It’s about CONVICTION

a.b.e. says:

There is a problem with convictions in the Christian community. So often the Christian community takes on the values of the culture surrounding it and then finds scripture to back it up. For example, we are coming out of a patriarchal culture. The Christian community in the past took on the cultural values of patriarchy and made them its own. It valued every scripture that appeared to support patriarcy, and ignored or down played every scripture that did the reverse. It made patriarchy into a conviction even though it was based on culture rather than on scripture.

The Christian community has done that with many other things also. It valued matrydom so it promoted scripture that supported it and ignored balancing scriptures that would have modified it.

The Christian community has incorporated so many beliefs and ideas from the culture around it and then Christianized it using select scriptures while ignoring other scriptures that would have provided more balance.

The result is that young Christians are taught all sorts of ideas that are supposed to be scriptural, and are protrayed as needing to be followed at all costs. So these Christians follow these convictions at all costs, only to find out that following these convictions doesn’t work.

I’m not saying there aren’t things in the Bible that are not worth following at all costs, I believe there are. It’s just there are many convictions that we were taught that actually had their origin in culture and are of no real value. Following these convictions has screwed up parts of my life, and of those of others as well.

Jadehawk says:

a.b.e.,

conversely, there’s many issues that were absorbed by Christians from the culture that were positive. the concept of egalitarianism for example is an outgrowth of the Englightment (“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” etc.), and with time, the Christian cultrure absorbed those, downplaying all the passages in the bible that dealt with accepting the status one was born into (most of the time when the bible speaks of equality, it seems to talk about the state of being in heaven, not the state of being on earth);

it seems then that Christianity per-se seems value free, and is merely a filter for the Zeitgeist of any given culture it finds itself in. as such, there really wouldn’t be any “christian convictions”, only cultural convictions reinforced by a particular biblical interpretation.

Anonymous says:

Aimai stated:
What does “separation” have to mean for it to be in accordance with a true “conviction” and when does the separation that the “convicted” Christian parent choose slide over into an impermissible (to you) mere “preference?”

Aimai, when I first read this question, I thought I understood it. Now, I’m not so sure I understand it. I am attempting to answer the way I first read it, if I am incorrect, please restate it for me…sorry about that. I would say the separation happens when the Christian who holds to the conviction of Scripture, regarding those who call themselves ‘brothers’ yet continue to live in sin, takes place at the time the knowledge of that son rejects Biblical truth and continues to live as they have chosen. If you are asking, when does it slide from conviction to preference, for the Christian, I would say that it’s not a slide over to ‘preference’ in this matter, but actually going against Biblical teaching. When the convicted Christian no longer holds to their belief, they have chosen to compromise Biblical teaching, if they still consider them self to be a Christian. Some how, I think I am reading this question wrong…so sorry.

If we go by scripture surely the punishment for homosexuality could be literally anything, from stoning to shunning.

If you hold to and live under OT law, then perhaps you could say stoning. However, with the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that is no longer the law to which we live under, thus stoning is not acceptable.

Aimai, the Scripture used for the ‘shunning’ aspect says to not even have a meal with them. Why? Because when you break bread, have coffee, etc. with someone who calls them self a Christian, yet chooses to live in opposition to Scripture, sharing that time together gives the impression, both to the person you are eating/drinking with and those outside who witness this, the belief you are in agreement with their choice of sin. It’s no different than having a neighbor who is a convicted child molester, now on parole, who invites you over to his house for coffee. If you have a strong conviction to not have contact with such a person, then you would not want to have the coffee at his house. However, if you only had a preference, then you would not care and might just take him up on that coffee, not caring what he might be thinking or the neighbors.

Let me also add, most Christians do not fully understand or walk that out correctly. It is done with the intent to punish, not to restore relationships. If the Christian is truly humble, it will grieve them to have to walk that way. Instead, you find too many self righteous Christians, full of pride, wanting to punish, rather than humbly try to restore the relationship.

