie’s life and story were for her to experience, and for her to ponder–not for you to try to shoehorn into your pathetically narrow understanding of the divine.

Sorry for the harsh words but really, give it a rest sweetheart. If we need a dictionary definition of something we can all look it up in the OED.

aimai

Jadehawk says:

Kelly, the distinction made by the court in that case was that of personal convictions and traditional convictions within a group. they used the words “preference” and “conviction” to distinguish them, but legal terms are not necessarily how words are defined outside the court system. keep in mind that the legal definition of “murder” is also much narrower than the common usage definition (legally speaking, a man who killed his wife when he caught her in bed with another man did not murder her.)
words do not have meanings that are set in stone, one definition per word. context is extremely important, and I cannot agree that we should accept the legal usage as the common usage for most words.

also, except in the most egregious cases, I’m fairly certain that Vyckie’s QF lifestyle would have passed the communitty vs personal conviction test. this is another thing, for example: the mormons aren’t allowed to practice polygamy despite that being their traditional way of life because it’s a MASSIVE infringement on the laws of the U.S., whereas the case cited was a more minor infringement. even in the court of law, the definition is malleable, in the sense that lesser infractions require lesser proof of being a traditional conviction.

I will agree with you that even the legal definition has been softened lately (i.e. religious people only need to sign a paper to allow their kids to not be vaccinated), and that the Christian communities abuse the word “conviction” as defined both legally and through common usage (i.e. everything they convince themselves of becomes a “conviction”, which I already mentioned in my first answer to your posts); but legal terms do not define common usage of words. legal definitions only matter in legal context

Anonymous says:

aimai stated: Your insistence of bragging on about the article you wrote–without googling (!) and with an eventual cherry picked quote from a legal decision–is just the last word in solipsism and self worship.

This just goes to show you how you completely misinterpreted my reasons for stating what I did. I was showing how ‘foolish’ I was for not doing a better job at my research, and in the process came to learn more about the legal aspect of the words. I should have spent even more time researching, which I failed to do.

Like Vyckie, I question many things, and I don’t go by what a particular man, group or church states to drive my faith. In going through this posting, Vyckie shared information that I hope she is now re-thinking, because logically, they no longer make sense, as I read them and she defines them. Since Vyckie is in questioning mode, perhaps she may see that too. Biblically and logically what she is stating, regarding convictions and the Holy Spirit, do not make sense. Perhaps if you took a moment to really wade through it all, you may see that as well….or maybe you do and you don’t care, and that’s OK, too.

Kelly

Coleslaw says:

Same Supreme Court Case.

Actually, Coleslaw, if you looked at the link I gave, to the full article, it was that case that Mr.Gibbs was quoting as the example of what took place, legally.

I know that was the case to which Mr. Gibbs was referring, although I wouldn’t say that he quoted it, seeing that he never quoted any of the language directly, nor did his article state that the case was Yoder vs. Wisconsin. I linked to the case itself because I don’t think Mr Gibbs’ interpretation of what the court meant by “conviction” vs. “preference” is to be relied on, and that it would be better for people to see the actual language for themselves. As I said before, I think it’s clear to anyone reading the decision that Vyckie’s beliefs during her QF days would have met the court’s standard of religious conviction,.

Linnea says:

When I looked up “conviction” in the dictionary, it said it was the noun form of two different verbs: to convict(=to find guilty of a crime) and to convince(=to persuade that an idea is correct). Certain Christian communities apparently use the verb “convict” to mean a strong form of “convince” – something like “to convince permanently, for all time”. I’m not begrudging them their right to do so – hey, language changes over time – but it’s not common usage, and that’s the source of some (but not all) of the talking-at-cross-purposes that’s going on here.

Linnea says:

Aargh, I just lost a big long post that quoted from both the Supreme Court decision and Mr. Gibbs’ ramblings. In a nutshell: he attributes a lot of things to the Supreme Court that they didn’t actually say, including the idea that permanence is part of the definition of a religious conviction.

Anonymous says:

Kelly:

I’m ignoring the “concern” that speaking up is bad for the children, although it’s… I’ll be kind and say “amazing” how many people are trying to use that as a silencing tool.

Instead, I’m just focusing on the idea that homosexuality is no longer punishable by death in the NT. No. Paul says gay people are worthy of death; he just doesn’t say who’s supposed to carry it out.

Also, you don’t understand homosexuality at all. To be gay is to be geared to emotionally and physically love someone of the same sex, not the opposite. An actual relationship is, Biblically speaking, moot, given Jesus’ talk about looking at a woman lustfully being the same as having sex with her.

Tabby