In addition to a “royal priesthood” and a “holy nation,” the King James Bible speaks of Christians in 1 Peter 2:9 as a “peculiar people.” Modern translations dispense with the term, but it seems that to at least one sociologist, some Bible-belt Christians are so far removed from American culture that they’re deserving of studies to document their peculiarity.
Bernadette Barton, a sociology professor at Morehead State University in Kentucky, recently took her class on several field trips to the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky — a trip that apparently struck fear in her students:
On her third trip to the museum, Barton took her undergraduate students, who found the visit unsettling. Several in the group were former fundamentalists who had since rejected that worldview. Several others were gay. In part because of these backgrounds, Barton said, the students were on edge at the museum. Particularly nerve-wracking were signs warning that guests could be asked to leave the premises at any time. The group’s reservation confirmation also noted that museum staff reserved the right to kick the group off the property if they were not honest about the “purpose of [the] visit.”
Because of these messages, Barton said, the students felt they might accidentally reveal themselves as nonbelievers and be asked to leave. This pressure is a form of “compulsory Christianity” that is common in a region known for its fundamentalism, Barton said. People who don’t ascribe to fundamentalism often report the need to hide their thoughts for fear of being judged or snubbed.
At one point, Barton reported in her paper, a guard with a dog circled a student pointedly twice without saying anything. When he left, a museum patron approached the student and said, “The reason he did that is because of the way you’re dressed. We know you’re not religious; you just don’t fit in.” (The student was wearing leggings and a long shirt, Barton writes.)
Having never visited the Creation Museum (do they sell replicas of Adam’s rib at the gift shop?), I can’t relate to the oppressive fear that these students must have felt. One can only imagine the displacement felt by the professor and her students during their expedition. After all, they endured the nearly two and a half-hour journey from the cosmopolitan venues of Morehead, Kentucky to the wilds of the Greater Cincinnati Metro Area — only to be accosted by a canine and almost conscripted into “compulsory Christianity” had their disguises been slightly less effective.
All ribbing aside, while the absurdity of this account reveals how out-of-touch with their own surroundings the Morehead expedition was, it reminds us of the reality that Christian beliefs are increasingly cast by the world as quaint eccentricities — even when the numbers may not validate such a view. At this, we Christians shouldn’t be as shocked as our professor on her field study.
Whether or not the Creation Museum is a proper touchstone of twenty-first century Christianity is certainly debatable , but it is of little importance. For any Christian who believes that a dead man got up out of his grave two thousand years ago, there is an ever-increasing gulf with those who do not — a fact which no amount of cultural hipness can overcome. We will be found weird, wanting, and ripe for ridicule. We will be painted with a broad brush, and the temptation will be to say “that’s not me — I’m not like those Christians.” It would be better — when the occasion arises — if we instead pointed to Christ and lamented how unlike him we are. Better yet if we pointed out how unlike us he is.
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:28 am | #1
Really? I don’t think that’s the sort of “peculiarity” that Peter was thinking of when he wrote the epistle.
A museum that reserves the right to kick you out if you are “dishonest about the purpose of your visit”? And that employs guards with guard dogs, in the museum itself? Sounds more like “crazy and paranoid” than “oddly Christian”.
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:31 am | #2
The article could have been titled (with apoligies to Hunter S. Thompson) “Fear and Loathing at the Creation Museum”. And the title would be applicable to both the students and the museum employees.
August 23rd, 2010 | 12:15 pm | #3
Jared Bridges: “We will be found weird, wanting, and ripe for ridicule.”
“There was a time when I would have scoffed at the idea that in the United States one could be hauled up before a judge for expressing a difference in philosophical or religious opinion. But the world is changing, and those who wish to make the expression of Christian opinions a hate crime, or otherwise punishable by law, are gaining the political power to do it.
Of course, this involves a rejection of the common law tradition and the U. S. Constitution, but we are dealing with people here who care nothing for that and will aggressively seize any opportunity they can to redefine and subvert the law as we have known it.
As their power increases we will see more Christians imprisoned, financially ruined, and otherwise punished simply for doing what Christians have always done. …
There are as yet few places in the West where it is respectable to persecute Christians openly, but we are being set up for it. Which of the canons of secular modernism, including sexual egalitarianism, do Christians not deny and condemn in Christ’s name, and claim besides that those who make opposing claims in the same name do not worship Christ, but an idol of their own making? Make no mistake, our enemies (ultimately, we must remember, not flesh and blood, but deceiving spirits) are having their minions talk more and more about our odium generis humani. They are clearing the squares for the guillotines, and will cheer when we are no longer here to torment them.”
