Pastor Mike Aus joins Up w/ Chris Hayes to share how he sees the world in a new way after breaking away from his beliefs in religious doctrines.
Weigh in on comments below:
Joe Murphy CA: I also was a pastor for 30 plus years in the United Church of Christ, a liberal protestant denomination. My belief system moved from a liberal Christianity to an embrace of process theology to atheism. I appreciated this whole show, and certainly understand how one who spends so much time thinking about faith could end up as an atheist. Thanks to Chris Hayes for an excellent show.
Leave a Comment:
I also was a pastor for 30 plus years in the United Church of Christ, a liberal protestant denomination. My belief system moved from a liberal Christianity to an embrace of process theology to atheism. I appreciated this whole show, and certainly understand how one who spends so much time thinking about faith could end up as an atheist. Thanks to Chris Hayes for an excellent show.
Imagine if you were a woman who found out found out that your husband was gay and he'd been hiding it all along and came out to the public without talking to you first.
What Mike Aus has done is not like that.
Imagine that instead that your husband comes out and says that he was never really atracted to you, doesn't really like your personality or who you are and now thinks that heterosexuality is generally disordered and hopes that someday he can convince you to stop being heterosexual.
That's more like what Mike Aus did on this show.
There's nothing wrong with being an atheist. The problem is that increasingly, atheists are having a hard time promoting themselves and their beliefs without arrogantly attacking or diminutizing people that are not atheists.
What if atheists found out there was a website for evangelical christians that secretly hold high level positions in atheist organizations hoping to covertly convince them to question their atheism and subversively convert them to christianity? How would they take it? They'd howl bigotry, of course (and they'd be right)
Mike Aus, your beliefs are your own business. Please leave the people in your church alone and afford them the same freedom of religion you want for yourself.
"without arrogantly attacking or diminutizing people that are not atheists."
To begin with, this is not a one way street. If, say, condemning someone to ETERNAL punishment because he doesn't believe like you is not "attacking and diminutizing" someone, then what is?
Also, If I point out to someone, even someone who believes, that the Easter Bunny doesn't exists, it is not a personal attack. If they feel stupid afterwards, that's really not my problem.
Simply pointing out that religion is no serious explanation or solution to anything is always deemed a personal attack by religionists. It's merely stripping religion of its special status it has enjoyed of being beyond criticism and putting it on the table like anything else.
Your demonizing of Mr. Aus with the use of a strange and unrelated analogy about marriage is absurd. How has he taken away anybodies freedom of religion? He is no threat.
Absurd.
"To begin with, this is not a one way street. If, say, condemning someone to ETERNAL punishment because he doesn't believe like you is not 'attacking and diminutizing' someone, then what is?"
YES. I agree. And that is the #2 thing I despise about the "New Atheist" movement, the assumption that anyone who believes in God is a Bible literalist evangelical. Most people that believe in God are not hateful and do not assume everyone else is going to hell for not believing the same as we do.
There is a reason that pointing out the Easter Bunny is a myth is not an attack. Because the Easter Bunny is unquestionably myth. And there is the #1 thing, I despise about "New Atheists", the wearing of logic as a badge of honor, followed by the lack of any intention to follow the rules of logic. The existence or non-existence of any deities can not be proved one way or the other, and is therefore logically indeterminate. Therefore it would be exactly as foolish for me to say that I can prove the existance of God as it is for you to think you've proved the non-existence of God. The difference is, I don't run around making that claim.
You have FAITH that no deities exist, Albert, because you believe it firmly but have no evidence of it. Yours is no better than mine. It is the insistence that your position is somehow superior that is absurdity, not logic.
Regardless, Mike Aus has a responsibility not to take people's money under false pretenses. He has taken away their freedom of religion because he's been giving them answers that lead them away from their faith in subtext without being straightforward with them about what he is trying to convince them of. People give a great deal of trust to their pastor and he's violated it.
I see of course that you weren't willing to answer my question about how you would feel if the tables were turned.
