The two met in middle school and have remained friends since.  Fiona is a practicing Catholic, and Ellen considers herself an atheist.

Fiona reports:

To summarize our Jonah Project conversation in one sentence, I would say this: our differing religious views impact the lens we look at the world through, but in many cases don’t impact the way we live our lives.  In addition, we agreed that religion is only good if it’s truly understood and lived out by an individual and not used as a qualification or a way to belong to something. It should be a personal reflection and journey, regardless of the faith or lack thereof.

I view my purpose in life to follow God’s plan for me to and to strive to be holy in my everyday life.  What does that mean for me?  It means that I use prayer as a way to get more in touch with what God’s plan for me is, I make decisions based off more than just what would make me happy at any given moment, and that I treat every person I meet with dignity and love.  Ellen views her purpose in life to fully live life and to feel fulfillment.  She gets this fulfillment through interacting with other people, experiencing different things, and impacting people/society in a positive way.  I call some things miracles, and she calls them coincidences.  I see God’s plan, and she sees her own plan.  In many ways, these aren’t that different – we’re both striving to be good people, to be in community with others, and to help the people around us.  What differs is the root of what drives us to that.

It comes down to the fact that there can be amazing people who consider themselves atheists, and terrible people who consider themselves religious.  There are a lot of people in the world who consider themselves religious, but use it as a label or a way to belong to a group.  They don’t fully take the time to study their beliefs, they don’t understand why believe it, and often despite not understanding it they use it to judge others.  There was a line in the book which talked about being “educated beyond obedience”, which really really scared both of us.  Blind faith is often more dangerous than no faith.  Both Ellen and I, despite coming to different conclusions, have spent considerable time thinking and learning about faith, and we can both give reasons for our choice.

Overall, I really enjoyed the fact that in a conversation between an atheist and a Catholic, our biggest disagreement was the fact that I would call things miracles and God’s plan, and she would call them coincidences or scientifically explicable.  If that’s all we disagree on, there’s a lot of common ground to work on.  Ultimately, Ellen and I will never see eye to eye on religion, but we both have a lot of respect for the other’s beliefs and enjoy discussing both the things we agree on and those we disagree on.

During college, Justin – who was Matthew’s RA at the time – came out of the closet.  Matthew, a self-described evangelical Christian, has been “unsure about how to integrate my faith in conversations and actions with him” ever since.

They chatted over Skype about Biblical infallibility, creationism, homosexuality, and salvation, and even managed to find some common ground.

Their (slightly abridged conversation) is after the jump:

Justin: alrighty and here we go

Justin: well i think some of the topics i would like to discuss are:

Justin: homosexuality

Justin: new earth creationism

Justin: the general attitude of the students

Matthew: yeah … I’m good to dig into all of that.

Justin: well which would you like to tackle first?

Matthew: Maybe just the student attitudes

Justin: ok sure

Student attitudes at Liberty:

Justin: well i guess i was really surprised by how they weren’t “God God God” all the time

Justin: well to a degree at least

Matthew: Yeah

Matthew: But they still had a “you’re in” or “you’re out” kind of view.

Matthew: Like they really wanted to know if a person was “saved” upon first meeting them

Justin: ya totally. the author illustrated one of my own personal views a couple times on that topic as well

Matthew: Maybe what got me, was the infallibility of the bible.

Matthew: That came out odd.

Justin: but they aren’t the only religion that sees that completely

Justin: i know a lot of people of many religions that see the bible as infallible

Matthew: Infallibility as in, there is only one interpretation.

Justin: the literal one?

Matthew: yes

Justin: do you not see it that way?

Matthew: As literal?

Justin: ya or infallible

Justin: when it comes to the Bible, unfortunately it is used as a weapon by too many people

Justin: any one person can pick and choose any quotes to benefit their cause/case

Matthew: I think the bible speaks truth.  And it’s far more complex than what a human brain can dissect.  So, when a person uses it as a weapon they might be using it incorrectly.

Creationism:

Justin: ok so creationism… what would be your stance?

Matthew: So, with creationism … It didn’t make me sad that they were talking about literal 7 day creation.  What made me sad is the indoctrination instead of critical thinking.  Students were only fed one method and not allowed to understand other ideas behind creation and form their own views.

Matthew: Maybe they knew that coming into the college.

