AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[MagusYanam]

Falwell always quotes scripture and almost always invites people to follow Christ every chance he gets on TV. He has founded an outstanding University.

So did Satan to Jesus in the wilderness. Quoting Scripture in itself is only the first step. Reasoning Scripture is everything. As for Liberty University, I wouldn't claim that it's 'outstanding' until I see some kind of record on their science and philosophy curricula.

I'm glad he invites people to follow Christ, but what is he doing to further Christ's mission to build social justice? Christianity has its greatest following where Christians are doing good deeds for people and asking nothing in return. In other words, demonstrating grace.

Lynn does nothing but fight Christians and joins together with non-believers and is a politician plain and simple.

Let's see now. Falwell blamed mainline Christians (among a lot of other people) for the 9/11 attacks, fronts a Zionist lobby or two (composed largely of atheists and orthodox Judaists) and is himself a lobbyist for the 'Moral Majority' - a politician plain and simple. Talk about your double standards.

I have many differeny versions of the Bible. Which one does not have the us versus them in it? That is the message although the goal is to get as many of them into the kingdom of God. Lynn works to keep Christianity like abortion safe, legal but rare,

...

How un-politically correct that is. That would mean actually identifying enemies and those that er really persecuting us. Us versus them MagusYanam.

...

You are mentioning those in the church and applying it to everyone. Non-members don't gather with memebrs.

In the Gospel I read, Jesus says things like 'love your neighbour'. When Jesus' disciples asked him who their neighbour was, Jesus responded with the parable about the Good Samaritan - a non-believer. Jesus was not only not looking to create an 'us versus them' mentality, he was looking to actively break it down.

Political correctness is as it does. It's good to be polite, but it's even better to be gracious. Jesus didn't mind being un-PC at times if it meant being more gracious and more loving, even to those considered 'non-members' - prostitutes, publicans, Gentiles, Samaritans. That's the example we should be following now. But, as it seems Falwell and the religious conservatives are experts at demonstrating, we have grown extraordinarily cowardly.

There is no reason for Jesus to dwell on settled issues. Homosexuals and abortion are well-defined.

Fine. Then neither should we today. We should be focusing on aiding the poor and on international outreach - these are the most pressing issues of our time. But we see no serious discussion on these issues - conservatives try their damnedest to steer the discussion away from them.

It means a call to conversion. That is the main thing.

The call to conversion is indeed an element of the Gospel. But it is not the overriding principle. The overriding principles of the Gospel are divine grace and the self-sacrificial love of the Lamb. That should be the focus for both study of the Scriptures and the mission of the Church.

You may want to re-read the Gospels and the letters. There is no where a tolerance towards members doing things and supporting things that are against the Church. Lynn is against the church. He wants it seperated from state but no one is stupid enough to not see what he is actually representing.

What is he actually representing, in your opinion? I read the AU website. My biggest gripe with Lynn is that it seems separation of church and state is all he's representing. He doesn't seem to have an ulterior motive, but that's because his focus is far too narrow, like Falwell's. Only, unlike Falwell, Lynn's not exactly underhanded about his agendum.

[melikio]

Political correctness is as it does. It's good to be polite, but it's even better to be gracious. Jesus didn't mind being un-PC at times if it meant being more gracious and more loving, even to those considered 'non-members' - prostitutes, publicans, Gentiles, Samaritans. That's the example we should be following now. But, as it seems Falwell and the religious conservatives are experts at demonstrating, we have grown extraordinarily cowardly.

I believe you are RIGHT ON!

Love certainly trumps most of what some other Christians are attempting to accomplish, and when Jesus was here in the flesh, He spent a LOT of energy communicating the importance of LOVE, even above "religion".

I'm glad he invites people to follow Christ, but what is he doing to further Christ's mission to build social justice? Christianity has its greatest following where Christians are doing good deeds for people and asking nothing in return. In other words, demonstrating grace.

Yes, people are far more concerned about what "Christians" actually do (how they treat others), than what they say they are doing. When I nearly LOST ALL of my faith after dealing over 3 decades as a struggling homosexual, I watched very carefully and yearned for a relationship with ANY Christian who was about LOVE over religion. For a VERY long time, Jesus was the only person I could trust. Some Christians are just MEAN to their enemies and sinners (they've been taught and encouraged to BE THAT WAY), but i knew that wasn't how Jesus was. Love is what got me to notice Jesus, and love is what encouraged me to STAY with Him.

