Link to top Back of the Envelope

Blog
Writings About Me Photos
Links

Monday, August 29, 2005

Is God politically correct?
I mentioned the other day that Jeff Darlington has a blog where he discusses, among other things, theology. He doesn't post often, but when he does, he has some serious thoughts to share, such as this:
While this is a wonderful little lesson in and of itself (and ties in very nicely with my recent "Providence" story in GPF), it suddenly occurred to me exactly why I loathe the term "politically correct" so much. I've had many people argue with me that political correctness is a good thing, and that even Christians, when they apply the principles I mentioned above, uplift the practice. But thanks to this lesson, I can now put into words what that distinction really is.

You see, political correctness is just what its name implies: the "correct" way of doing things given the current political climate. It's enforced by society, by those who don't wish to step on toes and inadvertently offend someone. If you are not politically correct, you are branded as an insensitive bigot; it is reinforced by shame and the fear of becoming a social pariah. Respect is required, not earned, but at the same time may only be skin deep.

To me, there's a strong separation between God's (and by token, a Christian's) impartial love for mankind and a mandate from some group such as the NAACP or ACLU to restrict what someone says. God is the ultimate example of impartiality. God cannot tolerate sin, yet mankind is inherently sinful (a fact that is directly contrary toward contemporary thinking). Thus, mankind has been condemned because of its sinfulness, but God, in His impartial love for all mankind--a deep, heartfelt love, not convenient lip-service--sent Christ to be the ultimate sacrifice to give us a way to escape this condemnation. (See John 3:16-18.)

Of course, I know a lot of my non-Christian readers out there wouldn't agree with this logic, but that's the way I see it. (For that, I take solace in I Corinthians 1:26-29.) I still can't stand the term "political correctness," nor the stigma (in my mind) that it implies. But you know, while God isn't very "politically correct," He sure is better at it than anyone else on earth is.

For all their talk about tolerance, the politically correct crowd is remarkably intolerant. In their mindset, it doesn't matter whether you're black or white, whether you're male or female or neither, or whether you're heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, as long as you think the right way. It has remarkably little tolerance for people who disagree with their ideology, and God help you if you're a member of a politically correct minority group who happens to hold politically incorrect ideas. Then they feel quite free to engage in racist rhetoric.

The problem with being politically correct isn't just that it's an enforced way of speaking with no effort to change attitudes--they honestly believe that if people can only say nice things, eventually they'll only think nice things--but that what it's enforcing is all wrong. It promotes uncritical acceptance of different people groups by downplaying differences between them, going so far as to ignore, suppress, and ridicule any evidence that there might indeed be such differences. It promises diversity except in the one way that really matters: the diversity of ideas. Oh, it allows for different religions and philosophies, as long as they are all accepted as equally valid and none of them conflict with the tenets of political correctness itself. But to actually acknowledge real differences between groups, differences of culture and beliefs which might require sorting between right and wrong, is beyond the pale.

What the Christian is called to do is quite different. We are called to love everyone--not to tolerate them, not to be uncritically accepting of them, not to live and let live. Loving people is tough, hard work. To love someone you have to get to know them, to know their good and their bad points, the qualities which you find charming and those which you find annoying. To admit that they have flaws and that you have to love them in spite of them. But also to encourage and correct them, to help them overcome those flaws. And to accept correction when it's directed at you, for you too have flaws that need correction, and often the difficulties you have accepting certain qualities say more about you than about them. The politically correct crowd refuses to criticize any member in good standing. You can say racist and sexist and downright insulting things about others, as long as they're outside the protected groups. It refuses to look at those they accept closely enough to see those flaws which need correction, to deal with the real conflicts between them, and until it does, it can never love them.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Christian Carnival online
The latest Christian Carnival, the eighty-third, is up at All Times of Kind. I meant to submit my review of Aitken's biography of Chuck Colson, but I made the mistake of letting Gmail automatically complete the e-mail, and I ended up sending my submission to the wrong place. Hopefully the next carnival will accept it, even though the carnival usually only accepts entries that have been posted since the last Carnival's submission deadline.

Wednesday, August 3, 2005

Christian Carnival is up
The latest Christian Carnival is online at Dunmoose the Ageless. As I've been writing so many posts about Christianity lately, I submitted one--the post on Islamic and Christian attitudes towards other religions.