Aimai, my beef with my fellow Christians is that we, lack honesty and integrity, because of trying to portray something that is not real. Too many Christians want to put on the perfect happy face, everything is in order and not a thing out of place. They try to hide the fact that they have children who are struggling, perhaps themselves are struggling, such as in abusive situations. The solution? They put on the false face. It grieves me to see this. It leads people down the wrong path. When I hear a Christian parent sharing truth about their struggles with a child, I say AMEN! Let us be genuine, honest, loving. If it’s a conviction, it’s unshakeable. If it’s a preference, that’s fine. Convictions have the ability to separate, both in good and bad ways. All too often, Christians abuse it, they do not walk in love when it comes to their convictions.

If a conviction crosses over into sin areas of our lives, that’s where we have to be very, very careful. If, however, that conviction is not a sin issue, but rather one of faith, as in having more children, then I would say the children do not have to embrace that same conviction, if they do not have the faith to accept that. That should not separate a family. If the parents have that conviction, but the children don’t that should not separate a family.

My belief is there are too many Christians mixing up conviction and preferences. Conviction of faith issues and conviction of sin issues. We can embrace convictions AS WELL AS preferences. My concern for my fellow Christians are that they need to take careful evaluation if something is a conviction or a preference. Don’t be so quick to call something a conviction that is only a preference, as you might change your mind on it, then you have to defend why you changed your mind, which then brings your credibility into question. I see this all the time.

Kelly

Anonymous says:

Linnea stated: Kelly, I still have a question for you: how can we tell, in the present moment, that someone’s religious ideas will not change in the future? If that’s what distinguishes a conviction from a preference, no one can be definitively said to have a conviction until they die and there is no longer any possibility that their ideas will change. Therefore, as I see it, the distinction between “conviction” and “preference” has no useful application to actual life.

As I stated before, a conviction stands the test of time. If I understand Vyckie’s writings, these so called ‘convictions’ were actually evolving, not set in stone convictions. Remember, in her story she shared that they had a vasectomy and reversal, then had more children. That came as a result of her evolving understanding of beliefs. We can ‘start to be convicted’ on many topics or issues. However, that conviction becomes cemented as a conviction as time marches on and you walk it out.

In common usage, “conviction” refers to a strongly held belief, regardless of whether that belief may change in the future. “Preference” refers to a less strongly held belief. I don’t think it’s useful to judge that a person’s belief was not strongly held in the past, simply because it has changed in the present

I agree, I believe Vyckie held strong beliefs in the past, but that’s all they were, beliefs. They had the appearance of conviction, but time reveled that’s not the case. I am not trying to dismiss Vyckie’s experience, I am trying to put it into proper perspective.

Here’s a thought experiment: suppose Vicky had died in childbirth (perish the thought!). Looking at her life until that point, wouldn’t you say that she was “convicted” in her Christian beliefs? Or are you saying that it’s someone possible to tell that her belief at that point was mere “preference”?

Linnea, if Vicky had died in childbirth, I would have said she had a conviction, although one can never really know. From the outward appearances, I would have said it was a conviction. Again, I do not know Vyckie, so I have no idea the ‘real life’ stuff that was happening. In other words, she may have been giving off signs that she had ‘trouble’ which would have made me question the conviction, but since I have never met her, I can only say from the example you gave, that it was a conviction. If I knew her, personally, I might have thought otherwise.

this is not even close to the meaning of the word “conviction” in regular English, (and according to my quick etymology-check, it never was). It’s a word that always meant either “firm belief” or “proof of guilt”, but there’s nothing about it being immutable.

In my study, the word ‘conviction’ started out as a verb, convict. later changing to include the noun. So if you stop to really think about it, conviction is from the legal definition of the word. When a person has been convicted of a crime, that’s it, unless a conviction is overturned. As I mentioned before, even in the justice system, the word conviction is being mocked by all the overturning of convictions. Again, test of time will bear out whether or not that conviction stands. We can be convicted by our conscience, the Holy Spirit, a writing or something else, but we don’t overturn those convictions, since they are unshakable. Notice I say, unshakable, not unquestioned or re-examined.