Read it all at Clearing the Squares for the Guillotines.
August 23rd, 2010 | 12:17 pm | #4
Chris, in your zeal, you completely missed the point. Read the last paragraph again.
August 23rd, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #5
I’m not convinced that this gulf is “ever-increasing”–and certainly not necessarily so. If the gulf is increasing between those who believe in the resurrection and those who do not, it’s probably at least in part due to the increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics of the believers, in turn due at least in part to the sectarian behavior of these believers.
Albert, you may not have properly understood Chris’ comment. The gulfs and divisiveness are only increased by your childish little jabs (“in your zeal”).
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:04 pm | #6
C. Ehrlich,
What do you mean by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors” here? How does it relate to Jared’s point with respect to belief in the Resurrection?
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #7
Childish little jabs? You’re projecting your own attitude, unfortunately. I was being sincere.
Chris made it clear that the particular practices of the Creation museum and its employees are not the kinds of practices he believes Peter was referring to as “peculiar.” But, Jared made it clear that he’s not concerned with the particular antics of the Creation museum (“it is of little importance”), but with the fact that the literal resurrection of a dead guy claiming to be God is strange enough to make Christians look weird in the eyes of the world, which is true.
So, please, take your attitude somewhere else and while you’re at it, get that chip off your shoulder.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #8
I thought Evangel was rebooted?
C. Ehrlich and Albert are not playing nice together in the sandbox.
(tiptoeing quietly away)
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:39 pm | #9
Albert, so long as we’re talking about projecting one’s own attitudes, please try to explain where you see all this “zeal” in Chris’ comment. And If there’s a chip on anyone’s shoulder….
August 23rd, 2010 | 2:11 pm | #10
Tom,
My observation is that one can believe in the resurrection without endorsing many of the other sectarian beliefs, values and politics which are responsible for the “ever-increasing gulf” under discussion here.
August 23rd, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #11
Tom Gilson asks: “C. Ehrlich,
What do you mean by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors” here?”
Was this a hard question?
August 23rd, 2010 | 2:20 pm | #12
C. Ehrlich,
I asked you what you mean by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors.” Your answer tells us that whatever they are, you think they are (a) not essentially connected to belief in the resurrection, and (b) responsible for the “ever-increasing gulf.” That’s part of an answer, but not very much of one. I’m still wondering what you think.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:05 pm | #13
Professor Reno, in Evangel’s sister blog First Thoughts, writes in Colleges and Conservativism:
“One worry I have about civil society in America is that liberals are becoming stupid, because they won’t admit that they are being challenged (except in the realm of electoral politics), which is why they move so quickly to attacking motives (e.g., their opponents are bigots). I hope some of those elite colleges that provide a positive and challenging environment for conservative students would do so for the larger cohort of liberal students as well. It might help make politics more intelligent.”
I suppose it’s sectarian to consider that “liberals are becoming stupid”.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #14
Tom,
I wonder if you know of any Christians, who believe in the resurrection, but yet would not report witnessing in their lives an “ever-increasing gulf” between themselves and those who do not believe in the resurrection. If you do know of any such Christians (I’d be surprised if you didn’t), try considering their beliefs, attitudes and politics. You’ll probably find a wide diversity here. But then try comparing that diversity to the range of beliefs, attitudes and politics of “Bible-belt Christians” who support the Creation Museum, or who are currently protesting the building of Mosques in the United States, or who cannot see any merits in the arguments for same-sex marriage, etc. Then, if you still can’t understand what would be meant by comparatively sectarian beliefs, values, and politics which create a gap between those who believe in the resurrection and those who do not, let me know. But please, as a proof of your sincere effort to understand, please go through this little exercise first and tell me what you discover.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #15
then try comparing that diversity to the range of beliefs, attitudes and politics of “Bible-belt Christians” who support the Creation Museum, or who are currently protesting the building of Mosques in the United States, or who cannot see any merits in the arguments for same-sex marriage, etc
Are you saying this like it is a bad thing?
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #16
C. Ehrlich,
Yes, I do know of some such Christians. Take, for example, a Christian who does not think too highly of the Creation Museum (from a distance, that is; he hasn’t been there), and who does not consider the Ground Zero mosque a cut-and-dried issue; someone whose roots are not in the Bible Belt, who doesn’t agree that homosexuality is generally a choice the person can opt out of. This is someone I know well.
