God Hates You
Featured, Social Justice — By M. Morford on October 28, 2009 at 12:00 am
When I was a kid, we used to play the “opposite game”. A typical conversation would go like this;
Me: “I’m not hungry.”
My brother: “I’m really not hungry.”
Me: “I’m really, really, not hungry. I’m so not hungry that I couldn’t take a single bite”.
My brother: “Oh, yeah, I’m so not hungry I couldn’t even LOOK at a picture of food right now.”
Obviously this is game no one wins and it veers into absurdity almost immediately.
Sometimes I think churches and religious organizations are playing this game as I read articles and emails that tell me in breathless urgency what God hates.
Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church (who calls the Catholic Church the “Pedophile Rape Machine”) openly admits that “God hates fags” sums up his theology (he is also passionate in his hatred for Jews, Michael Jackson, President Obama, popular culture, media “elites”, member of the US military, the East and West Coasts, and just about everyone else on the planet).
Phelps, of course is not alone in this hostility based theology. I get emails on a regular basis from those who describe other faiths as evil. The girl who wore her “Islam is of the devil” T shirt to the first day of school (inspired by her pastor father) is only one incident – the pastor who is encouraging his congregation to fast and pray in opposition to health care reform must have a unique interpretation of “taking care of the least of these.”
Sometimes I can’t figure out if a “Christian” movement is a spoof or if they are truly serious. God Hates Figs surely is a parody site.
I’m not so sure about God Hates Shrimp which has more extensive scriptural support for its position – and I am sure, serious followers. I have friends who believe far flakier things than this.
And just in case you are interested in a more global view, you have to check out God Hates the World. They have posted a detailed analysis of John 3:16 that explains their theology, but their premise is that God has grounds to “hate” every nation on the face of the earth. (I have problems with a theology of salvation based on one’s nation of birth or citizenship. I thought being human was grounds enough for the necessity of God’s grace).
In fact, godhatestheworld.com has an interactive map on its site that allows a user to find out exactly why God hates any given country. They have a special section on the website exploring “the John 3:16 lie.” And of course you can’t miss “God Loves Everyone” – The Greatest Lie Ever Told, which includes 701 passages from the Bible proving God’s hatred and wrath for most of mankind.
If this doesn’t get you down, check out americaisdoomed.com. Like no others, this website cheerily “builds the airtight case that America is not only cursed of God, but that this curse is irreversible.”
I grew up with seemingly endless booklets with the message “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” These booklets were beyond simplistic in their cartoonish formulaic presentation of God’s grace. Yes, the message was shallow and easy to dismiss, but there was at least some sense of a God, however distant, who could – and in fact did – care about a confused kid looking at a booklet.
It still seems to me that any God worth believing in must be far larger than our definitions, formulas or categories.
I’m inclined to agree with those who say that God is too big to be defined (or owned) by any one religion. (A classic book on this topic is Your God is too Small by JB Phillips.) I know that moves me into suspicious territory theologically, but if I saw the slightest evidence that a “godly” nation behaved according to a higher moral standard, I might be tempted to believe some nation, any nation, had a firmer grip on truth and justice.
One of the issues that comes up in these conversations is the question of whether we “worship the same god;” in other words, is “Allah” the same as “God?”
This is a very odd question when you think about it. Who of us has the same conception of “God” as we had five or ten years ago? Do we really think an urban person, a resident of a tiny village or a resident of a refugee camp would have the same sense of who God is and what a good and just can – and does do? The Jews were wise to avoid “naming” God – He was not theirs. They were His. They knew in their gut that they could not be “territorial” about God. There were pagan gods who were indeed territorial, but the God of the Jews was far beyond these – and to categorize God as “one of the gods” was blasphemy.
The flag-waving God of many American Christians is very much one of these “territorial” gods and is a bizarre amalgam of white privilege and American exclusivism based on illusions (at least until recently) of infinite technological progress.
Is the God most Christians worship the same as the unnamed God of those who exhibit and preach hate?
We might consider these voices as extreme, but you can see the “leaven” of their ravings in the margins of the mainstream Christian community.
For a faith that is best – and most fully expressed – by the love believers have for one another (John 13:35) a rallying cry to hate is odd indeed.