Tuesday, August 2, 2005

Evangelicalism's fixtures
I notice that Joe Carter has a listing of those fixtures of evangelicalism that he considers dangerous. Among them are the sinner's prayer, the altar call, tribulationism, testimonies, and witnessing. If you just read my list, you might think that Joe's against the entire evangelical movement. A more careful reading of his reasons shows that he has some good points. For example, on witnessing, he says:
Evangelism isn’t a form of Multi-Level Marketing. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the “Good News.” If you want to “witness for Christ” do what Christ did and love other people. Especially the “unlovable” – the smelly, unbathed men down at the mission, the annoying kids at church, the bonehead who cuts you off in traffic. In the context of the Christian life, “witness” should be a noun more often than a verb.

While I think he's right to point out reasons for caution, I think many of these things are important tools (Joe himself backs away from his complaints on testimonies, the altar call, and witnessing in his updates). However, on the matter of the sinner's prayer, he has a very emphatic argument backed up by solid reasoning:
The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a “ticket to heaven” because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the “sinner’s prayer.” Salvation, however, is not obtained by reciting a magical incantation as many, many, “Christians” will discover after it's far, far, too late.

I've previously shared my own thoughts on the Sinner's Prayer as part of my Evangelicalism vs. Fundamentalism series:
I do not wish to mock the Sinner's Prayer, as I think it is an elegant compilation of what the Bible says that a life with Christ looks like. However, the key word here is "compilation." The Sinner's Prayer does not appear in the Bible. It is a relatively new development, and while I think you can commit your life to Christ by praying this prayer, I don't think it's the only way.

What it comes down to is the least common denominator. If the Sinner's Prayer is how one becomes a Christian, then what happens if you get the words wrong? For that matter, there are numerous formulations of the Sinner's Prayer. Which one is right? The general belief is that the words themselves are unimportant, as long as you pray with sincerity. Even if the exact words don't matter, do you still have to hit all the correct points: Repentance of sin, submission to God, asking to be remade? And what about understanding? You need to understand what you're praying in order to be sincere about it, right? That would disqualify the large number of young children who say this prayer before they fully understand it. And there's something disconcerting about the fact that the vast majority of those who have called themselves Christians throughout history have never heard this prayer, much less said it.

This is a fascinating subject, and one that gets less attention than it deserves. I think we evangelicals try to come up with a simple answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" When Jesus answered that question, his answers were direct but what they required was never simple.
The Trinity: Part III.A, More on the "Son of God"
A couple of days ago, I mentioned that I was attempting to answer this question:
Weren't Hebrew prophets like David referred to as the "son of God" in the Hebrew Bible?

Running a simple search, I find the phrase "Son of God" used only once in the Old Testament, by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3:25 to refer to the heavenly figure who had joined Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace into which they had been tossed in order to execute them. However, I suspect that the instance my commenter was thinking of is Psalm 2:7: "I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'" This is in reference to the coronation of Israel's king (which one is uncertain), and in this context it is clearly in reference to becoming a son by adoption, and is tied to having the authority of King in a Kingdom rightfully belonging to God. Every other instance I could find of the phrase 'son of God' refers to Jesus himself. And when it is used, Jesus is attributed both the authority and the characteristics of divinity.

On the other hand, the phrase 'sons of God' appears in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, it generally refers to angels (or, in Genesis, probably to Seth's children rather than Cain's). In the New Testament, it refers to believers. In both cases, it's descriptive of those who have a special relationship with God. Jesus claims to have a unique relationship with God as _the_ son of God. The strongest distinction between Jesus as the Son of God and believers as the sons of God comes in John 1, where John first provides a long description of Jesus's Godhood. John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then, later, in John 1:11-12: "Yet to all who received him [Jesus], he gave the right to become sons of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." This is, again, the distinction between adopted children and the natural child, where Jesus, who has the actual characteristics of God, makes it possible for others to become God's children, adopted into his family though we do not have the characteristics of divinity. This is, of course, a worldly explanation of a spiritual relationship, and as such the analogies are incomplete, but I think my previous posts on this matter deal with it as well as I am able.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. The Trinity: Part III.A, More on the "Son of God"
  2. Why I believe in God: The Trinity, Part 2
  3. Why I believe in God: The Trinity