Sunday, February 17, 2008
Society's Idol
His essential point was that the classic definition and understanding of the word, and the modern understanding, are vastly different. Traditional meaning: bearing or putting up with someone or something not especially liked. See 1 Corinthians 13:4-6 for the idea he meant. Modern/New Meaning: all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal/valid.
Yep. Anytime I listen to, watch, or read general/secular American (and worldwide) opinion, that's the message I get. It's all good, so treat it all as equal. It's summed up by this bumper sticker. The idea is that everything is right. But if everything is right....nothing is right. Also, the idea of giving equal time to everything can distort things. He gave the example that, a few years back, he attended a Promise Keepers rally in KC, with somewhere around 60,000 men attending, learning about being Godly men and husbands, loving their wives, etc. Meanwhile, about 7 women protested the gathering (not sure why?). On the news, the rally itself got about a 2 minute segment, and the women got 3 minutes. A rather odd proportion...
More seriously, in a society embracing this idea, those who stand for truth are considered intolerant and should/must be stopped. Of course, Jesus told us this would happen. The truth is hated by the darkness, and those who serve it, whether they realize it or not.
Also, consider how much these words could apply to the world today, especially with Oprah recently having latched onto a New Age "new revelation of Jesus"; it was supposedly channeled/revealed to a woman over several years, including beliefs along the lines that there is no sin, and that all roads lead to God.
That's the ultimate idea behind this line of thinking. No sin. Everything leads to God. We've done nothing wrong, so we need no salvation. You know what these are? Lies, from the pits of hell, and the mouth of Satan. It's a good thing we work for Jesus, Son of God, Risen Saviour, the Way, Truth, and Life.
Frankly, for a while I've been of the same mind as my pastor, seen the same trends. I've always struggled with what to do. After all, I don't want to swing too far on the opposite end, and become a hollow, clanging gong. But the Truth must be spoken. Because not only will it set people free, more importantly, it brings love. But not just any love, God's perfect Love. That's our pastor's charge to us: stand for truth, and speak it in love, just like Paul asks the Corinthians. We must not ever bow to the pressure to say that sin is alright, and that people don't need saved from the miry pit of the world. We must stand firm, and use godly tolerance, to fight worldly tolerance.
10 Comments:
Bugger. I lost a large chunk of the comment I had going. That's always demoralizing . . . hard to start over and try to repeat what you were saying.
Basically, I agree with you and I think I understand where you're coming from, but I also think you're doing the advocates of tolerance an injustice. I find nothing objectionable in that bumper sticker, taking it at face value. I'm pretty sure I agree with it.
A serious belief in tolerance is not about granting everything that anyone says equal validity, it's about being tired of people killing (or generally persecuting) each other over their differences. I assume that's roughly what YOU meant by "godly tolerance." These people who say everything is equally true may be tolerant, but that's certainly not all they are ("really freaking stupid" is one term that comes to mind). I think it's a mistake to call that sort of thing "tolerance" or equate it with tolerance in a way that makes anyone feel like tolerance is a bad thing. It's simply not.
And, really, who besides a mass-hypnotized audience of Grade A morons actually takes Oprah seriously? Do you know what her last big push was? That best-selling book The Secret which purported to contain the secret to ultimate happiness known by every famous person in history that you can think of. What was this secret? That the universe is sentient and will reward your desire if you simply focus your energy on what you want (like, say, a new bike or a promotion at work) . . . these things will literally fall into your lap.
These sorts of beliefs are not the insidious threats they are often made out to be from the pulpit. They're just too ridiculous . . . only a feeble-minded person would believe such things, and they aren't the ones that are hard to talk to about Christ.
I have to ask (as I often wonder when I hear, or hear about, sermons on this sort of subject), to what extent is your pastor preaching to the choir when he warns your congregation of the dangers of believing all religions are equally true? Do they really need to spend an hour (or 15 minutes, if you're a Methodist) sitting in church for that?
Anyway, that aside . . . you may find this to be small comfort stacked against Oprah with her audience in the tens of millions, but check out this clip from "The Colbert Report" last week. He may not have Oprah's viewership, but I'd match his viewers with Oprah's any day, pound for intellectual pound. Anyway, check it out. Not every TV personality with a large audience is preaching indiscriminate pluralism.
I do find something objectionable in it, taking it at face value. It tells me to "sit down and shut up, because my beliefs are no better than these others." There's someone at work with one of those; I've seen it several times before, and always had the same thought. To me, it's calling all these beliefs to coexist, and not try to convert anybody. We can't do that. To do so would disobey Jesus Himself.