Justin: possibly

Justin: aristotle once said, “Question everything”

Justin: i fully believe that

Matthew: I think it’s important to ask questions … go aristotle!

Justin: but then again i have never been the best at “blind faith” which is what these kids fully had

Matthew: Well, the whole idea of faith is just that … faith.  You can’t have proof … you just have to trust.

Justin: one major major problem i had with their theory:

Justin: why were the 7 days converted to 7000 years until the rapture but the first 7 days were just that to them: 7 literal days. i guess why can they apply it to one but not the other

Justin: face!

Matthew: Yeah … I remember reading that and was asking the same question.

Justin: see my mom is a creationist.

Matthew: does that bother or confuse you?

Justin: she doesn’t believe the 6000 year old theory but she also thinks that every species is exactly the way it is a long time ago

Matthew: Can I ask about your thoughts on that?

Justin: i see both sides

Matthew: I’m not certain about the actual method of creation …  If all is the same, if it evolved, or something in between.  But I can’t figure out how this exists without a creator

Justin: i dont understand chemistry really… or how things are made lol

Matthew: OK … I’m feeling a new topic.

Justin: lol ok

Justin: what’s next… or left

Matthew: you choose

Justin: welll i think my big topics were mostly covered…

Justin: ya the 4 i mentioned were

Matthew: Did we cover Homosexuality enough for you?  IDK … it seemed like it was just touched.

Matthew: OK I still have a question about that …

Justin: shoot

Homosexuality:

Matthew: What were your thoughts on the verbiage of “same sex attraction” v. “Gay” … essentially getting at the point of this being something that can be overcome v. just a part of who you are.

Justin: which is a common idea among people who are ignorant of what its like to go through it

Justin: i know i have told you its not a choice and that’s the one thing that i would want people to know at least

Justin: i can honestly say if i had a choice i would be straight

Matthew: Don’t tell your BF that!

Justin: do you think i changed as a person when you found out i was gay? did your opinion of my character change? honestly.

Matthew: Nope … you maintained same-ness*.  … What’s difficult is that so often people think you can be gay or Christian, but not both.  So, when you came out, I saw you as turning away from your religious beliefs.  So that’s where the “*” comes in.  Yes you were the same, but I believed you were a follower of Christ, and then it hit me in the face.

Justin: well i can say i had my difficulties with christ without the topic of homosexuality being part of it

Justin: i am still young and working on my beliefs and would have said the same thing before you knew. idk if you had asked lol

Justin: one day i hope to fully understand what i believe but i think i have more to experience before i am meant to

Matthew: Hmmm … OK … still just wrapping my head around it.

Justin: i honestly think i believe in a God who loves unconditionally

Matthew: We agree

Justin: and when it comes down to it i think God will see our hearts and our thoughts without filters and ask us (because of the free will he gave us) if we want to be saved

Justin: i more than anything believe that he would never create anyone just to condemn them

Matthew: One of the big things I’ve gathered in studying the bible is that God wants us to be close to Him.  When we put anything before God that’s not good.  So we should be trying to grow a relationship with Him at all times.  I think that will look differently for different people.  I think the just “be good to your neighbor” (aka, live with respect and love) will work when those actions are first directed toward God.

Matthew: That might not make sense.

Justin: no i get what you mean

The afterlife:

Justin: peter pan said it best, “to die would be an awfully big adventure”

Matthew: Hmmm … I’m kinda thrilled for it.

Matthew: Yes!

Justin: i mean how great will it be to have the answers finally?

Justin: annnd

Justin: if we are completely wrong and there is nothing (my agnostic side) i am glad that my life still benefited those around me and i think i have been a good person

Matthew: That’s cool (strange) for people who have so much yet to figure out we are both confident and excited about getting the answers.  Not fearful of potential punishment.

Justin: so even if there is nothing i would be happy with what i have done. and if there is! damn boy! hahah that’ll be amazing

Justin: i guess i am kinda arrogant in the fact that i don’t see myself in that punishment

Justin: ok i see it this way

Matthew: Do you think some people will face punishment?

Matthew: sorry … finish your thought then answer the question

Matthew: please:)

Justin: if i can see the good, however miniscule, in the worst people, and i truly truly do try, allowing everyone to retain their dignity, then i know God can see it. do i think some people will have punishment? I don’t know. i really hope not. i really hope that everyone will see their wrongs when they die and God will welcome them if it comes to it. unfortunately i think some people will still deny him face to face.