I also know young-earth creationists who don’t oppose the Ground Zero mosque, who actually welcome Muslims and encourage others to demonstrate the same love to them.
I’ve heard of people who generally protest mosques in the U.S., but I’ve never met any such extremists. (The Ground Zero mosque is a special case, for obvious reasons.)
Now, when someone says to me consider the wide diversity here, and compare that to the range of beliefs there, I conclude that what they’re driving at is that the range of beliefs there is pretty narrow. Thus what I think you’re saying is that “sectarian” = “narrow.” But then I find that those who insist on same-sex “marriage” have a pretty narrow set of beliefs, too; so for your sake I certainly hope you’re not trying to tell us that “sectarian” = “narrow” = “a description that only fits certain conservative Christians.” It would be terribly hard for you to sustain that position.
Meanwhile, to view Christians as having a narrow range of beliefs is both inaccurate and stereotyped. If you hadn’t guessed it, I am the Christian I was describing in the first paragraph.
So then, what do you mean by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors?” Do you mean narrow? Are you referring to some supposed stereotypical Christian who toes the supposed line on every supposed cultural issue without thinking about it? Or are you referring to beliefs and behaviors that others find disagreeable? That’s a pot-kettle issue, for sure.
So far you’ve left us to guess what you mean by these “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors.” So far you haven’t told us; and so far it’s a phrase that only sounds as if it means something.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #17
All very well to make fun of the visitors to the museum. Still, I’d feel creeped out myself, going to a museum that seems to exude such an “us-versus-them” aura. In the article we learn why this is–apparently, anti-creationists have threatened museum executives, and handed out critical literature inside the museum. Imagine somebody who hates the paintings of Degas handing out leaflets inside the Art Institute of Chicago–they’d never put up with it. Still, I’d hope that Christians could find a way to make all visitors feel reasonable comfortable and reasonably welcome. And lose the dogs, for heaven’s sake. That sort of treatment would creep anybody out.
August 23rd, 2010 | 4:02 pm | #18
“then try comparing that diversity to the range of beliefs, attitudes and politics of “Bible-belt Christians” who support the Creation Museum, or who are currently protesting the building of Mosques in the United States, or who cannot see any merits in the arguments for same-sex marriage, etc”
Then be sure to complete this exercise too:
“then try comparing that diversity to the range of beliefs, attitudes and politics of “Liberal or Emerger Christians” who support neo-Darwinian Evolution and are vehemently against Creationism, or who are currently supporting the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero in the United States, or who ardently make support the arguments for same-sex marriage, etc”
Might as well do a full range of comparisons, eh?
August 23rd, 2010 | 4:12 pm | #19
Let me add this as well to my 3:47 comment. If sectarian = narrow, and if narrow is therefore a bad thing, then is the better, broader alternative to believe more things? Or to believe fewer things? Is it better, for example, for me to believe that same-sex “marriage” is both good and bad, at the same time and in the same relationship? That wouldn’t be so narrow, after all; it would be believing more things. What could be more broad-minded than believing what you don’t believe?
Or is it better for me not to have any beliefs on same-sex “marriage”? One way to avoid having narrow beliefs is by avoiding beliefs altogether.
What about behaviors? Maybe I should try to have more behaviors; that would be broader. Or on the other hand, maybe by just reducing my behaviors, I could have fewer narrow behaviors. Or should I broaden my behaviors by acting one day as if I believe one thing, and the next day as if I believe the opposite? That would kill two birds with one stone: it would broaden both my behaviors and my beliefs.
But then I wonder, do the same rules apply to people who don’t believe in the Resurrection; or people who believe in same-sex “marriage”? Are they too expected to believe contradictions, so that they won’t be guilty of narrowly believing only what they believe? Or should they have fewer beliefs, so that they might have fewer narrow ones? Should they have less narrow behaviors? It’s awfully narrow of them, isn’t it, to donate money only to groups that oppose Proposition 8. Maybe some days they should give to the Catholic League.
What I’m trying to say, C. Ehrlich, is this: to evaluate another’s beliefs or behaviors as more or less narrow is very hard to do successfully. I still think that was what you were driving at. I’m still open to your explaining otherwise to me; in fact, your explanation (whatever it may be) is what I’ve been asking for.