I could never say that I'm GLAD to be gay, but I realize clearly the value of experiencing LOVE in the places where it finds us and we find it. I thank God for the healing/restorative power it (unconditional love) brings to ALL who experience it. It may not make a "perfect" Christian out of anyone, but it does serve as a lighthouse to ALL who are lost in a sea of sin, doubt or despair. Far too many Christians are into judging and condemning other people, instead of rolling up their sleeves and making the greatest, most sincere effort to LOVE as they themselves have been loved.

I think if we all got what we deserved, we'd end up with little, a lot less than we have, or nothing. My "faith" tells me that grace is why we have anything that we do.

I may say "Merry Christmas", or I may say "Happy Holidays"... but in my heart, I MEAN IT the same way for all I greet or address. It's similar to asking: "How are you?" It's one thing to just SAY them as the right "words", but has a much deeper and blessed meaning when you REALLY CARE about the answer. Sometimes, I ask twice, just to make sure the person knows I really DO care about them. I know it can literally save a person's life. It's not just about the "words", it's about the PEOPLE.

-Mel-

[snappyanswer]

This is probably the meaning of not casting pearls before swine. Jesus knows there are so many that will never listen to the Gospel and just ridicule and denigrate His followers.

But if you look at Lynn he never calls people to follow Jesus and that is definitely a wrong thing to do if you are a Christian. His fruit is anti-Christ and his website makes that clear he is opposed to evangelism.

He is no Tony Campolo that is for sure. Though Campolo has some problems too, he is one to call people to Christik, like Falwell, but with a little more cloudy permissiveness thrown in.

But AU is certainly on the wrong side on the war on Christ. I mean Christmas.

[snappyanswer]

In the Gospel I read, Jesus says things like 'love your neighbour'. When Jesus' disciples asked him who their neighbour was, Jesus responded with the parable about the Good Samaritan - a non-believer. Jesus was not only not looking to create an 'us versus them' mentality, he was looking to actively break it down.

Samaritans were believers in the Torah. Actually it boils down to interpretation. But they were not non-belivers. They just were not Jews.

Samaritanism is a religion related to Judaism in that it accepts the Torah as its holy book, though there are differences in the version accepted. Samaritanists consider Jewish thinkers after the Torah as having been led astray while they themselves stayed to the true religion. Their temple was at Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem. Very few followers remain today: about 500 living near Mt. Gerizim.

Once again it boils down to actions as well as beliefs.

Both sides of the big political parties in America claim many believers, but actions judge their words. I would not want to stand before God if I was a Democrat because of many Godless things they represent that are highlighted and condemned in the Bible. Republicans too have their big hypocrisy but are more willing to leave the Bible alone as far as warping it to fit there projects.

It boils down to actions.

[melikio]

He is no Tony Campolo that is for sure. Though Campolo has some problems too, he is one to call people to Christik, like Falwell, but with a little more cloudy permissiveness thrown in.

We mention the names of men a lot. We cannot use them as a standard. or do any worthwhile comparison of them in the end. For we will always be able to find IMPERFECTIONS is any person.

So, to me it boils down to what one's faith encourages or allows them to believe. We certainly know that now ALL "Christians" believe in the same ways/things; we know that they disagree with one another and perceive shades of "meaning" differently... they/we are all human.

And not that human beings DO NOT have problems, issues and faults, but that we understand that what some EXPECT, is not that which ALL are committed to (for none or numerous reasons). If my years as a "Christian" had shown me that people agree upon more things (from the heart-level), I would share something different. But even amongst those who claim to hold the Bible, God or religion as some "standard", I have seen enough variance and inconsistency to know that NO PERSON, should ever be POISED as the keeper or BOSS of another man's morality or "faith".

Certain personalities may indeed serve as guides/markers, but ALL FALL SHORT in "righteousness". And that is the problem with many who claim "righteousness", seek control of others through religion, or project extreme and relentless criticism of other human beings. The discussions need not be about people such as Lynn, Falwell or Campolo per se; not at all; the KEY is being able to apply ANY knowledge with compassion and wisdom. Love mitigates the effects of sin.

Both sides of the big political parties in America claim many believers, but actions judge their words.

I am SLOWLY learning to disregard "PARTIES", and to note the actual effect of actions. By the same token, people should learn that what is deemed "Christian" or "biblical", is NOT NECESSARILY GOOD.

I have literally LOST "faith" in name-brand "Christianity"; it just ceased making sense. I didn't ask for that, it just seemed to find me. I'm not blaming anyone or anything... I figure it's just because I was human, and so were the people around me. It got to the point where no one could "convince" me to "believe" anything.