Glenn Beck (among many others) has been promoting a list of organizations that are “dedicated to the destruction of America” including groups as diverse as the YWCA, the World Wildlife Fund, Sojourners, World Vision and many other faith and justice groups. You can see the list here.
What are we to make of this?
Is hatred the new love?
Is divisiveness the new unity?
I have always found it supremely odd that most Christians, when pressed, will admit that they don’t care very much how Jesus lived his life, or the theology he lived out or spoke of, but they claim “salvation through his ‘substitutionary’” death. (This,of course, is Paul’s view. It would be a shock to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.) In other words, even though Christians insist that Jesus was God and man, most have no interest whatsoever in the “humanhood” of Jesus. And this is in spite of songs like “I want to be like Jesus.” But, of course no one really want to be like Jesus; who wants to be rejected by his family, abandoned by his friends and finally murdered by his own people?
I think those who consider these matters seriously know that the closer one gets to real truth, the more alone and isolated one gets. Truth and the pursuit of justice is the ultimate rarified atmosphere. Being misunderstood is part of the territory. Jesus knew this well when he reminded his followers of the prophet getting no honor in his own country.
So do we worship the same God?
Do we worship the God beyond labels and denominations? Do we worship a God literally beyond our own borders of politics, personal preferences and biases? Can we worship this God with people who don’t look like us? Sing like us? Act like us? Is this God larger – or smaller – than we are?
If our “god” only confirms our political biases and that we are “right”, then this “god” is clearly of our own creation. We have made a “god” in our own image. Such a “god” is unworthy of us. We need a God who expects – and demands – much of us. More than we think we can give.
And we also need a God who is beyond our words – and our definitions. To me, the only God that matters is one far beyond any denomination – perhaps even any religion, but he still knows the hairs on my head. And my deepest fears.
Perhaps it all comes back to the opposite game;
God hates shrimp.
God hates fags
And God really, really hates you.
40 Comments
We’re not supposed to own our God? Weird. ” I will be your God, and you will be my people”
IMHO I worship Jesus, the historical God-man, the way truth and life, the self proclaimed only way to God. Any god that leaves out Jesus, doesn’t transcend religion, but rather nullifies and damns it.
Great post, I just disagree.
Great book out by CJ Werleman. It’s called God Hates You. Hate Him Back’
Just finished it and recomend it. It may change your mind
This was marvelous, thank you.
I was reminded of the time I went to a Costa Rican church service a few years ago and was able to worship God even though I had no idea what anyone was saying and it was dynamically different from what I was used to. When the Holy Spirit is present, or when the people worshiping are worshiping the God of love, joy, peace, mercy, and justice, it is universal.
This post reminded me of Rumi who said, “I am Muslim, Christian, and Jew. The religion of Love transcends all others.” (paraphrased) Great essay, very well said.
Sigh.
No, Allah is not God.
Isn’t conflating “taking care of the least of these” with a particular political party’s proprosals for health care reform also an act of creating God in one’s own image? I don’t recall any of Jesus’ calls for social justice advocating for change in Judean or Roman public policy. I don’t recall him suggesting that politics, with its zero sum game mentality and treatment of others as enemies, was a feasible pathway to a better, more just world. I do, however, recall him saying this his kingdom is not of this world and that his servants don’t play by the rules of this world.
I really appreciated this post. It’s very well-written, and expresses something that’s bothered me for a long time. I hate that Christians have more of a reputation for pointing out what God hates than embracing who God loves (namely, the world.)
I think the biggest pitfall of embracing such a loving God is that we tend to confuse “loving” with “permissive.” And that’s a dangerous line to cross. For instance, can you say that the disciples would’ve been shocked by (and maybe have disagreed with?) Paul’s take on salvation?
God absolutely loves Muslims, but does that mean He allows them to follow an alernate path to heaven? I don’t think so.
I think it’s time for us who have been disillusioned by “God Hates You” theology to have a conversation about what a just yet merciful God’s love looks like.
Thanks for getting that conversation started.
Sarah, I love this post!
James! We agree on something! I think I just saw a pig fly by…=)
Agreed.