Justin: all speculation.

Matthew: That’s interesting … it sounds to me like, the God you are describing allows a person to confess/convert/get right with God after an earthly death.  But I’m fairly certain evangelicals/Christians would believe that’s all got to be squared away before death and meeting God.  It is only upon meeting God that the judgment/grace is given.  I like the sounds of what you describe, but I don’t know the truth.

Justin: i guess it all comes down to your perception of God.

Matthew: Yeah … and I’m glad I’ve gotten this little view of yours!

Justin: i guess i see god as all-loving, and forgiving if you want it.

Justin: i cannot really picture a god being mean like that lol

Justin: he’s not human… he doesn’t hold grudges…

Justin: well “my god”

Justin: haha

Justin:

Matthew: Yes … I think that’s the big challenge … organized religion is doing the judging and keeping people out.  I’ll have to talk to my Christian leaders and try to get all of us to stop judging.  Then without judgment there will be no “in” or “out”.

Justin: i have my beliefs and am willing to share them but would be hesitant to push them on others because if i am wrong i wouldn’t want to condemn others

Justin: i guess i just don’t think its right for people to say who’s right and wrong

Matthew: Liberty … all B&W, no grey.

Justin: if you think you are “saved” personally like in the book, then i am happy you find it yourself, i just hope that the people next to you didn’t decide if you were or not for you

Matthew: Yes

Justin: its ultimately between you and God.

Matthew: double yes

Justin: no matter what everyone else says you will face god alone

Justin: and i see that as exciting

Matthew: OK … I think I need a little chill brain time.

Justin: me too

Justin: it hurts! i havent been in school for a long time, im out of practice

Like what you see?  Start your own Jonah Project.

Ewan and Andrew Park are brothers who were raised in a secular family.

When Ewan (left, red shirt) was 17, he became a Christian. Andrew (right, brown shirt) has remained secular, recently writing a book about his struggle over whether to take his young children to church, Between a Church and a Hard Place: One Faith-Free Dad’s Struggle to Understand What It Means to Be Religious (Or Not).

Their family was not always secular. In 1911, in a small eight-sided tabernacle he built some years earlier, their great-grandfather Julius Culbreth helped found a new denomination, the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. Though Ewan and Andrew were not raised Pentecostal, they grew up with an admiration for the faith and leadership Grandpa Julius had shown.

So the two brothers decided to meet at the “Octagon Tabernacle” in the little town of Falcon, N.C. to discuss their reactions to The Unlikely Disciple.

I loved this video.  I was especially glad that Andrew, the secular brother, found the Liberty students in the book somewhat sympathetic.  That discussion begins at around 5:00 in the video, but the whole thing is worth watching.  Thanks to Ewan and Andrew (whose website is here) for pulling it off.

Start your own Jonah Project.

Bryce (left)  is a recent graduate of Calvary Bible College, and a self-described conservative Christian.

Cory is a Christian, too, but considers himself politically and religiously moderate.  (He voted for Obama.)

The two have never met, but they’ve been having religion-themed discussions online for several years, culminating in the Facebook group they started in order to document their Jonah Project.  (The group can be found here.)

Cory entered the fray with this:

Conservatives and liberals will read this book quite differently. Presumably, the liberal reader will share many of Roose’s surprised reactions, reacting with “Wow! People actually believe THAT!” The conservative reader may wonder why Roose is so shocked by some behavior he witnesses. Furthermore, many conservative Christians may find it quite tragic that Roose never seems to experience any actual conversion or “salvation.” They may think, how can someone actually participate in evangelism, as Kevin Roose did in Florida, and not “make a decision for Christ” himself?

I, on the other hand, was impressed by Kevin’s changes in his lifestyle. He often wrote of how much he changed his daily habits: he was healthier, he developed a habit of prayer, he saw those with strong beliefs in a very different light. His experience with dating, in particular, was revelatory; he learned that a more conservative approach to interaction with the opposite sex had some very real advantages over the more secular approach.

I am definitely not the world’s biggest fan of Jerry Falwell. But I must admit to having gained a bit more appreciation of his role in the world of evangelicalism, after reading this book. Like Kevin Roose, I would have to say that I disagreed with the majority of things I heard Falwell say, and yet, I can respect his great charisma and his mission to provide evangelical students with a high quality education.