To have a conviction, you must be convicted. The question then comes down to, who or what did the convicting?

Kelly

Anonymous says:

Jadehawk stated: where I come from, it’s a sign of maturity to be able and willing to let go of convictions when they turn out to be wrong in light of new evidence. in conservative christian cycles, it seems to be converse, and “staying the course” is more laudable than “flip-flopping” when it turns out that you were actually wrong, because it supposedly shows strength of character.

Not at all. My point I am making is to call convictions, convictions and preferences, preferences. If you called it a conviction, when in fact you have changed your mind and it’s not a conviction, state it as such, don’t pretend it to be something it is not.

I would hope EVERYONE, from time to time, asks them self life changing questions. I would say, we would be pretty dishonest to say that we don’t. As we mature in life, we always have times in difficulty, joy and everyday chores that we contemplate our reason for our living. Those are not bad things. To deny ourselves that questioning is foolishness. To deny doing it, would be untruthful.

Kelly

Vyckie says:

Kelly ~ After leaving Christianity, I realized that a big part of why I had always felt like I needed to portray myself and my family has “having it all together” is that Christians tend to be highly opinionated and judgmental ~ I didn’t ever really feel “safe” in allowing those people (who were supposed to be my friends) to see the struggles we were dealing with because I sensed that I would then be fair game to be picked apart and analyzed and criticized and told that I just wasn’t a true Christian or that I wasn’t doing it right.

Q.D., I never considered myself to be judgmental ~ I’d have argued pretty vehemently with you if you’d have told me I was. NOW I see it obviously ~ and the reason I can see it is because once I got outside of my little circle of Christian friends ~ I met many people who actually are not judgmental and it’s been so refreshing. I don’t mind admitting to these people that I am not perfect ~ because they don’t expect perfection in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, Kelly ~ After my third c-section, I “believed” that my body was not cut out for childbearing and that we couldn’t handle any more children ~ but I never would have called it a conviction since we regretted the vasectomy as soon as we walked out of the doctor’s office. It was only after I was convicted that I had a very strong conviction to let the Lord be in charge of our family planning ~ and NOTHING was going to change my thinking on that ~ not even after I nearly died with my fourth and my mother stood at the end of my hospital bed in tears, begging me to have Warren get another vasectomy. THAT’S conviction.

And it’s not easy to let go of ~ because I know that even today, if I were in a relationship in which there were the possibility that I might get pregnant again ~ using birth control would still be a big issue for me ~ I don’t know how I would do actually do it. Not that I’m afraid of going against God’s will ~ it’s just that there were a lot of considerations which went into my decision not to use b.c. in the first place ~ and some of those ideas are still with me.

Again Kelly ~ my conviction was REAL and it was SOLID. And to answer your question about who (Who) did the convicting: I believed (still believe) that it was the Holy Spirit who convicted me to trust my womb and my reproductive system to Him ~ and I did it wholeheartedly. It was only after I lost the Holy Spirit that I lost the sense of obligation to follow His directives for my life ~ and as I said, I’m still not sure that I could use b.c. ~ just grateful to be in a situation where I don’t have to worry about it anymore.

Anonymous says:

Christian egalitarianism for women did not come out of the Enlightment. The egalitarianism that came out of the Enlightment was only for men, women were excluded.

Christian egalitarianism for women had its start in the 1970′s.

aimai says:

Kelly,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to so many different posters and their comments. I have to confess that I have no clear idea, at this point, what point you are trying to make. You seem like a really nice person, if quite judgmental and determined to find other Christians not as truly Christian as you want. (Something Vyckie gently points out in the post up above). Also, you are very determined to substitute what I’d call an idolatrous love of the dictionary and its definitions and your research on a few words for an equally idolatrous love of the literal scripture.