But I will tell you what remained miraculously "solid" throughout the time where I struggled while losing my faith (as I knew it): I was LOVE. And I'm talking about the same exact LOVE that drew me to Christ in the first place. I listened to Billy Graham when I was a kid, and do you know what I got from him that I couldn't describe until now? LOVE.

Love is all I care about anymore. It was/is Jesus' STANDARD, and it is what really WORKS with human beings; from the totally lost, to the most on-fire-for-God believers. You see, Jesus understood human beings (why wouldn't He?). And Jesus LIVED the way we should be living; taught people the ATTITUDES they should have about other PEOPLE; proved the power of sacrificing for others, and clearly delineated the practical differences between religion and spirituality. LOVE permeated and saturated all things having to do with Jesus, and so very sadly that is NOT what "Christianity" exudes within this contemporary society.

I understand that EVERYTHING is permissible, yet not beneficial. But the degree to which we step BEYOND necessarily "realizing" that, to attempting to define morality for any/every other HUMAN being, is when we can easily step beyond the true character and definition of LOVE.

Attempting to CONTROL others, is rarely (if ever) equal to actually LOVING them. Yes, I know that some make the HABIT of witholding "kindness" (even love), to express that which they believe to be love; they usually go beyond that, toward controlling others. I UNDERSTAND that, but cannot always AGREE with the perceptions, concepts and nuances which come of that. That is, what some call "relgion" or "Christianity", amounts to a set of "controls" (rules) which they take onto themselves, or IMPOSE upon others. And the latter (concerning "imposition" of standards) is absolutely problematic with human beings; it can and has been proven biblically and by practical wisdom. There is little argument there, if we are honest. We DO NOT all "believe" and apply "morality" in the same ways (Christian or not).

Being gay, has taught me a lot about people, that I likely wouldn't have known (noticed). For example, you see the "limits" of some people's love and compassion very readily, and also how the mere stigma of a given thing/condition can turn some people toward evil behavior with respect to other human beings. Yes, unfortunately many who do identify with Christianity possess the traits I describe above; I know "Christians" are far from perfect. It would be better that people know them by their LOVE, than the "label" they identify themselves with.

While I agree my contentions overall may be less-definitive or fairly mild overall, I DO live by the things I have shared. The "little" Christian faith I have left, is REAL (yet extremely significant to me). It has meaning to me, and I've seen examples set (by how I live) have meaning for MANY other human beings.

It's easy to TALK "Bible" (really), but a completely different experience to speak truthfully and live a life of LOVE. And I "believe" (the faith I live by) that is exactly WHY Jesus' life stood out in time, space (history).

This WAR ON CHRISTMAS (or War on Christianity) looks more to me like a crucible that TESTS people's hearts and minds. It won't destroy Christianity, and the flow of LOVE that Jesus set in motion wouldn't be shut off, if the "season" were eliminated completely. I surely don't advocate that, but I do understand that man's will CANNOT impede the will of God; IT JUST CANNOT BE DONE.

I'm not against LOVE as Jesus lived/expressed it, but sometimes I do see the need to challenge or check what some people label as "Christian", and so do many others.

-Mel-

[snappyanswer]

I'm not against LOVE as Jesus lived/expressed it, but sometimes I do see the need to challenge or check what some people label as "Christian", and so do many others.

You write a lot but it boils down to always checking what people say and do. Fundamentalism came from the need to get back to truth that was being raped and pillaged by liberalism's nuttiness and pervasive need to please people and change the Gospel to do so.

Lynn would be a good person to use as an example.

Jesus was not executed for being all-inclusive. Or, maybe He was, but that also meant excluding the people that thought they were traveling the right path and telling them to either get on the right road or move aside.

Nothing unloving to tell someone the truth.

It is not that Lynn is a secularist as much as he appears to not be a Christian. You can get ordained online for free. Nothing special about being a reverend. His goal seems to be to silence Christianity plain and simple.

[melikio]

You write a lot but it boils down to always checking what people say and do.

It's not how much I write, and I don't use the words I do for nothing.

I don't ALWAYS try to show people what's going on in my mind (how I see things), but I can tell you simply, that it's NOT "simple".

As far as checking what people say against what they do, managing that wisely is dependent upon the "person" analyzing things.

My general guidline: IF I see that someone is more like a fire/brimstone controlling individual... I scrutinize them all the more. Someone who is truthful and notably gracious in their behavior and attitude, gets a lot more consideration from me.