Bryce’s take:

My feelings on this book: It was definitely a good read. Very down to earth. Reminded me in some ways of my time at Calvary. Good thing for Kevin Roose to go to Liberty and see what conservative Christians were really like. I daresay, though, I wish that Kevin’s time at Liberty would have brought him to trust in Christ.

And I find it disturbing that the school would have a museum dedicated to the life of Jerry Falwell. I would be very suspicious of a school like that. I probably would not have gone to Calvary if they had had a museum dedicated to their founder or their current president. Smacks too much of “personality cult”.

To which Cory replied:

Even though I came at the book from a slightly more liberal position (having gone to secular universities), I actually shared a bit of your concern about Roose’s “trust in Christ.” To put it a different way, whereas it seemed to me that Kevin changed his attitude about Liberty and about Christian faith, I kept wondering if he would also change his heart. I believe his commitment to journalistic integrity may have kept him in a more objective frame of mind, though.

Regarding your comment on the cult of personality, though, I think you and Roose would agree on much of that topic. He showed quite vividly in the book how Falwell’s presence impacts Liberty students, both before his death and after. Is that ever appropriate for a Christian institution? I think not, but I think it’s a common problem for Christian colleges and large churches, wherever you have a large group founded or led by a charismatic personality.

Start your own Jonah Project.

Mike is Kyle’s stepfather.  He “believes in God, but not Jesus,” and he doesn’t attend church regularly.

In a Jonah Project first, Kyle and Mike submitted the raw audio from their conversation.  It’s 8:37 of brilliance.

I particularly loved the conclusion they came to about 5 minutes in: ”Be tolerant, be kind.”

More gems in the audio.

Frank (left) is a 45 year-old literature professor at a community college.  He is a married Evangelical Christian living in the largely secular northeast.

Bob (right) is a 49 year-old retail manager.  He is single, a confirmed atheist, a member of the ACLU, and lives in the largely Evangelical Christian south.

They applied for the Jonah Project with one question: “Can two spiritually dissonant men share a reading experience without driving each other crazy?”

Their discussion of The Unlikely Disciple ran to more than 5,000 words – a Harper’s-sized exploration of cultural difference – so I decided to print an abridged version below and make their full discussion available as a PDF, which you can download here.

Trust me, it’s worth 10 minutes of your time.

In the full exchange, you’ll get to see Frank and Bob discuss “X,” “Y,” and “Z,”  friends of theirs who are particularly zealous about their faith.  And you’ll get to read the genuine, candid musings of two longtime friends who haven’t let political and religious disagreements get in the way of their relationship.  It’s a great example for the rest of us.

Here are two excerpts from their e-mail exchange:

Dear Frank,

After reading The Unlikely Disciple, I guess the foremost thoughts in my mind are my deep distrust of the institution and an equally ambivalent opinion of the students that go there.  I do not agree with Falwell’s attempts (all too successful) to politicize the evangelical movement.  Allying with Conservative Republicans has helped to create the current poisonous political atmosphere and to political paralysis, but it hasn’t attained any of the goals that Evangelicals had hoped that involvement in the political process would advance.  Abortion is still legal and likely to remain so, homosexuals are gaining more rights, and Darwinism is still taught in schools (although Creationism is being given more attention, public schools are still secular).  Political power for Evangelicals has not led to social change and hasn’t even brought converts to the faith.

I was disturbed by the level of animosity towards homosexuals at the school.  The students were bad enough, but to see anti-homosexual bigotry institutionalized by the school itself was disturbing.  The animosity towards Darwinism and abortion were just as bad.  The problem is that this school is not only imparting knowledge to these kids, they’re also shaping their values, and promoting absolutist doctrines such as ‘Abortion is murder’, ‘Evolution didn’t happen’, and ‘Absolute truth exists’ only serves to close the mind to any kind of reasoned arguments and makes it difficult to find middle ground with those with different religious beliefs or none at all.

However, I was heartened by the fact that the student body at Liberty was not as monolithic as the school board would like to believe.  Most of the students that Kevin Roose met seemed to be decent people, and many of them expressed discomfort with the school’s mission.  It would be interesting to see how these people fare in life after graduation.  Does their doubt enable them to entertain other points of view, or do they simply follow what their education has taught them?  Remember, these are not just students; they’re our future political and business leaders and will be occupying positions of power.