I love the way you casually dismiss the OT as “superseded” by the NT. The whole point of modern american christianity is that there is no controlling authority (and its certainy not jesus) who is able to say which passages should/must be rejected and which must be observed. Without a Pope and a strong tradition of hermeneutics modern day protestantism is all over the place with regard to how to understand both the OT and the NT. I, personally, qua jew wish that Christians would stop playing around with the OT at all. Its like watching children tear out the pages of a book and try to cook smores on it. But even when it comes to the NT and its ancillary writings there is no agreement as to which rule, or how to read them.

Ultimately, what one thinks of a word, like “convict” or its antonyms or synonyms etc… is really not dispostive of anything much. One person’s conviction is another person’s belief, one person’s preference is another person’s horror show. What matters, as you say eventually, is how we treat each other.

To go back to my example of the serious christian parents of a gay child I really feel nothing but pity for any person who is so in the thrall of an angry god that they would cease to break bread with their own child, or do so only in the context of demonstrating dissapproval, because they think this is what god wants of them. Or they think this is the right christian thing to do.

God forbid that any person should ever have to choose between a child’s life and a religious community, or even between a child’s life and god’s understanding. Perhaps you don’t know that gay children are much more likely to kill themselves than other children–the rejection they get from their families as well as their society is so crushing that children as young as ten and eleven (just two days ago it was an eleven year old boy) have been known to kill themselves.

A parent who did not know that would be gravely at fault just as we would think a parent who put an infant in the back of a car without a car seat was at fault in the event of a crash.

A parent who knew it but thought that pain and suffering would teach the child to reject its sexual core in order to more perfectly fit the christian model would be equally at fault. The best case scenario is that shunning and rejecting a child (even with love! even if more in sorrow than in anger!) brings the child back to jesus in the approved way. But if it doesn’t? The worst case scenario is that the child flees the home, or even kills itself.

On balance I would never choose the first result even if I believed in eternal life, which I don’t. But if I believed in eternal life and I thought my gay child would burn in hell–yet I would do nothing to force that child into despair, into believing that a parents love is conditional on good performance, or that god’s love is conditional on perfect behavior. Because the risk of suicide is just too great. And only where there is life is there hope.

I don’t have a gay child. I know tons of happy, out, gay people. Some are even committed Christians! Others have left the church because of the outright cruelty of their co-parishoners or family members. So this is my thing, not yours. But this is a big thing, to me.

PS: I wanted to add that Jadehawk’s comment up above about maturity and changing one’s mind and the role of stubborn insistence in the modern conservative movement perfectly captured something I’ve thought and tried to write. Truly great comment, Jadehawk.

aimai

a.b.e. says:

Vyckie,

Unfortunately in the Christian community our convictions have made many us of more critical than we would have been. Thankfully over the years I’ve grown I’ve grown less critical. But as a young Christian I was quite critical.

Jesus said not to judge, less you be judged. I would like to see the Christian community grow in that direction. And there are some Christians that don’t judge, but as whole we are quite judgemental as a result of out convictions.

I think as more and more Chtistians get therapy and spend time in 12 step groups, they will learn to be less critical.

Christians need in depth therapy and support groups as much as anyone else. And they are a good way to grow up out of rigid belief systems.

Anonymous says:

Kelly,

Who was it that said: Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Oh yeah, that was Jesus, eh?

JEB

Anonymous says:

Vyckie,

Once again, I appreciate the dialogue, thank you for taking the time.

Like you, I had difficult deliveries and not so great pregnancies, mix in there mostly large babies and I was not your picture perfect QF minded mama. I was not able to have home births, though I often dreamt of it. Since the midwives attended the birth of my 4th child, in the hospital, when I was expecting baby 5, I was rejected by the midwives…but ever so politely. They remembered the problems of my delivery and didn’t want to take any risks. Baby 5 and 6 were c-sections, the others were not. As you are aware, c-sections pose their own problems with consecutive pregnancies as well as recoveries.