==>What if atheists found out there was a website for evangelical christians that secretly hold high level positions in atheist organizations hoping to covertly convince them to question their atheism and subversively convert them to christianity? How would they take it? They'd howl bigotry, of course (and they'd be right)<==
Glenn Dewar said:
>>> You have FAITH that no deities exist, Albert, because you believe it firmly but have no evidence of it. Yours is no better than mine.
<<<<<
Factually and logically incorrect. This is the mistake you are making. It's a prime example of the woolly thinking practised by theists.
>>>>>
It is the insistence that your position is somehow superior that is absurdity, not logic.
<<<<<
It *is* superior because it *is* logical. Theists claim the existence of something. So show us the evidence. You have none? So it doesn't exist. That's how existence and evidence works, Glenn, whether it's for little green men, the Loch Ness Monster, the dragon in my garage, or your particular version of the Christian god.
Of course theists apply this evidence-based reasoning when considering every other aspect of their lives, but they are forced to abandon it and change the meaning of the words when it comes to their gods. And they really hate it when atheists point out this lack of consistency.
Glenn, the testimony I heard from Aus was that he came progressively came to his views. So I think your analogy of a "gay husband admitting he was never really attracted to his wife" is not the correct one in his case.
It is a common trope in Christian churches- it certainly is in mine- that faith does not mean absence from doubt. The 40% believing in the world being around 10,000 years old is infiltrated with people who have substantial doubt.
The interesting question to Aus would have been: Given your statements that you progressively let go of certain doctrines of the church, coupled with your statements that you maintained honesty and integrity in the pulpit, how would you have answered the Gallup poll question? The actual text of the question was, "Which statement best fits your beliefs?" 1) 10,000 year old earth 2) Evolution but under God's control 3) Evolution without any intervention by God. Aus could very well have answered #1. Internally he could have said, I have a lot of doubt that the scriptural account is so, but I have faith that it is, so I must give public testimony to my faith, not my doubts.
Getting inside of that cognitive dissonance would have been illuminating to progressives. There is a whole series of missed opportunities along this line of exploration with Aus. (Following up on the social structure question- He could have been asked if he might continue is spiritual work who minister to atheists and agnostics as another poster suggested that Unitarian Universalist churches might fill.
I infer the shows intent was to focus on atheism itself and that is perfectly legitimate. What I object to is the monochromatic nature with which the discussion was oriented. People who write about this subject are correlated with those who have formed consistent positions. Their portrayal of the decision is binary- either you do or you don't believe in God. The general public lives in a world where atheism is a concept that competes for attention. Aus was an excellent instance of that "double think" state of mind.
This offered a good opportunity about getting inside Aus's head about the workings of that competition that atheism faced. How did public policies and political controversies interact with that competition in his mind? Huge set of questions there.
None asked. Too bad.
Atheist can't help it that christians feel threatened by them. This is the victim game: "ooh, I feel attacked and diminuitized, therefore you are not allowed to speak". The truth is, it's the things believers believe that make them so afraid all the time. And as for arrogance: I'm sorry, man, but fact is that believers are just plain wrong about God, and there's no layer of sugar-coat sweet enough to cover the fact that I am sure that you are deeply wrong about something that is very important to you.
Look: just imagine a Muslim saying that christians who say that Mohammed was not a prophet of god are "arrogant". See what I'm getting at?
-
I don't understand your comparison of a genetic characteristic such as sexuality and choice or understanding of religion as some sort of betrayal.
Religion is a social activity. Atheism is not; at least to my understanding. Proselytizing is sales or religious "speech"; disinterest isn't required to have speech, although people are as free to express their lack of religion as they are to talk about their religion.
How was Mike Aus effecting the people in his church? I only heard him talking about his own thoughts and his willingness to discuss them with others. His discoveries may effect his employment, but I doubt it will personally effect the people in his church.