You talk about a serious belief in tolerance not being about that. Maybe not, but if new tolerance is only thought of by really freaking stupid people, there sure are a lot of them, everywhere.
I see it, hear it all the time; at work, from the politicians, from the news (when I watch it). After all, how many times have interviewers pointedly asked some prominent Christian if Jesus is the only way to salvation, and everybody else is going to hell? You know they're just waiting to call them intolerant haters or some such. Sadly, it seems too common to add "well, yes, but...", or dance around the issue. The only ones willing to stick to that truth, are the ones who are also crazy and giving us a bad name.
As for examples of "new tolerance", pastor spoke of a judge in the Galveston area of Texas who said that any student mentioning Jesus in their graduation speech would go to jail for up to 6 months. That's pretty straightforward. Does that mean we shouldn't mention Him? I would have invoked the name of Jesus every chance I could have, if I were a student giving a speech.
As for "preaching to the choir", so what? Isn't it okay to occasionally give some warning to your congregation, show them just what exactly the world is trying? Or is that too much like politics, or not sin-focused enough?
(Um, do you have another source for that link? The site it's on is blocked on my side.)
By 
Knight's Disciple, at
5:04 AM
Jon, I think part of Wheeler's point is that, as you look at history, people have spent more time killing other people "in the name of God" than for just about any other reason. In light of that, I'm a supporter of the bumper sticker, too. I mean, it's not saying to not to debate with them, not to attempt to change them (which is what you point out); all it's saying is to coexist, ie not kill them/persecute them. In regards to something you said later, yes, there are a LOT of really freaking stupid people everywhere, including in the Church, sad to say. It comes down to this, in my opinion: all things in moderation. Take anything to an extreme, and it becomes bad. Tolerance, being a part of anything, is the same way.
By 
, at
6:56 AM
As a (tangentially relevant) aside, I think the previous comments highlight the problem with bumper-sticker philosophy (and labels in general): the elevation of simplicity over depth. "Coexistence" is a loaded word, just like "tolerance." Some (e.g. Jared, Barbour) see it and think "peaceful discussion rather than violence," while others (e.g. KD) see it and think "extreme inclusivism."
Buzzwords and catchy slogans are useful mostly as discussion-starters, and in that capacity they can be very helpful.
It's always important to define your terms; kudos to you three for striving to do.
Try this one. (If this one doesn't work, I'll track down a transcript.)
Fair enough about the bumper sticker. I think Martinez is ultimately right. As to interviewers pointedly asking that question of a Christian . . . It's not something that I, personally, witness much (if at all), and I've certainly never heard a Christian called an intolerant hater (or some such) to their face on television (that sort of thing, in my experience, is reserved largely for the anonymity of the internet message board). I will agree with you that many of the Christians that appear on-camera make us look bad, but it's not because they're sticking to the truth.
That story of the Galveston judge struck me as so outrageous (that he would do such a thing, not that the story was untrue) that I tracked it down. After wading through dozens of Christian websites that pulled the story verbatim from a single source (The New Tolerance published in 2003) I finally tracked down a little more information. This incident took place in 1995, nearly thirteen years ago. The judge's ruling was on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of two sets of parents (one Mormon, one Catholic) of the Santa Fe, TX school district. He ruled that the students would be allowed to pray at the ceremony as long as they didn't mention the name of a deity "whether it be Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, the Great God Sheba or anyone else." This particular judge, Samuel B. Kent, has been notorious since he was instated in 1990 for his "humorous" statements in a wide variety of cases. In this case, his comment about jail time and his further comment that "anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child . . ." were intended in a largely tongue-in-cheek manner. He later stated that he regretted his "died as a child" note as it was leaving his mouth. (Side note: Said judge is currently under a great deal of scrutiny over allegations of sexual harrassment and could be impeached before the year is out.)
My point in going over this story is, when we're looking for examples of really egregious persecution of our faith, the incidents are so rare that we're still citing something that happened back in 1995 . . . and we can't even tell the whole story because it's not as bad as it appears on the surface. I'm not faulting your pastor, by the way. His information was true, and he got it from a reliable source . . . I had to hunt and dig for nearly an hour to nose up the rest of the story. Funny how none of the Christians on the web who blockquoted the information did their own digging, though. That was most unhelpful.
Most importantly though, I think it massively unfair to take an incident like this and label it as an example of anyone's idea of "tolerance." The whole separation of church and state issue, particularly as it applies to religion in school, is not a question of tolerance at all . . . it's about interpretation of the Constitution. If everyone were tolerant, we wouldn't need a law guaranteeing freedom of religion, nor would there be people bringing lawsuits over having to listen to a prayer at a graduation ceremony.
Ok, the video worked that time. It also gave me much more respect for Colbert, and made me laugh, a lot. "I teach Sunday School, motherf*****!" Admittedly, a bit rough, and not something I see my teacher saying, but still a nice touch. But here's the only potential problem: due to Colbert being such an excellent...character actor? He stays in the "Stephen Colbert" persona very strongly; my fear is that people might associate this stance with that...but it's not a huge concern.
Maybe we are reacting more strongly than we should. But then again, I have a worse fear than either us warning about those trying to make us stay silent on the truth, or that idea of "tolerance" actually taking root. I'm afraid of the Church being left alone by the world. Because if we're being left alone by the world...we're doing it wrong. That's the paradox. We can't be the bullhorns shouting lovelessly into the world, but if we're too careful, we hide the light, and the world turns around us anyways.
In other words, the truth and love we bring the world ought to hackle the darkness; it ought to make people cry out in hate and anger; not because we've done wrong, but because we've done right.
I am of the frank personal opinion that in a couple of decades, America will be vastly different, one way or another. Either a revival will sweep this land soon, and transform many in the love of Christ. Or darkness will overtake it, and we will have to go underground, to at least some degree, to keep the Truth alive.
Maybe not in 10, or 20, or 30...but probably before 50 years is up.
Frankly, I can think of an easy reference for the attitude of new tolerance: media. Look at movies, television, etc. Look at how they portray Christians, by and large. They seem to come in 2 varieties: either they're maniacs, who hate everyone but themselves, and won't give an inch, or they're wishy-washy people, saying that everyone's ok, and all roads lead to heaven, etc. Show me an example outside of explicitly Christian media productions that displays a Christian standing for both the Truth, and Love (God's Love). We saw a hint of it with Stephen. But what about in entertainment?
By Knight's Disciple, at
6:53 PM
I think one of the roots of the exception I'm taking with this whole line of thought is simply that I think it is imposing combat where none need exist. Why do so many Christians in America have to be embattled to feel that we're important? I really think that, deep-down, most Christians today just want to be like Peter at Jesus' betrayal . . . Pull out that sword, find an enemy, and go for the ears! It's just so much easier than . . . ick . . . having to really think about what people are really saying and then enter into an open and meaningful dialogue with them.
I think you're very much closer to the truth when you say that we are being left alone by the world . . . there aren't any cultural enemies preparing to storm our gates. We aren't nearly that important. And you're right, it's because we've done something wrong. But that something was not staying quiet and hiding our light . . . it was circling the wagons and removing ourselves from everything to a position where we could alternately throw rocks and invitations ("Come join the Jesus party, you filthy, stinking heathens!")
It's late and I'm tired, but that'll do for a start . . . I covered the entertainment aspect over here.
Here's a real-life example of pc/tolerance: a guy where I work can no longer greet people with the words "I'm blessed, and you?", or variations thereof. After all, it's religious, or something. It's not a theoretical thing.
By Knight's Disciple, at
10:32 AM
It seems odd to me that you would consider this an example of a "tolerance" fetish.
If that's really all he's saying, then isn't this an example of a lack of tolerance on the organization's part? It sounds as if you are now complaining that the bosses aren't being pluralistic enough.
Let me put it this way. Would you defend the right of an employee to answer, "I'm doing well, praise Allah"? If you would, then you're pro-tolerance too. If not, then you favor a double standard on religious speech.
By , at
3:03 PM
Wilson:
Specifically, I took the understanding that they asked him not to say that because they were afraid of offending our workers over in Mangalore, India. After all, they're not Christian. It was, of course, complained about by an American. To your question, yes I would defend that right.
Jared:
I think that, as Martinez said, it's probably somewhere in the middle between our views. Such things often seem to be. And open discussion is hard. After all, what do you say to a comrade delighting in his having partaken of certain kinds of activities, when you specifically believe this to be wrong? That's hard stuff, there. As for the wagons analogy, I do see some truth in that; I think that trying to come out of that circle will be harder, now. Due partly to that image, and partly to the jading of the world.
By Knight's Disciple, at
4:25 PM