Here’s me being transparent……I too have been convicted of allowing the Lord control of the fertility of my life. After my 6th child, which had to be a repeat c-section (which meant I failed at a v-bac…not good in the home birth camp mindset), they discovered my scaring issues. Telling me, if I had more children, they would all need to be c-section, because if an emergency arose, they could not guarantee saving the baby. Besides that, they ran into problems while trying to get my child out, because of the scar tissue, meaning baby’s life was somewhat compromised. Oh, and I had to go under for anesthetic after 4 failed attempts to give me a local..failure yet again. Because of the longer time needed to be under and the crisis of trying to get baby out of the web of scar tissue, they forgot to give me pain medication for when I woke up….not fun! Still holding to my convictions after a horrific experience, my prayer was, “Lord, if you do not want me to have more children, please take me to the next season of life”. Why? Because I did and still do love having my children. I view them as such gifts and blessings. When ever I was pregnant, I was so blessed to be a partner, with God, in creating new life. My prayer was answered. At a young age, the Lord closed my womb by putting me into menopause, early. From the outside, it looks like my conviction has withstood the test of time. However, I will confess, I started to wonder if I had the faith to walk out that conviction, even though it was strong. Maybe I would have, but perhaps maybe not. Time will not allow me to know, as my prayer was answered. So sitting on this side of the line, I could try to portray that I was successful at my conviction, but the truth is, I was wrestling with my conviction and trying to come to a sense of where does ‘faith’ to walk out a conviction play in all this. Where was my conviction coming from? It was coming from my reading of God’s Word and the Holy Spirit. I do not see that conviction as a salvation issue, I see it as an obedience issues. I should mention, I do not, nor have I ever lived in an environment that it appears you have. Perhaps I have the luxury of being able to examine my convictions, with my balanced husband, who gives me great freedom.

Now I struggle with making sure people understand that yes, I have that conviction, BUT I also struggled whether or not I was going to be able to faithfully walk out that conviction. If I had failed to walk out that conviction, based on the medical issues, I would then say my conviction was really not a conviction, rather a preference. My conviction, by all appearances, stood the test of time. However, honesty compels me to confess, my conviction was wavering…..and that’s OK!

Vyckie, I find this statement most interesting: It was only after I lost the Holy Spirit that I lost the sense of obligation to follow His directives for my life

I ask in all honestly, and sincerity, how do you lose the Holy Spirit? Do you misplace Him? Does God take Him away from you? Do you walk away from Him, then really not losing Him, but rejecting Him? How do you know this was not just a system of beliefs that you built up over time and walked, giving you the strength to walk out those believed convictions? Ideas, whether right or wrong, can be all we need to propel us into motion on any subject matter.

Again, I do not deny or belittle your experiences. You had very real experiences. I question whether or not they were convictions, as they have not stood the test of time. I find it remarkable that you would still find yourself questioning the use of b.c. at this stage of your life, knowing how you are walking now. So while it had been a believed conviction, based on, as you said, the Holy Spirit, are you saying the Holy Spirit would still be convicting you on the subject? What would compel you to keep a conviction, if you no longer have the Holy Spirit convicting you?

Thanks again,

Kelly

Anonymous says:

aimai stated: I love the way you casually dismiss the OT as “superseded” by the NT.

Aimain, I don’t have a lot more time to write, so I will just focus in on this comment. I’m sorry you saw that as a casual dismissal of the OT as that is not where I stand. Time restraints do not allow me to go further into details. I am a full believer in the whole of the Bible, but I also know that the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, fulfilling those laws, changes how Christians should walk. In the OT they were believers, but obviously not Christians, as Christ was not yet born. The smorgasbord of picking and choosing which passages to apply and which to leave out is one of my pet peeves, just so we are clear.

After reading much of your writing in these posts, I have to believe you have studied and come to the conclusions you have. I apologize for not being able to dig into this more.