I guess we could close the circle by pointing out that the fact that gay people have an inherent civil right to join in life and property with others of the same sexual preference has zero effect on anyone outside of their relationship. It's personal. They're free citizens.
The religious seem to have a misunderstanding of what freedom actually means.
Auntie, I think of you being fair minded. You didn't mean "any religious person"- you left off the qualifier, right? You meant something like fundamentalists (including Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish) or those advocating the state not be neutral on religion. Right?
Or did you really mean just that? Does the Dalai Lama have this misunderstanding of what freedom because he is religious? You have read many posts of mine. Do you think I have this misunderstanding? If so, could you please elaborate.
He has hurt more people than we will ever know.
Because of his turning towards atheism?
On the contrary, perhaps he is on a path of realization that he had made scripture into a false God and worshiped it rather than embracing the living Word. The profoundly religious Christian and non-Christian understand the Word is much more than literalistic words. Aus may find his way back to a deeper understanding of the inspired word of God, or he may find a pathway that makes no reference to those particular ways of understanding the entity we Christians refer to as God. But as far as I'm concerned, he has taken a big step towards God, not away from him, because he has stepped away from idolatry.
Athiesm has nothing to do with it. Pistis and I know this guy personally, John.
I think "Pastor" Mike Aus' opinions may come from more than just reading the books of the featured guests on UP. He failed to mention being fired from his previous church for having affairs with multiple women. I think maybe this might play into his skepticism and loss of faith along with many other issues. He was a wonderful teacher and extremely good speaker. I'm sure he can make anyone believe he came to his current status logically. He has now decimated two congregations with his behavior. One has to question his motives. I see a book on the horizon.
Pistis is accurate in MR Aus's past (I will no longer call him Pastor). The guy was one of the best speakers and teachers I had ever seen. Yes the local synod was investigating him because of alleged sexual misconduct. He chose to step down and resign from the church and the ELCA rather than let the investigation go forward. I was a big supporter of his and was even sympathetic during his resignation but this tears it. The guy is a charlatan and a huckster. He has emormous talent and has chosen to squander it. Sad.
If Mike engaged in "sexual misconduct", it would be no surprise. Sexual scandals and Christianity go together like cookies and milk. I attended the convention at which Mike came out, and I heard his courageous and honest talk. I also heard other speakers, including Darrel Ray, who discussed how the sex-negative messages and sexual repression taught by Christianity frequently CAUSE such sexual conduct. I suggest that you read Dr. Ray's book, "Sex and God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality" and gain some insight.
I have all the insight I need Victoria. I knew this guy for 11 years. You will notice the use of the word "ALLEGED." BTW, religion doesn't exactly have a lock on sexual scandal. To follow your thinking politics seems to cause it too.
Any position that involves holding power over people tends to result in sexual shenanigans. These men are targets, because any woman that marries the head pastor is automatically boss of all the other women. We are all just apes, you know.
CRWRE. 1) Religious people often have closed minds. Since you feel that you already have all of the insight that you need, you seem unwilling to consider that you might learn something by reading Dr. Ray's book. I know that I learned a lot from reading it. 2) "If Mike engaged in" means "alleged" in my mind. I did not judge or mean to state that Mike had actually done anything. 3) I did not say that sexual scandals and pastors/priests/preachers go together. I said that sexual scandals and Christianity go together. I am speaking of a whole culture which is permeated by Christian ideas about sex, sexuality, and gender. It is more informative to see the relationship between the religiosity of a person and their sexual behavior, be they pastor or politician or factory worker. 4) I think that you feel personally betrayed by a former friend and a formerly respected pastor. You seem to be reacting in anger towards Mike, rather than trying to see his point of view. Mike is the same man now that he always was. I'm sorry to hear you turn on him, and call him a "charlatan and a huckster". When people come out, they often face this kind of anger and rejection. Does Mike really deserve this from you? Does anyone deserve being attacked for being honest, or for changing some of their beliefs? This type of social behavior is meant to keep people within a group, and within a mind-set. Too often, this works.
