Showing posts with label Christian radio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian radio. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Subtle Misinformation from Christian Radio

When I was driving through Texas recently, my radio choices were between Christian radio and Christian Christian radio. I thought I would listen awhile.

On at least two radio preacher programs, the message was the same: in relationships, it is most important to cultivate a close relationship with one person than to be promiscuous with lots of partners; and that a lasting relationship begins with a strong bond of shared values, and grows out into physical intimacy from there.

Actually, most non-Christians that I know believe this also. With few exceptions, the people I know who are not conservative Christians also form long-term bonds (usually marriages) that are based on character and values, not just sex; and with few exceptions, these people are not promiscuous.

So I did not have a problem with what the preachers said about the best way of forming, and the value of forming, deep lasting relationships (for many of us, that means with a spouse). What I found objectionable was that these preachers were consistently portraying all non-Christians as being sex-driven promiscuous maniacs. They did not actually say this, but their implied advertising message was, “Are you a sex-driven promiscuous maniac? If not, then join us and send us your money.”

Conservative Christians routinely lie about liberal Christians and about non-Christians. This is particularly outrageous because many famous evangelical preachers have been promiscuous and sex-driven.


So the radio preachers may be right about what they say about long-term intimate relationships, but they are consistently wrong, and I believe deliberately wrong, about what they say about those people who are not allied with them.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Well, If We Aren’t Christians, Then What Are We?



(Photo from Guardian.co.uk, 2008)

In the previous essay I explained by even Bible-believing “Christians,” much less agnostic “Christians” like me, cannot use the term Christian, since the far-right conservatives have defined the term to their satisfaction.

Well, then what term can moderate Christians, or agnostic followers of Jesus, use? I suggest “Bleeding Hearts.”

And why not? That is what the conservatives, especially the religious conservatives, already call us. They intend it as an insult. But maybe we should just embrace it. I remember a 60 Minutes interview of Studs Terkel back when I was a youth in the 1960s or 1970s. Mike Wallace or Morley Safer or somebody asked him what he thought of being called a Bleeding Heart. His answer was immediate and passionate: Terkel said that he was not offended by this term, because it referred to the bleeding heart of Jesus Christ, of which he was not ashamed.

Progressive Christians, and Christian agnostics, identify with the loving side of Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, which includes Jesus dying on the cross not as a theological technicality but pouring forth is life blood and love. This is what is meant by Bleeding Heart.

Conservative Christians identify mainly with the Jesus of Revelation, who rides a white horse and has a sword sticking out of his mouth. Conservative Christians look forward to the Battle of Armageddon in which the earth literally runs knee-deep in human blood. I am not making this up. I heard on Christian radio (the Bot Radio Network back about 2004). Their main, and almost exclusive, focus is on the Apocalypse, and their message is, Bring it on! Some of them literally—I know from firsthand accounts—think Barack Obama is the Antichrist of Revelation.

I think we should just call ourselves Bleeding Hearts, putting ourselves into clear opposition to the “Christians” who look forward to bleeding battlefields.