Aimai, I appreciate your kind comments on me, but you also chose to insult me, yet again. I’m not sure why you feel you need to insult people who do not hold to your particular beliefs. It truly makes it hard to want to read your writings with such insults being thrown out. Honestly, it makes it hard for me to take you seriously, and yet I would like to hear what you have to say as I am sure you have valuable information.

Must run,

Kelly

Anonymous says:

According to Kelly’s definition, I don’t think I believe in having “convictions.”
According to that definition, God alone should have “convictions.” We humans, being finite and fallible, should avoid them, and should try to be humbly willing to change whenever it turns out we’re wrong.

KR Wordgazer

Anonymous says:

Vyckie said:

The strength that I had which kept me going was my conviction. I did it because I was so thoroughly convinced that this is what the bible taught and what pleased the Lord. I’d have done anything to please God.

This is Vyckie’s definition of conviction, and I think it is a pretty good one. She was thoroughly convinced. Depending on what the conviction is based, such as misinterpreted scripture, conviction (being convinced about something or a belief), can be wrong,

This Q/F lifestyle was what she believed the Bible taught. There are many of us Christians out here who heartily disagree based upon the same Bible.

And yes, there is much judging going on in certain Christian circles. I have to wonder if some of the Q/F families’ convictions are based wholly on their own personal reading and investigation of the scriptures or what the leadership of their particular group believes.

I recently read a terrific book by Scot McKnight (PhD, Nottingham) Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University called “the Blue Parakeet” which rethinks how one reads the Bible and how to live out that belief in this day. Part 4 is all about the Bible and Women. I think Vyckie and Laura would find it very interesting and anyone else for that matter.

Elizabeth C.

Grandma Lou Ann says:

ACK! Right on, JEB! Exactly! Thank you, thank you, thank you…made my day!
Hey, I love Jesus, always will…He has changed my life, but WE are the church! THIS body (mine, yours, ALL believers) are the temple of the HS…walking into a church does not make us a Christian…our HEARTS do. How is YOUR heart?
How can anybody say they are a Christ follower, and then put down their neighbor, or their neighbor’s thoughts, convictions, actions, preferences, etc.
I am part American Indian…there is a saying
“Never judge a person (man or woman) until you have walked a mile in his or her mocassins.”
On the surface, we may be grinning like a possum eating sh– and BLEEDING on the inside!
When I was a casino worker in Nevada, people used to call me “Laughing Lulu”…some said of me that it was heard to be depressed around “Lulu”…but one day a woman I barely knew walked up to me, where I was working, and with MORE INSIGHT than many Christians I know, said…
“You are laughing on the outside…but you are crying on the inside!”
OMG!!! That was like revelation to me, because she descried to me in one sentence, my whole life! It had been a joke! Ironically, her name was HOPE! And without hope, we all have just about next to NOTHING!
That is the feeling I have gotten from so many churches I’ve walked into over the years…we are to BEAR one another’s burdens??? How? Certainly not from ‘sharing’ with phoney, smile- until- your- face -falls -off self-righteous so called Christians…who have every hair in place and have almost never had more than a bad case of gas…
GUT LEVEL blogs can get the job done, thank you very much…and you can call this a conviction, a preference, or what ever…HEART is what it’s all about!
Grandma again…over and out.

adventuresinmercy says:

Kelly,
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?

To all,
Speaking of this conversation (re. critical, etc), did any of you see this?
Why We Must Embrace Our Brokeness and Never Be Good Christians?

Cindy says:

Christian egalitarianism for women had its start in the 1970′s.

Someone had better inform the Assemblies of God (where I was trained), since they are labelled Christian egalitarians (whatever that really means), and they have been what I understand to be defined by CBMW as “egalitarian” since their inception in 1901 or 1906 or something. And the woman who founded the denomination in the town where I grew up did so in the 30s. She held the church in her home, and then had to hire a pastor. That woman’s daughter was my first piano teacher, almost every AG minister in the area who is now collecting social security studied under her (professor emeritus in the AoG college system), and there is a hall named for her family at Valley Forge Christian College.