I have an issue with universities that prioritize spiritual needs over physical ones to the point where Falwell can say with a straight face that ‘what the developing world needs is not food or water, but the word of God.’  Combined with Liberty’s goal of contributing to the political process, this can have far-reaching consequences for future public policy.

The book has in a way only intensified my ambiguous feelings about people of faith.  I have always found it ironic that although I myself am an unapologetic atheist, my two best friends from childhood are Born-again Christians.  I think that if there’s a way to find common ground for evangelicals and non-believers (not to mention people of other faiths), we need to de-politicize religion and make it less activist.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Thank you for the length and depth of your first salvo and the expressions of friendship.  Both are very much appreciated.  I consider you my closest friend, although I must admit the incongruity of our worldviews makes me reluctant to discuss certain aspects of my life as fully as I might sometimes wish.

Although I am not really surprised, I was saddened to learn The Unlikely Disciple has “only intensified (your) ambiguous feelings about people of faith.”  Although I believe Kevin Roose presented an honest and balanced account of his experiences at Liberty, the very nature of the school requires the instructors and students to be inclined toward a certain extreme form of belief.  Most Christian parents do not send their offspring off to Christian colleges or universities.  The ones who choose Liberty are obviously hoping to send their children into a cloistered environment where they will be protected against what they perceive as the postmodern and overtly secular (if not downright hostile) agenda and environment typical of most centers of higher education.

Incidentally, I also must challenge your depiction of yourself as an atheist.  I have known you for more than a quarter of a century, and while you are certainly not the sort of person who will readily place faith in an invisible and intangible God, you are too open-minded and curious to conclusively deny even the possibility that a conscious creative entity gave form to the universe.  I see you as a particularly skeptical agnostic.

Perhaps it is Christian charity on my part, but I see the underlying motives behind some of Jerry Falwell’s seemingly outlandish comments as generally well-intentioned.  Let us use the one you mention, for example, “what the developing world needs is not food or water, but the word of God.”  On the surface, I agree this makes little sense.  When people are dying of thirst and starvation, someone preaching at them is a spectacularly poor solution.  But is that what Falwell meant by “the word of God”?  The Bible instructs people to freely give to those in need, to adopt a philosophy where all people are a vast brotherhood and children are particularly to be prized, cared for and instructed wisely.  Treating others as you would be treated is the ideal of Christian thought.  The underlying political corruption of some governments, institutions and organizations makes the distribution of aid supplies uneven in these impoverished areas.  Greed and favoritism run rampant and people starve.  Some of our church missionaries have seen this firsthand.  If only these people, both the leaders and the starving, truly lived by “the word of God” this would not be the case.  Falwell was almost certainly calling for social and moral reform, not speaking out of callous bigotry in this instance.

I do not agree with Evangelicals forcing their beliefs on others, via political means or otherwise.  Although these activists may believe they are acting for others’ own good, people should ultimately have the right to live and believe as they choose.  To echo a certain famous document, these are among the inalienable rights bestowed by their Creator.

How do I conclude our exchange without stating the obvious truth?  We have a world and a country peopled with citizens of disparate beliefs on many issues of faith.  As long as people have different worldviews they will always clash at certain stress points.  For all of our lip service regarding individual rights and freedoms for all, somewhere deep down I suspect we each believe our view is the best and wish the world worked that way.  Your world would operate only according to the fixed criteria of demonstrable physical laws and accepted science.  Mine would add the elements of hope, praise and gratitude for the truly infinite wonders created by a unified creative force.  And those yet to come.

Someday we will each have an answer.  Until then, my prayer for humanity is that we learn to tolerate each other as best we can, find interest in the kaleidoscopic diversity, constantly challenge and refine the reasoning behind our own beliefs, and respect each other’s right to live fully and harmoniously on this mutual journey of exploration.  In other words, do the best we can.

Frank

Daniel (left) has since become a secular humanist who aligns himself with the political far-left.  ”I see the world as filled with a dramatic secular struggle for survival,” he writes.

Ben (right) remained an evangelical and now lives in Detroit, where he attends a conservative seminary and works as a pastoral assistant.  ”[Ben] is one of the most intelligent and well spoken people that I know, which is part of my frustration with his continued choices in life,” writes Daniel.

The two signed up for the Jonah Project together hoping to have an “open conversation in a moderated environment” and discussed their experiences in a series of e-mails, summarized here.