"Christians" whose primary methods include abject use of fear and control measures, are people that cause more problems than they solve.

-Mel-

[snappyanswer]

"Christians" whose primary methods include abject use of fear and control measures, are people that cause more problems than they solve.

One sentence perfection. I couldn't agree more with you here.

Anyone that claims to be a Christian should have to prove it. Sooner or later but sometime.

[melikio]

His goal seems to be to silence Christianity plain and simple.

That's no big deal though; he can question and challenge "Christians", but no one has the POWER to silence "Christianity".

I often get angry at how some people apply their interpretations of "Christian" to many things. But I never have fear or extreme concern that the work or will of God can be "muted". (That's just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.)

And mostly, I'm promoting the concept that LOVE is not weak or necessarily "permissive". If people are going to come to Jesus, they DO NOT need Christians with pitch-forks and condemnations forcing them toward the Savior; I believe God actually despises that, because it is seldom loving to place that kind of pressure upon others. And if the truth is not communicated in a loving way, what good will it do? I know for a fact (ABSOLUTELY), that the effect of MANY Christians discussing "homosexuals", encourages others to literally HATE those very people (it IS NOT "Christian", as I understand Christ). When I finally "noticed" that approach (around age 35), I was devastated, because I myself was a homosexual (in the closet, trying to "change" it).

I thought: How in all of Creation, can I trust ANY of these people, if it's the "Bible" (or what they've been TAUGHT from it) that causes them to be that way? I was tired already from trying to change something (that I now believe cannot be changed), then after nearly 25 years as a Christian, to realize I likely could not be open with the people around me. People believe a LOT of lies, because they aren't willing to accept people AS THEY REALLY ARE.

It seems to me that so many are afraid to plant seeds (using LOVE / compassion) and let God do what He does best (convert hearts and minds according to HIS will).

-Mel-

[MagusYanam]

Samaritans were believers in the Torah. Actually it boils down to interpretation. But they were not non-belivers. They just were not Jews.

Exactly - they weren't in the 'in' group, or 'us'. And yet Jesus told his disciples that the Samaritan was a better neighbour than the well-respected members of the 'in' group had been. My point still stands; Jesus was trying to break down the 'us versus them' mentality that he saw manifested in the Pharisees and to a lesser extent in his own disciples.

Once again it boils down to actions as well as beliefs.

Both sides of the big political parties in America claim many believers, but actions judge their words. I would not want to stand before God if I was a Democrat because of many Godless things they represent that are highlighted and condemned in the Bible. Republicans too have their big hypocrisy but are more willing to leave the Bible alone as far as warping it to fit there projects.

It boils down to actions.

Godless things like... supporting and tending to the needs of the poor perhaps? Fighting for economic equality? Trying to improve public schooling? Trying to care for the elderly or for the environment? Trying to advance a notion of the common good that includes such people and such ideas? These are actions of the Democrats that I believe justify them to far greater capacity on a Godliness scale than do apathetic or malicious Republicans.

I have heard Republicans abuse Scripture to justify racism, economic injustices inherent in capitalism and abuses of the environment. If that isn't 'warping it to fit their projects' I don't know what is. Abortion is a fair concern if the figures I've heard fronted are to be believed, but people who think homosexuality is of greater concern than the plight of the poor in society have little justification in the Gospel as far as I'm concerned. One thing I notice in reading the Gospel is thatJesus didn't say anything about gays. He said a lot about the poor and the rich, which should tell one something about where one's priorities should lie.

Like you say, it boils down to actions. When I start seeing conservatives acting justly and with grace and compassion toward the less fortunate, I may have greater sympathy for their views.

Fundamentalism came from the need to get back to truth that was being raped and pillaged by liberalism's nuttiness and pervasive need to please people and change the Gospel to do so.

And yet, fundamentalism rapes and pillages the truths of Scripture far more than liberalism does - we're more apt to look at facts and use reason as well in our reading of Scripture, not to mention uphold the principles of divine grace and self-sacrificial love in their ministries (the two most important principles of the Gospel). And from what I've seen, fundamentalists do a hell of a lot more pandering to their followers than liberals do. In every public forum between fundamentalists and theological liberals in which reason and not public opinion was the arbiter, fundamentalists have demonstrably lost. This should say something about its validity.

I have very little sympathy for Christian fundamentalism, given that they do a better job of destroying churches, polarising theological and political debates and being militant in support of their pet political issues (like the people who mugged Professor Mirecki at the University of Kansas) than actually doing God's will on earth and building a just community as Jesus tried to teach it.