The truth is that those who want to redefine things to say that egalitarian feminism as the frame it out was around long before the 1970s. But George Knight III wrote his book in 1978, introducing this topic and framing out the whole gender as connected to the Godhead business. And Knight’s concept threads right back to the pro-slavery Presbyterian Confederates.

So I don’t quite know how people can say this is a concept that invaded the church in 1970. According to the history of my own town and those who trained me, what they defame as evil was around at least 70 years before. In fact, I think it was around for about 1970 years before the decade of record so often quoted.

I mean, it is America. You can come up with any fool crazy doctrine that you want. But at least come up with one that makes sense and matches history.

madame says:

Kelly,

Regarding shunning a child who has homosexual tendencies or who is living in homosexual relationships, I’d like to add my two cents worth…

- Jesus raised more than one eyebrow, I recall he got himself in trouble and people doubted the claims He made of himself for eating and drinking with sinners. Let’s see, he asked a woman who had had 4 husbands and lived with a man who wasn’t her husband for some water. He ate with a tax collector. He associated with prostitutes… Should we not show His love to sinners in the same way?

- I think it’s different to tell a person “I don’t believe you are a Christian. You are rejecting God’s Word”, and shunning them, refusing to eat with them. Especially our children need to know us as unconditionally loving.

- Why is it that some Christians place homosexuality at the top of the list of the worst sins? What about looking at pornography? Do you know what percentage of men (who call themselves Christian, even leaders of the church!)have a problem with looking at other women and coveting them? Jesus calls that adultery.
Pornography is a huge issue in our churches. Should we shun all men just in case? And maybe all women too..

- In my very humble understanding, I believe that people who choose to live in sin, especially people who are mature enough to know for sure that it’s sin, and are not willing to make any changes but self-righteously defend their sin, are a completely different kettle of fish. We ALL struggle with some sin or another. A huge percentage of Christians are overweight because they eat too much (it’s called gluttony). A huge percentage of Christians struggle with unforgiveness (or even hatred, which Jesus equals to murder)
Huge percentages of Christians struggle with wandering eyes, lustful thoughts, etc…

- Finally, parents have to be very, very careful with the way they judge their children. Our perception of God is usually the one we have of our parents. If we felt we were only accepted and loved if we performed, if they cast us out when we didn’t live up to their standards, then we are very likely to fear God (in an unhealthy way) and resent Him for being such a slave driver and unpleasable.

Shun a child for living a lifestyle you don’t understand, and you may lose him forever.

an atheist in the bible belt says:

I think that others have already responded very well to the theoretical points of conviction vs. preference, but I’d like to add in a personal comment. It was because I was afraid that my parents would react like Kelly seems to be advocating (shunning, not even having a meal with me) that I considered killing myself rather than coming out with my deconversion. It was not an option for me by that time to fake belief, as I had tried to do to my extreme emotional detriment for several years previous.

Suicide wouldn’t have been a rational choice- if my parents decided to shun me now, I would be sad, but prepared to live with that- but I was in great pain and fear. Shunning or even an attempt to take every opportunity to preach at me would not “bring me back to god”, it would only bring a permanent separation between us. Perhaps some Christians think that this would be appropriate. However, it is only because they have not reacted in this way that I am willing to respectfully continue to listen to what they have to say about their beliefs and religion.

I don’t see how shunning could possibly bring a child who truly didn’t believe or had different beliefs back to Christianity, unless they were willing to live a life of deception- both to themselves and their families. Belief isn’t something that you can coerce in another person by threats or by withholding love.