Daniel:

Our discussion through the emails has been wonderful and refreshing.

We have touched on topics such as historical evangelicalism versus modern and post-modern developments in the church and Christianity. We have discussed changes in my life and the role of logic and emotion in life. I think we have both found significant common ground but also perhaps realized more dramatically then I expect that we can honestly and deeply disagree and still continue to speak respectfully and with love to one another.

We also have seen that it is possible to deal with issues such as absolute truth and doubt and realized that we are both struggling with them in our own way. I believe that a significant issue for us is to communicate honestly with one another over written emails, and we have learned that it can be a real struggle but also a real joy to communicate through writing.

Ben:

This project served as a great way for Daniel and I to both reconnect and interact with a good friend. The nature of our interaction has changed due to the different paths we have taken, but the joy of discussing issues with each other is still very real.

We weren’t sure exactly where our discussion would go or what it would be like, but so far it seems to have flown fairly naturally through key issues related to our personal beliefs/perspectives, the nature of knowledge and truth, and issues related to Christianity and exclusivity. The discussion has been helpful in clarifying ideas and thinking through what drives us at a deeper level. And though we don’t see eye-to-eye on several issues, we realize we can still be friends.

Stereotypes and labels are both practical and damaging things—practical because they develop for a reason and simplify discussion, but damaging because they often are used to disparage, caricature, and demonize other “groups.” Interaction with friends who fall into other “groups” helps to curb the human tendency to view those with whom you disagree as threats.

From an evangelical perspective, it is important to keep in mind that people can accept those with whom they disagree because of the reality of Gospel. If Christians truly embrace the Gospel, then they will view others as fellow image-bearers for whom Christ died, as individuals who may well have greater morality and intelligence than any Christian they know, and as people who therefore deserve love and respect.

If, as the Gospel teaches, God humbled Himself and died for those who were His enemies, how could those who claim to follow Him not give of themselves even for those with whom they find the greatest amount of disagreement?

Andy’s an engineer who works for the military, Karl studies philosophy and espouses pacifism.  On the Myers-Briggs test, Andy is an ISTJ and Karl is an ENFP [ed. – I don't know what that means, but I'm sure it's important.]

Perhaps most importantly, Andy is a conservative Christian while Karl is a liberal theologian.

“We fought a lot, but somehow survived our disagreements,” wrote Karl in their Jonah Project application.  As they talked about The Unlikely Disciple, they found themselves arguing respectfully – once again – about the book’s philosophical assumptions.

Andy:

As you probably know by now, the main goal of Kevin Roose’s semester at Liberty University was to gain a better understanding of evangelical Christians and their worldview. Insofar as he had a *better* understanding of their worldview when he finished, he clearly succeeded. But I could tell by reading the book that he never really managed to put himself into the appropriate point of view to truly understand them.

The problem is that he never really spent much time thinking about epistemology (the study of how we know what we know). His epistemological beliefs are standard secular 20th century beliefs – essentially, stuff about the physical world we live in is known to be true because it was determined in accordance with the scientific method, and he has also embraced axiomatically the political/philosophical positions that are fairly standard for a left-of-center crowd (exact equality of the sexes, “all men created equal,” homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice, etc).

One can tell by reading the book that the thought of embracing a worldview where instead of scientific and political “truths” being axiomatic, religious “truths” are given that status.  This is revealed most clearly when he (finally) allows himself to be critical of Liberty University.

Karl:

Roose’s critique in the pages you cited is about Liberty as an academic institution. He’s going after the school as a credible university, not disagreeing with the epistemology.

Roose claims that by limiting knoweldge, Liberty folks fail to meet one of the necessary conditions for being such an institution. That–not the personal beliefs of the faculty–are his target in those pages.  Of course, the beliefs of the faculty and the ethos institution certainly overlap to some degree.  But how much?

I don’t think we can tell, and thus I think that the target of Roose’s critique is the institution rather than the people in it.

Andy and I agree that LU’s worldview is valid, but he thinks that Roose doesn’t accept it as a viable alternative to secular scientific determinism whereas I think that Roose weighs LU in the balance and finds it wanting. While we didn’t reach an agreement, our conversation was one of the more civilized debates we’ve had, comparatively.  And we managed to include some of our friends in the face to face/phone/Facebook conversation also.

