"Responding to The Intolerance of the Tolerant"

THE CHALLENGE OF GRACIOUSNESS:  May we who have standards and convictions not be intolerant of the intolerant!  What a curious situation the public debate this week as those who accept almost everything reject Chic-Fil-A based upon a thought expressed by its founder.

The owner of Chic-Fil-A simply gave his position on the matter of marriage being as the Bible describes it, between one man and one woman.  Someone said that God established marriage between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve and certainly he would agree with that idea.  Whether one agrees with it or not is not the issue.  How we disagree is in fact the concern.  Not so long ago the right was challenged with its need for graciousness in difference, now the left progressives need to hear the same admonition.

THE CHALLENGE OF BELIEFS EXPRESSED:  At question is that matter of one's right even responsibility to set forth his beliefs.  Certainly no one seems to object with those on the progressive side of the argument impose their notions but let the other side say something as benign as was said and there is an outcry but it does not end there.  Notice that there was to be a "kiss-in" as same sex couples demonstrate their "love" at Chic-Fil-A locations.

Chic-Fil-A being a privately owned company have not great responsibility to allow this sort of thing to go on however, since they seem to be gracious about this whole discourse I suspect that they will not take action.

THE CHALLENGE OF CONVICTIONS:  Such being so there are some things that we need to think about!  We who take a conservative view of the Scriptures must allow nothing to dissuade us from the position we take of the Scriptures.  The more that we are surrounded by the permissive message, the more those of us who hold to the Bible are placed in difficult even untenable positions.  Such is not so in reality only in perception.

The reality is that the same God who designed each of us in our uniqueness, also moved on righteous men of old to author the Bible.  Personally I do not find anywhere that I or anyone else is exempted from any of the Scriptures.  

There are those who would argue that the Christian's shortcomings are license for others to live outside the guidance of the Bible.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Certainly we all make mistakes but that in no way obviates others from their responsibilities.  In fact that is the value of being in a Christian community for in failure there we find support and care.  Then too there is the support to be found in prayer as we pray the Scriptures. 

THE CHALLENGE OF/TO THE CULTURE:  As alluded to earlier, there is a problem.  It is that we are so surrounded by the messages of the media and academia that we either consciously and rationally or without giving it much thought have come to embrace things that are not acceptable to God.  The drift from what is right and correct is so gradual that it is imperceptible.   However, think back a few years to what was acceptable and what was not.  

Of course the Bible is the same as it always has been.  It did not change but we did and in that course of that change we have reinterpreted the Bible to be what we want it to be. The outcome is as one post-modernist writer put it, “…we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority. . . All intrinsic properties of the human being, along with moral worth and personal commitment, are lost from view...” (Kenneth Gergen, The Saturated Self)

Is it any wonder that people live largely insecure lives, without a sense of direction, a certain fatalism, and an inadequacy in and of themselves.  Perhaps that is why those who have followed along with culture are so threatened by those with conviction.

THE CHALLENGE OF GRACIOUSNESS:  As the business owner who made the statement regarding the family, let us take our stand wherever we are located but let us do so in wisdom.

Let us do so relationally and not with criticism and rejection

Let us do so graciously not returning evil and insult for evil and insult

Let us do so welcoming the person while disallowing the sin

Let us do so with understanding not condemning for that it is God’s to do.

Remember Jude’s command, “save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear…”  In other words, some we confront others we persuade over time but to all we in some form witness.  (Jude 23).

"Contemporary Religious Pluralism" CT7

In today's culture, instead of religion in general and Christian religion in particular influencing the culture in which it is to serve, in reality, it is influenced by culture.  The whole notion of contemporary religious pluralism is an example of such influencing.

HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Looking back, historic religious pluralism could be roughly defined as "believe" and "cooperate."  Of course there have always been exceptions and those who did not want to "play."  The point was that no one was asked to violate their own belief system and so no common belief was exacted from its members.  Then too there was an emphasis upon cooperation.  Such lead many of the Mainline Denominations to participate in the Ecumenical Movements of the 50's and 60's.  

But there was a change forthcoming.  Just as notions like sensitivity, diversity, tolerance, etc. gained traction in the culture so too they gained traction in the church and there became a certain preoccupation with being non-offensive.  That non-offensive doctrine became so pronounced that it was no long "believe" and "cooperate" but now "what can we all believe together."  

The importance of Historical Religious Pluralism is that it allowed for one to maintain his belief system and even gave room to personal convictions, that is personal theological conviction.  There was no demand for universal truth and one might even embrace subjective truth.  One might sum up the position in the notion of unity not uniformity.

The unity of "believe" and "cooperate" was how historic or classic Religious Pluralism. However, there was a change and it now placed stress on the notion of "unity" but now it is based on "commonly held belief."  

CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions, thus Contemporary Religious Pluralism.  In many ways Contemporary Religious Pluralism is a reflection of the post modern mindset in that it dismisses all that might mitigate against difference and disagreement.

The primary doctrine of the position is contained in the question, "What are the things upon which there is no disagreement?"  Of course there is very little, even among those who claim the title, "Christian."  Add in those of other major religions and the list grows ever shorter with the greater the inclusion.

The outcome is that cardinal doctrinal differences compromised, set aside, negated, etc.It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions.
In extreme cases divergent religions are called upon to cooperate.

As with most any position that is largely indefensible, the arguments tendered are not based upon ethical principles but the mores of that particular religious sub-culture.  The likely arguments are

• Reactionary in that they react against those who have an exclusionary doctrine, e.g. the eternal outcomes of the saved differing from those of the unsaved.
• Generalizing in that they move from a specific example to a general belief.
• Discriminating in that it embraces all except those of deep conviction which would include those with ethical truth claims and those with exclusive truth claims, etc.
• Devaluing in that those who hold to ethical truth are often named as uneducated, without compassion, irrelevant, and intolerant.
• Universal in that all religions contain elements of truth
• Inconsistent in that tolerance is one of the mantras, however as already noted, such belief allows for "correct" discrimination.

THE TENSION

The culture including the sub-culture of religion is in a state of tension.  Such tension occasions the opportunity for the individual to choose.  One can choose the Contemporary Religious Pluralism track or one can choose the more traditional approach.  One is untenable unless one is willing to give up almost all of what one believes for the sake of "unity."  Then based upon that foundation of "unity" one's belief system is built back.  The problem is that the outcome of course is some kind of a "group think" theology.

The other choice in terms of religious pluralism is the more tradition approach.  Such says that each believes as he will, each allows the other to believe as he will, but we join together in what we can, accept our differences, and move forward in what we can jointly support.  In this kind of relationship there is no "Mush God" for each serves Him as they understand Him to be!