Victoria123, sounds like you may know Mike too......There is so much more to this. CRWIRE has his finger on the truth. This man is looking for his next big thing. And just like the two congregations that have now been hurt by this man you too will be hurt if you choose to follow. I pray for Mr. Aus I will continue to pray to a merciful and gracious God for this man and all the people on this earth that he has hurt. When Mike Aus is truthful with himself and others about his reality only then can anything about what he has done or said be considered honest. Yes, I am angry, but I also speak the truth. There is no allegedly. Something tells me you know this. Not the best spokesperson for any movement. Like I said, I'm waiting for the book. Hopefully he'll tell about all the nasty, rotten, cruel, underhanded things he's done in his life.
pistis, I do not know Mike. The first time that I saw him was when I heard him talk as one member in an audience of 1,000. I didn't even speak to him afterwards. So my comments are not personal in any sense. Also, I have no intention of "following" him; atheists don't operate that way. I do appreciate that you and CRWRE are being honest about your feelings, and I thank you for trying to warn me about Mike.
I do not wish to get into a discussion about the "culture" of christianity except to say that quite a few people seem quite satisfied with it. Whether or not you do is your perogative.
But getting back to Mike...yes I do feel angry and betrayed by his actions. We put our faith and trust in the man and he let us down without a second thought and now he has done it to yet another congregation. Everything that has happened to him he brought on himself. I told you I was a big supporter of his and that is true in ways I do not wish to go into here. I am sorry, but this is NOT the same man I once knew and respected. Turn on him? HE turned on US. Jesus said "That what ye sow, that ye must also reap." I sincerely doubt that he would have done this without some ulterior motive as his current church will likely not allow him to stay given the circumstances. There is more to this and I will be very interested to see what that might be.
UPDATE!! As a result of Mr. Aus declarations of the past week, the fact that the associate pastors cannot commit to it full time and the hope of finding someone else not promising, his current church has made the decision to cease operations. They will have services through Easter but after that will be shutting their doors. Thank you Mike for causing massive upheaval in one congergation and the destruction of another. What a class act.
LOL. So ... you want him to pastor a church while not believing in God anymore? You want him to simply believe in God again? You make it sound like he chose to not believe in God anymore just to be a d*ck. Just to inconvenience precious you.
The fact that there is no-one else willing to commit the time that you think Ps Aus should commit speaks volumes. Why dump on Ps Aus? Why not bitch about all those associate pastors that can't get serious about their calling? Better yet - why not ask God why he couldn't have handled this better? You know? God? The Big Guy? How come he was sitting on his thumbs while this was going down?
Find another church. It's not as if there aren't a squillion of them. It'll be the same God, right?
So now that the guy is no longer one of the tribe, the personal attacks can begin.
To CRWRE and pistis:
Interesting conversation going on here!!! You two have convinced me that I prefer Mr. Aus's sense of ethics to yours although I do not believe that was your intent. You highjacked a conversation that was considering the merits of faith and non-faith with personal attacks on Mr. Aus. Was that REALLY necessary?
You attempt to portray yourselves as "Christians" but I'm having a really hard time understanding what was "Christian" about trying destroy Mr. Aus's character frankly for no good reason. This conversation was why a pastor (who by definition once believed) no longer believes, and that is a discussion that all thinking people face, more than once in their lives. "Why do I believe? Why do I not believe? What reasonable evidence do I have for my belief/non-belief?"
Or do you REALLY believe he is now an atheist and gave up everything he believed before because of his issues with you and the Church? (If you do, you are SHALLOW people!).
And exactly what does a pastor owe his church? Do you as "Christians" think you OWN your pastor's mind and that he is not allowed to think for himself or come to conclusions OTHER than those you choose for him???
Is your faith so weak that one pastor who chooses not to believe what you do is going to cost you so much pain? Or is it the control over Mr. Aus that you no longer have that you find so distasteful?