We are warned against false gods, and Matt 7:21-23 gets my vote for scariest verses in N.T.; “Not everyone who says to me,’Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, your evildoers!’”
in my experience it is so much easier to hate than to love, and it is so much easier claim G-d’s hatred than receive his Love. I hardly know human on the face of the planet that respects another for his hatred…
M Morford:
I think we should be careful using extremists like Phelps as any example of what the church is like.
I just navigated to this page away from ESPN.com, where one of the front-page stories is about how Andre Agassi took crystal meth and then lied to get out of trouble. If I were to take that story and conclude that all tennis players are druggies, everyone here would tell me that is a ridiculous position to take.
Likewise, the fact that some hateful people use their twisted interpretation of the bible as their reason for their hate is no excuse to either (a) cast the church as a whole in the same light; or (b) take an unfair leap in logic and say that any Christian who refers to any behavior as sin is doing so out of hate.
I would never assert that Phelps is “representative” of current Christianity; but I’d feel a lot better if he was without influence.
I have been a listener and supporter of Focus on the Family for many years, and it pains me to see their newsletters getting more shrill and alarmist. Their tone – and content – is getting more like Phelps (and less like the Jesus of the New Testament) with each issue.
Phelps (and others like him) should be rebuked – not embraced or copied – by those who would follow Jesus.
I have found great guidance through the work of Karen Armstrong, namely A History of God. If we want to make declarations based on whose god is right and whose is wrong I suggest we look at the history of god and see that maybe by believing in absolutes in a way no generation before us ever has, we are cutting ourselves off from the true mystery of an infinite god. We are also cutting ourselves off from the richness of diverse community by rejecting people who do not fit within our absolutes. When we do that we create our own personal isolated and angry hells.
Thank you M. Morford, Thank you for leading us toward a heaven that is actually a feast of every tribe, tongue and nation. You have opened an extremely difficult door with this article and you have opened it well.
It’s the belief in the absolute truth of His word that leads me to appreciate His infiniteness. Not sure why you think the two are mutually exclusive.
James:
What do you mean by “Absolute Truth”? What is absolutely true?
That there is absolute truth is a natural conclusion of the Law of Non-contradiction.
A does not equal not A.
I believe that there is absolute truth but that we have a limited capacity to grasp it. That’s where humility comes in.
Very well said Larry.
M. MORFORD,
This was an extraordinarily well-crafted piece. And thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing out that the other Apostles weren’t sure about Paul, to say the least. This post makes me happy.
Can someone elaborate on the difference between the apostles and Paul? I am not clear on what you are speaking of.
James:
Many books have detailed specific historical evidence which indicates that there was a rift between the Apostle Paul and Apostles Peter, James, and John.
Some have gone so far to state that the entire gospel of Matthew was written as a rejection of Pauline theology, while others point out the fact Paul was encouraged to operate independent of the church in Jerusalem, at the behest of its elders, because they weren’t too sure they wanted embrace his theology. He did, after all, reinterpret several ancient passages about Messiah in a completely new context… and he taught that Jesus would return again in his own lifetime.
As such, it’s made a lot of his writings the subject of much scrutiny, and criticism.
When you say books were written, what do you mean? Books are written about many topics, and often they are unsubstantiated. Do you have any actual titles or authors to share with me?
I have to say that after 40 years of being a Christian, and studying and reading untold books relating to theology, I have never heard, before this thread, that the Gospel writers didn’t see eye to eye with Paul regarding salvation. The sole exception, of course, is when Peter was one of many who expressed the need to follow the Law of Moses for salvation, for which he was rebuked by Paul, and for which he himself later repented. And remember that even Peter, in one of the books of the bible he wrote, refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. So at the end of the day, there was no disagreement there.
When I read the Gospels and then read the epistles of Paul, it all flows together quite seamlessly for me.
James,
The emphasis on Paul’s theology of atonement was heavily placed by writers such as St Augustine (to whom we often credit the full elaboration of the concept now known as “original sin”).
I’m not familiar the idea that Peter “repented” after being rebuked (although I’m aware Paul criticized him, and that Peter did commend Paul for the complexity of his teachings in 1 Peter).