Accordingly, I think that the project was generally successful, even if we lack any conclusions about LU in particular.

Leah is a liberal, feminist vegan who doesn’t vote.  Matt is a ”conservative, patriarchal meat-eater” (Leah’s words) who rocks a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.  She’s a follower of Christ (but (“not religious”) and he’s a fundamentalist Baptist.

Matt and Leah met up at a local coffeehouse to share their thoughts.  Leah summarized the results topic-by-topic.

Going To The Chapel and We’re Gonna Get Married (Gay Marriage)

Surprisingly, Matt is not opposed to gay marriage, though he thinks homosexuality is a sin.  We had this exchange:

Matt: “As long as it doesn’t affect me personally, then I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t see how homosexuality affects me.”
Me: “Oh, really?” (smirk)
Matt: “Well… I mean, except for all of the gay sex I’m having…”
Me: (laughs) “Of course. Except for that.”

Dancin’ in the Streets (Evangelism)

After cringing at the tragic evangelism techniques Kevin learned on his spring break mission trip – like “The Way of the Master” – we both agreed that we’d just wind up partying with the spring breakers.  We also decided that Mardi Gras beads would make great evangelism tracts – scripture verse tags could double as nipple pasties.  Genius, right?

Spare the Rod (Discipline and the Death Penalty)

I’m opposed to both and believe there are more healthy (and less deadly) ways of “correction.”  Matt, however, came up with a very animated comparison of the occasional spanking his kids receive with legal crime and punishment.

Me: “Oh, so you spank your kids for hitting their siblings, so they won’t hit their siblings? Sort of like how we (society) kill people for killing people, so they won’t kill people?… Makes perfect sense.”

Israel and ‘Merica: A Love Story

Somehow we got onto the topic of the rampant belief that Israel can do no wrong, that many Christians have, Matt included.
I am mortified by the Flotilla incident and blockade of Gaza, while Matt views those actions as Israel’s “right.”  Grrrrr…

To Sin or not to Sin?

My biggest frustration is Christianity’s knack for picking a few “sins” (usually individual actions and sexuality) and ignoring the rest (corporate actions and apathy to global awareness). As more of an insider, Matt credits this to the American Christian’s obsession with legality, hoping for moral change through the country’s laws. They believe that abortion is murder, and they don’t want their money supporting it.  I find this amusing, since Christianity is supposed to be about Grace, not the Law.

Overall…

It was a good hour of chitchat. We disagree on 90% of the topics, but in a light-hearted way, proving what I believe to be true: relationship/friendship should always trump religion. People are more valuable than ideas, and blood-pumping hearts are far more useful than agendas.

Michelle is a formerly devout Christian conservative who recently morphed into a self-described “uber-liberal professing Atheist.”

Jen is her evangelical Christian friend.

The two sat down over frappucinos at Barnes & Noble (and continued the discussion at Buffalo Wild Wings) to talk about their differences of opinion on the major socio-political issues of our time.

Michelle’s Jonah Project recap breaks down their conversation by topic, beginning with:

LGBT RIGHTS

In my [Michelle's] opinion, Christians are too hung up on what happens in other peoples’ relationships and sex lives. The male-female model in the Bible was just prototype, and should not be treated as protocol now. The Declaration of Independence said that all people were created equal. Therefore, if straight people have the right to marry, use their marriage status on taxes and insurance, and are able to see their spouse in the hospital and have medial information released to them, so should people in the LGBT community. Also, homosexuality is not a choice. No one would willingly choose a life of rejection and pain for themselves. Straight people didn’t choose to be straight and gay people didn’t choose to be gay. Reparative “ex-gay” therapy does NOT work. It just causes even more hurt and confusion for the person receiving it. In the end, whether it seems it helped or not, that person is still gay.

Jen thinks that acts of homosexuality are wrong – though homosexual feelings in and of themselves are not – and that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.  She believes there should be civil unions and that gay people should have the same rights that straight married couples have (insurance, medical release, etc.). As for ex-gay reparative therapy, she believes it can only work if the person attending is willing or wanting to change, not if they’ve been forced to attend.

ABORTION

While I don’t think I’d ever choose to have an abortion for myself, I believe that the government should have NO right over a woman’s body in this respect. I am pro-choice, all the way. As for promiscuous teenage girls, I used to feel like they should have to “live with their mistake,” but honestly, I’m not so sure about that anymore. Why should a child have to suffer for the mistakes of its parents? If a woman (or girl) wants to abort a pregnancy, it’s her choice.