When I first started reading Kelly’s comments, I was annoyed, but now I only feel pity.

an atheist in the bible belt says:

I forgot to mention that I would also like to see the specific verses where shunning is commanded or advocated.

madame says:

Atheist in the Bible belt
You asked:
I would also like to see the specific verses where shunning is commanded or advocated.
This is 1 Corinthians 5.
11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”[b]

Jadehawk says:

Christian egalitarianism for women did not come out of the Enlightment. The egalitarianism that came out of the Enlightment was only for men, women were excluded.

I wasn’t talking about egalitarianism for women per-se, I was talking about the “all men are equal” part on which every modern democracy is founded. this did not come from Christianity, even though the earliest churches lived in communes. Both the NT and OT make it clear that one should live in the class in which one was born into, be obedient to ones masters, and be good to ones servants. The Monarchies of Europe were based on one interpretation of Christianity, and after the Enlightenment set the stage for the American and the French revolutions, equality of man became another interpretation of the bible.

The same for slavery, which was also thought for the longest time to be biblical (and at no point in the bible does it state explicitly that it isn’t). It wasn’t until after the abolition movement was well on its way to success that Christianity re-defined itself once again in the mirror of the current zeitgeist. The same goes for the women’s equality movements which started shortly after the Civil War, and were rejected by the mainstream, christian society all the way until the 1970′s (with the exceptions of a few denominations which caught on sooner).

And exactly the same thing is happening with homosexuality. christianity has always been against it, but the zeitgeist is shifting once more, and christianity is slowly beginning to accept homosexuality as well. And as with pretty much everything else, christianity will be the last bastion of stubborn convictions(!) of yesteryear.

Jadehawk says:

Kelly,
When a person has been convicted of a crime, that’s it, unless a conviction is overturned.

*sigh* yes, that’s the point. an overturned conviction was still a conviction before the overturn, it was merely a FALSE conviction. the same about beliefs: a conviction about something can be changed, and doesn’t stop being a conviction because of that, it becomes a FALSE conviction you’ve discarded. you’re redefining the word in such a way that it becomes meaningless in human terms.

Not at all. My point I am making is to call convictions, convictions and preferences, preferences. If you called it a conviction, when in fact you have changed your mind and it’s not a conviction, state it as such, don’t pretend it to be something it is not.

another thing: you’re committing a fallacy called “False Dichotomy”, i.e. you’re saying that either people have convictions which can never be changed, or they have mere preferences, to be changed at whim. this is completely and utterly incorrect. the reality is that there’s a sliding scale, which starts at having preferences (for example: i have a preference for shrimp, meaning in a restaurant I’m more likely to order a dish with shrimp than without), goes through various degrees of likes/dislikes and beliefs, and ends with convictions. however, in the real world, even convictions are (and should be) subject to reevaluation.

the only “convictions” that remain unchanged are generally those acquired though some ideology and never re-evalued in terms of the real world exactly BECAUSE they might conflict with the world one has constructed for oneself. this kind of “convictions” are extremely dangerous. this is what starts wars, denies people their rights in the name of tradition, and prevents individuals from extricating themselves from a toxic environment.

if this is what “convictions” really were, we should all have to abandon having convictions, instead of putting them on a pedestal, since they’re nothing more than stubbornness, narrow mindedness and blinkers elevated to the status of virtue.

an atheist in the bible belt says:

So as an atheist- one outside the church- it is ok for my parents to associate with me? But if I were to want to rejoin the church while still living with my boyfriend outside of marriage, they would have to disassociate themselves from me?

Linnea says:

KR Wordgazer writes: According to Kelly’s definition, I don’t think I believe in having “convictions.”
According to that definition, God alone should have “convictions.” We humans, being finite and fallible, should avoid them, and should try to be humbly willing to change whenever it turns out we’re wrong.

Thank you! That’s kind of where I wanted to go with my reasoning, but as an atheist I didn’t feel like I should be the one to say it. And I very much appreciate you sticking around this blog even though you’re sometimes holding a minority view.

Kelly, your story about your pregnancies and deliveries was very moving. Thanks for posting it, and thanks for being willing to admit that you too struggle with your convictions.