Why not just understand that Mr. Aus is human like the rest of us and has those failings that all humans have. And Mr. Aus, like the rest of us, has to come to his own INDEPENDENT determinations about what he believes.
The bible clearly states that people who believed and who drop out do so because of sin. "Like dogs returning to their own vomit". I think it's in II Peter.
After all - what possible other reason could there be? We know God is real, right, so why would anyone deny him? The only reason must be really heinous sin in their lives. It's like being a recalcitrant unbeliever, but even worse. The NT contains stringent prohibitions against being friendly with apostates - "do not even share bread with such people".
It's pretty basic that religions have defences against people who understand them as well as an apostate does. All of 'em do. If you think christianity is bad, try being an apostate muslim or scientologist.
You don't know what you are talking about oncearepublican. There are so many things I could reply to in your post but choose not to because it's not relevant. However I will say this, so many people look at Christians and think because they are Christian that they are not human. They should not sin because they are Christian. Pain, hurt, and suffering are caused by Christians and non Christians. I am merely trying to point out that there are other circumstances which may have factored into this mans decisions. Christians curse, have road rage, and sin. This ex pastor owes me nothing except maybe an apology, that would be nice. I feel that by not addressing these things in the interview that UP has not presented the whole story.
Yea, unfortunately I DO know what I am talking about. Because a person YOU know made a decision YOU don't like AND can't refute based on its merits, YOU think YOU have the right to personally trash him.
This post was about WHY a Man of God chose to abandon his faith - it wasn't about how many affairs he's had, and PUULLEEEASE, there have been a LOT of pastors who have had affairs and still remained pastors. His having affairs was NOT the reason for his dramatic change in belief and REALLY HAS NO BEARING on this story.
You know, instead of trashing Mr. Aus, maybe your could explain why you call yourself a "Christian" because it appears you don't follow the teachings of Christ. Gandhi once said: "I like your Christ but I don't like your Christians." I think I agree with him!!
obviously YOU don't. Moralitly has everything to do with faith. It's not just the affairs. I won't get into specifics and this will be my last post. Like I said, just the facts, just the facts and YOU don't know the facts. I call myself a Christian because I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried.
On the third day, he rose again
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the Communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
That's why. Just the facts.
4/1/12- Great show this morning thou here in AZ u now start at 5am. early. I really like ur show. Thank u. Keep inviting Alexis back. Enjoy her info.
Does anyone realize Mike Aus is a philandering heart breaker who left his congregation at Living Word Lutheran under a cloud? Three women came forward. So he starts over with services at the Alamo Draft House, lives with his girlfriend while divorcing his wife of 20+ years. Funny how the interview never touched on that. His children are devastated. He's a horrible man. Horrible
I think you can make a point without bringing in his own children. I'm pretty sure you are also sensationalizing the story a bit too much.
Pistis, you have a clever prediction about a possible book deal in the works.
This is a free country. Mike, if you want to be an atheist, by all means be an atheist, but please keep your pants up. You have destroyed lives because of your indiscretions. You have depressed hundreds with false preaching. I honestly believe that you changed your belief system to fit your needs. Be a man and please go quietly into the night.
Atheist world, if you want Aus as your spokesperson, keep your wives at home. He is one sweet talker.
Maybe our wives ain't ho's.
The churches are full of single mothers. Every single one of 'em will swear blue that Jesus personally told them to file divorce papers against the man they were married to. That the verses in the bible about divorce simply don't apply to them, that their case was special.
Meanwhile, the pastors don't dare preach sermons that might offend the people who do almost all of the volunteering, who decide which church the family (and the family's offering) go to. They'll all preach "men should man up!", while the women yell Amen - but can you find one who'll follow that with "and women should keep their knees together!" ? Is there even one evangelical-type church anymore that dare uses the word "sin" from the pulpit?
And don't even get me started on politics in churches. On worldliness.
They have lost their fight against the flesh and the world. The third enemy won't have any trouble.