What is frequently taught is that there was a disagreement in the early church between the Judeo-Christians (who referred to themselves as Jews) and the Gentle-Christians led by Paul. This disagreement was hinted at when followers of James began attending Paul’s meetings, and in the writings of Paul himself when he said that some men had aligned themselves with Peter singularly, others with Jesus singularly, etc., which was breaking the church into various factions.
I would encourage you to check out the writings of Hyam Maccoby. His understanding of the theological and historical constructs (all well-researched and cited ad infinitum) during this is period of time is quite solid. Maimonides, a rabbi from the 1100s who actually shares similar intellectual conclusions with Paul (although Maimonides himself was devoutly Jewish) is another great source of information and analysis of early Christian thought.
Blessings!
The differences in message and tone between the Gospel accounts and Paul’s letters could not be more varied – or more extreme.
So, in some very broad strokes….
Take the setting for example. The Gospels take place in the villages and dusty roads of occupied Israel with the rare visit to Jerusalem. Jesus and the disciples were mocked for their unsophistication and lack of education.
The Gospel writers focused on the (literally) walking ministry of Jesus. The popular saying “What would Jesus do?” only makes sense in the Gospel setting.
Paul, on the other hand was a pharisee, well educated, urban and multi-lingual.
Immediately after Paul’s “conversion” he went to Arabia (!) (Galations 1:17) and didn’t meet with Peter for three years. And then not again for fourteen years (!)(Galations 2:1).
Paul’s relationship with Peter was distant at best and their theological confrontations are legendary.
Paul traveled (without disciples) by ship and spent his time in the secular urban centers.
The Gospel accounts, for the most part, end with the cross. Paul’s theology BEGINS with the cross. Paul writes of sanctification and justification – terms inconceivable to the Gospel writers.
There is much more, but to keep it relatively simple, the Gospels presents Jesus in his humanity while Paul’s emphasis is on the divine (substitutionary) work of Jesus the Messiah.
I agree with Morf on this one. One of my teachers has told me that “Pauline Christianity” focuses too much on suffering and the cross whereas according to the Gospels Jesus really only had one bad day.
Morf and Ryan:
There is no disagreement here that Paul’s writing and that of the Gospels is different in tone, because, as Morf points out, they are coming from two different points in time. However, that doesn’t mean they are in conflict with one another, especially regarding salvation.
All of Scripture was written by one Author, and it flows together with no conflicts. How could it differ from itself?
BTW, Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. Thinking of this in context, and of who Peter was and his background, this is a huge thing for him to say. It seems to me that regardless of their earlier difference of opinion, they were clearly on the same page eventually.
James:
You’re writing your arguments based on a conclusion you reached 40 years ago. As such, it’s hard for you to “come down” off the mountain of your eldership to engage real questions deeply rooted in a study of religious history, and their implications. You can argue as always that the scriptures are perfect because you believe they are (and have been affirmed in your beliefs by leadership and peers) and you can insulate your ideas with details you accumulate as time passes (throwing out contradictory or inflammatory notions as you go along), but this frustrates any attempts to engage you in a sophisticated, intelligent analysis of the rift between the Jerusalem church and the ever-controversial Apostle Paul in the arena of historical reality.
Ironically, in pointing out that Paul rebuked Peter, you failed to acknowledge that Paul later amended his accusations and adopted a principle similar to that of Peter’s own. This was pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI in a dissertation last year. His theory is sound, and well-cited. Feel free to explore the text of the analysis itself here, with links to scriptural references and their own individual dissections: http://www.kandle.ie/2008/10/02/paul-peter-conflict-dialogue/
John, I think you have me pegged incorrectly. My almost 40 years as a Christian have not placed me in a vaccuum. I understand the importance of research and am aware that new information comes forth every day. Heck, I have a B.A. in History, so I better get that.
But my stance that Scripture is infallible and self-affirming is not just because I am influenced by what others tell me to believe. I see it reinforced by every reading of Scripture.
I cannot count the number of times I have read some passage in which God tells us the importance of handling His word correctly, or the fact that it will stand forever and never fade away. One cannot read the vast number of such statements without coming to the conclusion that it must be really important to God to keep His written word intact. And if it’s important to Him, then He’s not likely to slack off and let some mere human keep us from having an intact canon of Scripture to live by. It would be completely inconsistent with who He is and what He has repeatedly stated.
