Scan barcode
A review by mazlietlotes
Unfollow: A Journey from Hatred to Hope by Megan Phelps-Roper
5.0
We're entering the conversation, Megan and I, going in completely opposite directions. She's un-learning what her church has taught her, being skeptical about the Bible where she never was before, while I'm entering Christianity and exchanging my scepsis for awe and learning to trust the Bible more than I ever have. All of it in the context of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia (my church) being painfully and publicly homophobic, supporting the proposed changes in the Constitution of Latvia to strictly define 'family' to exclude same-sex couples, causing me great pain and confusion.
This is a great book for me to read at this point in my life. Because, as Megan points out, only through vigorous doubt and critical thinking can we establish what we believe in - the kind of belief that doesn't crumble under careful inspection, the kind that takes into account other perspectives and knowingly chooses what to stand for. What the costs are, and what are the benefits.
I wasn't expecting such a worthwhile and challenging discussion on the Bible, free speech, doubt, and family from this book. Megan's intellect shines through this piece brilliantly, and the writing is captivating and really, really good. I first started to follow Megan's story when I watched Louis Theroux BBC documentary on Westboro in college, and have been following her ever since. To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly I was expecting, but this book gave me ten times more of what I could have expected. Definitely more than any documentary on Westboro ever could.
***
I couldn't allow bitterness to steal the beauty in my family, or love to conceal the destructiveness in it. I wouldn't rewrite history. I would hold the whole messy truth of it to myself all at once.
***
It couldn't be a simple matter of a blanket rejection of my former beliefs, either, which would be no less silly and irrational than unquestioning acceptance of them.
***
If there truly was more than one legitimate way to understand the world, then there was nothing inherently wrong with people who believed differently than we did. (..) If there was more than one possible answer, how did anyone manage to decide between them?
***
Truth and love are not synonyms. The New Testament even says it plainly. "Speak the truth in love." The Aposyle Paul said, "To the weak became I as weak" and that we should "weep with them that weep". I don't know how we missed that for so long.
***
The principles underlying the freedom of speech recognize that all of us are susceptible to cognitive deficiences and groupthink, and that an open marketplace of ideas is our best defense against them.
This is a great book for me to read at this point in my life. Because, as Megan points out, only through vigorous doubt and critical thinking can we establish what we believe in - the kind of belief that doesn't crumble under careful inspection, the kind that takes into account other perspectives and knowingly chooses what to stand for. What the costs are, and what are the benefits.
I wasn't expecting such a worthwhile and challenging discussion on the Bible, free speech, doubt, and family from this book. Megan's intellect shines through this piece brilliantly, and the writing is captivating and really, really good. I first started to follow Megan's story when I watched Louis Theroux BBC documentary on Westboro in college, and have been following her ever since. To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly I was expecting, but this book gave me ten times more of what I could have expected. Definitely more than any documentary on Westboro ever could.
***
I couldn't allow bitterness to steal the beauty in my family, or love to conceal the destructiveness in it. I wouldn't rewrite history. I would hold the whole messy truth of it to myself all at once.
***
It couldn't be a simple matter of a blanket rejection of my former beliefs, either, which would be no less silly and irrational than unquestioning acceptance of them.
***
If there truly was more than one legitimate way to understand the world, then there was nothing inherently wrong with people who believed differently than we did. (..) If there was more than one possible answer, how did anyone manage to decide between them?
***
Truth and love are not synonyms. The New Testament even says it plainly. "Speak the truth in love." The Aposyle Paul said, "To the weak became I as weak" and that we should "weep with them that weep". I don't know how we missed that for so long.
***
The principles underlying the freedom of speech recognize that all of us are susceptible to cognitive deficiences and groupthink, and that an open marketplace of ideas is our best defense against them.