The American Church Is NOT Persecuted

     I consider myself Christian. However, I do not connect with much of the rhetoric used by other Christians. At times, this reticence makes wonder if I want to stop calling myself a Christian, and just call myself a follower of Christ. While, I do not do this, I do have difficulty espousing conservative views because of rhetoric used. I often can't even get to the point of considering the true subject because I am so hesitant to be part of a movement that is so polarized. This post will look at how rhetoric used by some Christians - especially by some conservative Christians - is wrongly phrased in such a way as to claim persecution; and as a result, how this rhetoric creates polarization and hinders dialogue on key issues.

     Many Christians claim that those of the opposing view are infringing on Christians' rights. I have heard far too many speakers this year claim that the liberal agenda aims to extinguish Christianity. I will admit that some movements in our nation are trying to oust the influence of Christianity, and other religions, from government. Nevertheless, I do not see this issue being a form of persecution as much as I see it being a confusion over the meaning of the separation of church and state. (Defining what it means for the church and state to be separated is another topic for another day.) In any case, I think that the issue between the stereotypical liberal population and the stereotypical conservative Christian population is a difference in opinion and should be treated as such; not treated as an attack against one's religion. 

     The fact of the matter is that I have never heard of white middle- and upper-class citizens, who are a majority group, being persecuted. The Christians in our nation claiming persecution are some of the wealthiest, most comfortable people to have ever walked this planet. While some of their beliefs are threatened by dissenting opinions, this is not a form of persecution. Claiming this to be a form of persecution is a problem that is two-fold - it prevents dialogue to resolve the issue, and also loses potential supporters for their cause.

     The first problem is summarized clearly in a CNN article by John Blake:

[Candida Moss, a New Testament professor at the University at Notre Dame,] says ancient stories of church persecution have created a contemporary cult of bogus Christian martyrs. She says too many American Christians are acting like they’re members of a persecuted minority, being thrown to the lions by people who simply disagree with them. 

She cited former Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Romney claimed last year that President Barack Obama was waging a “war against religion,” and Santorum said the gay community “had gone out on a jihad” against him. Other Christians invoke images of persecution when someone disagrees with them on controversial issues such as abortion or birth control, says Moss, whose "The Myth of Persecution" was recently released.

The problem with invoking persecution is it implies your opponents are evil – and no common ground can be found with evil,  Moss says. 

“When someone is persecuting you" she says, "there is no room for dialogue."¹

    Rhetoric of persecution inhibits the occurrence of beneficial dialogue. People who feel persecuted are not going to listen to another viewpoint. They take up a defensive stance, and cling to their belief without thoughtful consideration. Thus, American Christians who claim persecution avoid dialogue.

     Similarly, the extreme stance adopted by American Christians leads the "liberal" side to become polarized too. This side takes up a more extreme stance in reaction to the appearance of hatred and lack of respect demonstrated by the American Christians. Thus, neither side considers the opinion of the other; they become more and more firm in their stance. However, true dialogue will only ensue when we can consider and articulate both sides of the issue.

     The second issue with persecution rhetoric is that it scares away potential supporters of the cause. People, like me, who are on the fence about many issues develop an aversion towards sides that are too extreme. Thus, I have developed a reluctance toward conservative stances because of their rhetoric. The development of this aversion can be better explained in the words of Donald Miller:

... most pro-life representatives have gone the way of Malcolm X, not Dr. King. I’ve had more than a few conversations with pro-life leaders whose tone is so condescending and arrogant that even I, who mostly agreed with them, had trouble offering public support because doing so might be confused with supporting their attitude toward those who disagree, an attitude that has proven time and time again to [be] ineffective in instigating change....

This kind of tone makes more objective people want to disassociate from the movement and it’s the main reason the movement is having trouble gaining any kind of traction.²

     Christians who are serious about affecting change need to drop the defensive stance and move towards an offensive strategy. This offensive strategy is not an aggression towards those of the opposition, but rather a movement to act in ways that align with our Christian beliefs. In terms of key issues, this offensive strategy includes, respecting all people by listening to their views - even if they differ from one's own opinion - and carefully considering their viewpoint. It also means supporting lifestyles that conform with one's beliefs. In the case of those that are pro-life this means supporting adoption, supporting programs for teen-mothers and single-mothers, and having compassion on pregnant women who are troubled.

       The point is that the vast majority of Christians in America are not persecuted. Claiming persecution is not only a lie, but it also damages the resolution of conflict. Furthermore, there is a more effective manner of conflict resolution found in working towards what one believes to be right while respect those that disagree.*

*I highly recommend that you read Donald Miller's blog from April 22 - http://storylineblog.com/2013/04/22/talking-points-for-the-pro-life-movement/


Sources:
     1. Blake, John. "Christ was persecuted, but what about Christians?." CNN Belief Blog. CNN, 30 Mar 2013. Web. Web. 31 Mar. 2013. <http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/30/christ-was-persecuted-but-what-about-christians/?iref=allsearch>.
     2. Miller, Donald. "Does the Pro-Life Movement Need a New Strategy?." Storyline. Storyline, 22 Apr 2013. Web. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://storylineblog.com/2013/04/22/talking-points-for-the-pro-life-movement/>.