As for Peter/Paul, I reiterate: Scripture is the foundation of all that I believe. If Scripture (a)shows no conflict between what the Gospel Writers and Disciples describe about salvation, and (b)shows that Peter and Paul disagreed about something, but came to agreement to the point that Peter actually refers to Paul’s writing as Scripture, then I am convinced.
Reboot: All of this subthread started with a statement about how the Gospel writers had a different take on salvation than Paul did, and I still haven’t seen anyone show me an example of this.
For myself, many more problems arise when we deal with God corporately. Individualy, He and I have a private relationship. There are no politics, no fingers pointed, no names called, no becoming one of/denying myself as part of a group identity relating to God. This is why, for me, while it’s good to fellowship with others, I don’t need or desire to live in their back pockets. Because at the day of judgment, I believe I stand alone, as does, I believe, everyone else. So I don’t need to be swept up in owning a piece of the communal God and wearing that on my sleeve. Me and Him. It’s good.
Peg,
I agree that the more problems arise when we deal with God corporately, but unfortunately (in some ways) that’s the only way we have to deal with him. God revealed himself to a people (the israelites) and continues to work through a people (the church). While we may be judged individually on judgement day, an individual cannot hope to live as if it is only he or she and God.
The only real differences between the writers of the Gospels and the Apostle Paul are imagined by those who don’t agree (or don’t like) the Biblical doctrine of the atonement.
That’s not true, Eugene. Even the Catholic church, in all their conservatism, teaches that the Judeo-Christians led by Peter, James, and John were unsure of, not only the concept of atonement, but Paul’s largely Gentile regime as a whole. For a time, it’s understood that Paul worked independent of the Mother Church in Jerusalem, at the wishes of the 12 apostles. If we’re going to argue with the author of this post, then let’s at least check our facts before supposing that criticisms pointed out are simply imagined by those who “don’t like the Biblical doctrine of the atonement.” I guarantee you anyone who doesn’t like that doctrine would be more inclined to accept it if those who purported its truth don’t ignore the historical roots of its inception.
Just wanted to quickly point out that the links for everything except the farse sites of “God Hates Shrimp” and “God Hates Figs” are tied to Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptist Church. This is indeed a small segment of the Christian population, and one that not even evangelistic atheists believe is common of Christians as a whole (see Christopher Hutchinson’s latest comments on the “religious right”, they’re surprising: http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/pagenum/all/).
[This comment had an accidental and confusing cut and paste issue. It is now fixed, so comments regarding its confusion were also deleted. Thanks!]
It is difficult to believe that God’s love is actually stronger than all of our combined fears of things getting out of our control. What does one do with the idea that Jesus says all come to the Father through Him, but He defines Himself not always as a name but as Truth and Light? Not quite as tangible. Are we saved because we happened upon the right theology or were born to the right parents in the right time and place? What do we do with the idea that Jesus is the one who will be the final judge and He will judge mercifully and with full knowledge of the heart of each individual? These are biblical ideas way beyond our control/understanding. Are we boxing God in when we say we know the answers to whose religion is “in” and whose is “out”? Is it possible that an intentional turn from darkness to say yes to the Light, having never heard the spoken name of Jesus, could be a salvation experience?
Thank you for this article. We often make God so small by believing that we know His mystery. As human beings, we long for definitive answers to prove our God and our ideas about Him. If He operated that way, things would have gone down a lot different with Satan in the desert.
Cody Bonnet, from As Cities Burn wrote a song about this:
” Is your god really God? is my god really God? I think our god isn’t God if He fits inside our heads”.
These lines have really helped and humbled me when I become prejudice about who God truly loves. I have to remind myself that I am human just like everyone else. Sometimes I have to remind myself that everyone else is human as well.
The Westboro Hate Group (they stand far from what the baptist church believes) announce that they were going to picket at my school during The Laramie Project, a play about the death of matthew shepard who was murdered for being gay. When It came to the time of the show, NO ONE came to picket. None of the area churches would support it. Hatred is not the monster lurking within us, its the sinfulness that we have been emdracing for all our lives.
Thank you for sharing this Morf, it was a pleasure to read.
Vicki