August 23rd, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #20
Tom,
Whenever someone uses a word I don’t understand, I usually first consult a dictionary. I recommend this practice. Here’s how the Free Dictionary defines “sectarian”:
Here’s how it defines “sect”:
As you can see, it’s odd to assume that, by “sectarian” someone simply means “narrow”.
August 23rd, 2010 | 4:33 pm | #21
I didn’t just assume. I know what the dictionary means by “sectarian.” I didn’t ask what the word meant, thank you very much. So nice of you to suppose that my question came out of my ignorance of the English language. It didn’t. One lesson we can draw from your so very helpful dictionary lesson is that words don’t always mean exactly the same thing every time. My question came out of a sincere desire to know what you meant in context.
I do know some English vocabulary (a word or two), I even knew that the definition of “sectarian” includes “narrow.” You quoted it yourself. So in view of the fact that “sectarian” often implies “narrow,” and that you contrasted it to diversity, I find it odd that you found it odd that I thought that was what you meant.
I have argued that it’s hard to identify one group as more partisan than another, or more narrow-minded.
I knew that sectarian could also mean factional. I have argued in my previously linked page that factionalism is not just something of which Christians can be accused.
I knew that sectarian could even mean bigoted. I remind you that I have observed what appears to be stereotyping in your comments here.
Note that I asked what you meant by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors.” You still haven’t told us. Why so chary?
August 23rd, 2010 | 5:19 pm | #22
C. Ehrlich,
I’ve just re-read some of this thread. You made a statement that I asked you to clarify. I thought it was a fair question. You responded by initiating a cat-and-mouse game of hints and sarcasm. I played along. I regret that I did, and I don’t like that in myself. I’m exiting the game.
If you want to answer my question, fine. If not, then feel free to leave your statement in its current condition, which to my mind is lacking in content. If you don’t feel a need to respond to a request for clarification, who are we to argue?
August 23rd, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #23
Tom, as I’ve said in #14:
“But please, as a proof of your sincere effort to understand,…go through this little exercise first and tell me what you discover.”
That little exercise was stated here:
August 23rd, 2010 | 5:35 pm | #24
Yes, I know you wrote that. What I don’t understand is why you wrote that instead of answering my question. Nor do I understand why you’re reminding me that you wrote it. I responded to it already.
Our last two comments were probably cross-posted. By now you know that if you’re intending to continue this as a game, I’m not participating. You can feel free to answer the question I asked, or not; it’s entirely up to you.
August 23rd, 2010 | 6:51 pm | #25
Tom,
Your difficulty, as I understand it, is that you don’t understand what it would mean to say that a set of beliefs, attitudes and politics is relatively sectarian.
I personally am of the view that there are more interesting things to do than to try to convince an evangelical that it makes sense to say that fundamentalist Christians are relatively sectarian. So, let me just say this: my comments are addressed only to those who share this understanding. I accept that my audience will be slightly smaller.
August 23rd, 2010 | 7:40 pm | #26
My difficulty is not what you think it is, C. Ehrlich. My question was never what sectarianism might mean, or what it could mean, or what it would mean. My question was, “what do you mean?”
I could have answered in the first place based on my knowledge of sectarianism, but I would have stood a fair chance of missing your point. Sectarianism, as your own dictionary definition shows, does not mean just one thing. I could have answered based on my knowledge of fundamentalism, but guess what? You didn’t bring that up until just now; and fundamentalism is deucedly difficult to define anyway, so we would have had to work on that before we could have made progress. But you didn’t want to make progress.
You wanted to play games and avoid answering. I point to comments #14, #16, and #21 in evidence of that, and also #20 where you ignored the bulk of what I had said to you in #16.
You also wanted to make yourself appear superior. I point to your comments #20 and #25 in evidence of that, with my response #21 in further support. Apparently that was important to you. Are you satisfied you’ve accomplished that now?
Francis Beckwith spoke aptly (#19 here).
I wish you luck with your “slightly smaller audience.”
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:41 pm | #27
Tom,
Let’s give this thread back to those who want to discuss the original post. As I’ve already conceded, I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you that it makes sense say that Christian fundamentalists are relatively sectarian. I’m not even going to try.
August 24th, 2010 | 5:38 am | #28
Ya done it again there, friend!
Amazing.
I trust you feel even more satisfied that you’ve accomplished what I described, in my post #26 here, as your second apparent purpose.
September 1st, 2010 | 7:55 pm | #29
Good post. Embarrassing com box cat-fighting.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact