Posts Tagged ‘tolerance’

Say One Thing, Do Another

Posted December 4, 2008 by Charles
4

I’m constantly amazed by people’s capacity for “hypocrisy”. I put in the scare-quotes because we’re all hypocrites: We all lie, though we say lying is bad; we all judge books by their covers…But I’m talking about the real, blatant kind.

The kind that says, “I believe A,” then does -(A). “What’s that you say? No, I haven’t done the very thing I speak out against, or the very opposite of the thing I advocate.  What I do is different from what you or they do, because…” This is the hypocrisy that may or may not be intentional, but is always unexamined, and without remorse.

The most blatant is the contemporary “tolerance” movement. I put the scare-quotes there because most of it’s advocates aren’t promoting tolerance, they’re promoting a belief system that is just as closed – in fact, more so – as Christianity. In this form of tolerance, if you don’t share the belief, you’re denigrated and excluded. Sounds a bit like intolerance, doesn’t it?

But ask the advocate and they’ll say, “We’ll accept everyone, except for those who won’t accept others.” To them you don’t have to be tolerated if you don’t meet their standards for tolerance, which is to say you accept every liberal opinion, most moderate ones, and nothing conservative. You can say any twisted thing about Christians, but don’t express any misgivings about homosexuality or wicca, because you’ll get booted.

To me, tolerance is putting up with something you don’t like or don’t want. You “tolerate” an annoying sibling, a leaky faucet, or a miserable job while you’re in school.  You “tolerate” a cold, or a small amount of pain, or a bad governor. One of the key characteristics of things to be tolerated is that you don’t like them, and you’d rather they not be there.

For example, if you believe that all religious paths are equal, then you should tolerate the person who thinks one is right and the rest wrong. In fact, you should celebrate that belief, and the fervor with which the believer clings to it, because it will lead them to God.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe with fervor that there is one path to God, through the man Jesus Christ, we can’t get away with such “tolerance”.  We don’t get to tolerate the one who believes that all paths lead to God. We have to love them. We can’t just livewith them and hope they’re gone soon, we have to embody the love of Jesus.

I think I like tolerance better.

Liberal Religious Dogma

Posted August 28, 2008 by Charles
0

Finally a post that isn’t in the Politics category:

But liberal religion has a dogma and it views the contemporary world through the eyes of this dogma. The dogma is all the more potent in coloring opinion because it is not known as a dogma. The dogma is that the world is gradually growing better and that the inevitability of gradualness guarantees our salvation.

Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Century, April 22, 1926

I’d say that the same applies to the dogma of “tolerance”.  The ironies of this dogma are that (a) its advocacy typically involves a caustic intolerance for conservative ideas; and (b) it ignores the fact that tolerance requires some disagreement.  It’s not really tolerance if I agree with you.  It’s only tolerance if I disagree with you, but tolerate you (not necessarily your ideas). I hear a great deal about this “tolerance” from friends who identify with Emergent strains (yes, “strains” – like a virus) of the emerging church.

But this idea of tolerance falls right in with the mistaken notion of progress. It moves contrary to the gospel, and the command to contend earnestly for the faith.

Rule #7: Remember That We Were All Sinners

Posted January 20, 2008 by Charles
0

donaldmiller.jpgI don’t think we spend enough time thinking about that little gem at the end of Romans 3 – “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” At least, not while considering this at the end of 1 John 1: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

Today I came across an AP religion column about Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz. Kelli Kennedy wants us all to know that “Donald Miller still loves God and Jesus…His problem is with Christianity, at least how it’s often practiced.” To him Christianity seems to be about “conservative politics, suburban consumerism and an ‘insensitivity to people who aren’t like us.’”

The column goes on to paint this image of traditional Christians as ultraconservative, totally intolerant, and shallow in their spirituality. I don’t want to critique the article here; I just want to lament the truth in this image of Christianity in America. Read more

What is this?