Jen agrees with me on most of the above. Where we disagree is with promiscuous teenagers. She believes that abortion is not an option for “Oops, I got pregnant” in this respect. She believes that the teen can always give up their child for adoption. She doesn’t believe people should have sex before marriage, because it leaves people open for hurt (sex can sometimes create a stronger relational bond and make a break up more difficult) and STDs. However, she also thinks that teaching abstinence-only birth control is dangerous, and that all forms of birth control should be taught. Jen used to consider herself pro-life, but now identifies as pro-choice.

GLOBAL WARMING

I believe that global warming is real, and I believe that humans had a hand in the decline of our environment. If not, then who or what did? We’re using plastic like it’s going out of style, burn anything and everything, spend tons of money on fuel and other products that pollute the air and the environment. We’re haphazard when it comes to this kind of stuff and it’s killing our living space. Also, stupid “mistakes” like the oil spill aren’t aiding the cleanup of our environment either.

Jen believes that some of the decline of our environment is man made, but some of the other signs of decline are natural decline and repeated weather patterns.

ORIGINS

I cannot get on board with young-Earth Creationism. Honestly, when I was a Christian, I never really did either. I believe the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that scientific facts have backed that up. While I don’t know the specifics of Evolution, I believe it is more possible that we evolved into humans over time and adapted to life, climate, happenings, thoughts, and ideas than it is possible that there is a God that created everything in 6 days, and that was it.

Jen believes that God created the world and everything from the beginning in six days, then rested. However, she confesses she isn’t personally sure about the age of the Earth and isn’t an expert on carbon dating.  She feels carbon dating does seem to be a helpful tool in giving a general idea of how old an object is, however, she has read a few reports and articles that have shown evidence of how fluctuations in environmental factors can create differences in the ages for specimens.  At this point, she is unsure of how much of a difference that makes on the dates being determined.  Overall, she feels that science can line up with old-earth creationist views, but isn’t sure of how it lines up with young-earth views and admits the subject warrants more attention than she has been able to give at this point.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Who says what is good and what is bad? God? And how do you know He thinks that? There are TONS of different translations of the Bible, and any of them can be twisted into something that says some things are good and some things are bad. My belief is that if you’re not physically harming anyone else, do what you want to do and think is a good idea. You’re in control of your own life.

As a Christian, Jen believes that people are saved from their sins if they profess them and believe that Jesus died for them. She believes that without definite wrong, there would be no right, and that there has to be some kind of guidelines for this. Her guidelines are from the Bible. She believes that doing right is honoring God with your thoughts, words and actions.

HEAVEN AND HELL

Personally, I don’t believe in a Heaven and Hell. I believe that when you die, you die. You’re buried and that’s it. And if there is a God, I feel like if he’s so great, He wouldn’t cast someone into hellfire just for not believing in Him. I also find it hard to swallow that people who claim to be Christians yet act like assholes can go to Heaven and good, charitable, loving unbelievers burn in Hell. No, sorry.

Jen believes that people either go to Heaven or Hell, based on whether they have a relationship with Jesus Christ or not. She believes that even though it will be a sorrowful time for God, when he has to send people to Hell, he has to do it, because He said he would.

FEMALE SUBMISSION

I absolutely do NOT subscribe to this belief, and I think it is misogynistic and downright degrading to women. Women can do anything men can do, and sometimes better. The end. Men aren’t exempt from household duties. Especially if the man is a single father.

We completely agree on this subject.  Whenever I get married, because of my personality I wouldn’t mind (and would probably prefer at times) for my husband to take the lead in some situations.  However, that doesn’t mean that it should be a dictatorship.  Decisions should be reached through discussion and compromise, if needed.  And while it is important to honor and show respect to one’s spouse and it isn’t wrong to ask each other to do things, I don’t think men should expect the woman to jump at their every need all the time or expect that she always does certain household duties.  Even though society sometimes tends to view certain jobs as a men jobs (i.e. – house repairs and lawn care) and women jobs (i.e. – dishes and vacuuming), I feel either gender can do them, assuming they have proper knowledge on how to do it, and that it is important to help each other out when needed or make agreements with chores, like taking turns on certain ones that are disliked by both.