Posted June 4, 2007 by Charles
0

It isn’t Christ-following. I’m amazed at what passes for Christian theology today. The message is truly proving to be “foolishness to those who are perishing.” Check this out. The OP has its own issues, such as the “conversion” we may experience while evangelizing. Commenter Matt MC said this: “I think I’m a little unclear though, on your intentions with those last two quotes. Is the evangelist’s “conversion” in question a broadening of perspective, or a recognition that somehow he has been preaching the wrong gospel?”

But I want to focus on the comments. With the advent of the postmodern movement and the much talked about breakdown of modernity (something I don’t see nearly as much of as some say), some mindsets have been welcomed into the church in the name of tolerance or diversity. Try to imagine Jesus’ response to this:

“Do I or you have the ‘truth?’ Are we so arrogant to think our religion is the correct one?[...]I don’t think my religion is any more true than anyone else’s and I have no desire to participate in their ’so-called’ [Isn't the term so-called enough without the quotes?] salvation.”

I don’t think he’d applaud with the audience of The View, I think a parable would follow…one resembling the man who built his house upon the sand. But that’s just me. My question is this: Why would you want to be part of a religious group and follow a religious leader (this being Jesus himself) who claims to hold all truth if you don’t think that’s possible?

That comment was followed by this one:

The biblical text itself contains so many voices, so many angles, and was written in so many contexts, all removed from ours significantly if by nothing else than time, that using it to form a firm confidence in exactly what God is up to feels, well…honestly impossible.

I’d like to see her expound on this statement in some meaningful way. What about those times and cultures and writers is so different from those that we live in now? Are we not still human? Are we not seeking joy and fulfillment? Do we not have family, and enemies, and suffering, and fear, and work, and rest, and everything else? It’s tiring to constantly hear people say, “things were different back then,” and never supporting it with even an explanation. So tell us how the voices, angles, and contexts were different and what that means to how we read the narrative of Scripture.

I also get the impression that she wouldn’t care to look into it further. Maybe I’m wrong about this particular person…maybe she has a passion for historical and sociological study of the ancient Hebrews. Perhaps she has a deeper understanding than I can surmise from her post. But judging from the others I’ve read with similar opinions, they’re happy enough with the doubt cast by their assertions to leave it at that.

What that does, effectively, is take all the burden and worry off of a person…they no longer have to concern themselves with being right, because it’s not possible. Unfortunately, God revealed himself in Christ, and in so doing said that if anyone denied him, rejected him, or was ashamed of him, that Christ would deny, reject, and be ashamed of him on the day of judgment.

Both of these commenters’ statements – that we are arrogant for claiming we can know the truth – are, in essence, being ashamed of Jesus. Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life”, that he was God, that he’d be seated at the Father’s right hand, that all who followed him would live forever, and all who rejected him were condemned. He was exclusive. And in today’s world that’s a sin.

Much like Republicans are distancing themselves from the President to avoid any shame that may come from being linked to his policies, so these “Christians” are distancing themselves from the controversial claims of Christ, and trying to be something a little more palatable for the world today. For their sake I hope they hear the rooster crow and get their butts back to the Master’s feet.

Me, Me, Me; MTD

Posted May 7, 2007 by Charles
4

This post is about me. I can hear both of you saying, “Aren’t they all?” Well, yes. But this one isn’t about me, per se, but about “me”. As has been said many times, in many places, our culture is driven by the consumer. It used to just be an economic phenomenon, but it’s spread. The consumer determines whether or not you have a job, and how hard you work, and how much money you make. How much money you make determines how much money you spend when you get off work and become the consumer. The consumer determines what movies and TV shows get made, and what kinds of commercials air during those shows.

I know you’ve seen the whole “consumerism is EVIL!” rant before, so I’ll stop there. Suffice it to say that (several years ago) it made its appearance in the church. People started choosing churches based on what they “got out of it”. I’ve done it myself, and I hate that part of me.

Like I said, that was several years ago. When people started seeking church that way, rather than correcting that error, church leaders began to cater to it. Robert Webber says this in the intro to Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches:

While the sixties were the age of secularism in which God had been shoved to the periphery of existence, the eighties and nineties rapidly shifted to a new era of self-focused spirituality…In this context, a “pragmatic evangelicalism” was born…[it] created new practical solutions – corporate churches, entertainment worship, need-driven programs, therapeutic faith.”

Webber goes on to discuss how theology took a back seat to meeting felt needs. I went to a conference last year that brought to my attention the concept of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The basic idea, as stated on Christianpost.com, is this:

  • 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”(Deism)
  • 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”(Moralism)
  • 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”(Therapeutic)
  • 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”(Deism again)
  • 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.” (Moralism Redux)

I just read this article to brush up…the comments are especially telling.

It’s clear that based on the evidence of MTD that we can easily see in our world, theology – Biblical theology, that is – has taken a serious hit. I was speaking with my pastor today about a conversation I had with some of my teens. Our Sunday School conversation turned to world religions, and two of my students said that they believed that a) God revealed himself differently to different cultures, and those made up the world religions…so they’re all equal, and b) that a good person – the example was Ghandi – must be deserving of God’s love.

I told my pastor that I disagreed with them, and first he asked me why. I was a little confused, but he said that he’d tell me what he thought, and that I could tell him what I thought, and we’d go from there. Here is a paraphrase of his position:

I see religion as people watching a baseball game through a wood fence. They’re looking through knotholes, one from first base, one from centerfield, one on the third baseline. They’re all different perspectives of the same game.

I had a friend who was an alcoholic and a drug addict [note: I assume he was recovering]. He told me that we’re all suffering from the same disease: separation from God. Everyone’s trying to fill the void inside, he had chosen drugs and alcohol.

I’m a Christian because I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the way to God. But if someone tells me that they’re Muslim, or Buddhist, and that fills the void for them, who am I to say that’s wrong?

It’s like in the the Gospel lesson this week. When they asked Peter why he had to eat with the uncircumcised, he said, “If these guys had an experience just like we did, who am I to keep them out?”

There are two things in this conversation that stand out to me, showing that Biblical theology has become unimportant. First, my pastor believes that the purpose of faith is therapeutic. Whatever stuffs your turkey. It’s about you feeling complete, satisfied, happy. Second, he either misunderstood, or intentionally misstated the passage that had been our reading this Sunday.

Before Peter went to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 he had a dream. God told him not to call “common” that which he has made clean. Then the Spirit directed him to follow the three men who had come from Caesarea. He did, where he was told of Cornelius’ dream, then he preached the Gospel. Then the Spirit descended on them. When questioned, Peter recounted the whole incident, including both dreams, and applying Jesus’ words of them being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then he said, “Who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Peter’s experience was directed by heaven itself. Supported by dreams, prophecy, and the words of Christ. Moreover, it doesn’t conflict with Scripture, it confirms it. Scripture tells us that “the nations will rally to him” (Is 11:10), that he would proclaim justice to them (Is 42:1); Christ told the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19-20), etc, etc.

But my pastor’s argument does not confirm scripture. It contradicts it. Those who do not believe are “condemned already” (Jn 3:18), no one will find God except through Christ (Jn 14:6), “there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1Tim 2:5).” How can my pastor, who seems in all ways conventional hold this belief? I honestly don’t know.

I know it’s a product of our consumer culture. I know it’s a product of the “tolerance” movement that is en vogue in progressive churches like my own. I know it’s a result of “niceness”: you must be careful not to offend. Nobody wants to seem arrogant or superior, so they won’t point out error. They won’t point out anything that will make another person uncomfortable. So they pretend there’s no right way.

In the end, it all comes down to “me”. What makes me happy right now? What makes people like me? What will keep my parishioners and the members of the community from thinking I’m cocky?

I told him that Jesus’ purpose wasn’t to make us feel whole or complete, that’s just a by-product. He came to reconcile us to God, for his glory. Our purpose is to give glory to God. This isn’t about “me”, it’s about him.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >

Power of Suggestion is proudly powered by WordPress.org and whiteboard

© Charles Jones 2006-2009 // pos51.org