Absolutist Eden
“I’ve got news for the president,” LaPierre said. “Absolutes do exist. Words do have specific meaning in language and in law. It’s the basis of all civilization. … Without those absolutes, without those protections, democracy decays into nothing more than two wolves and one lamb voting on, well, who to eat for lunch.”
Politico 44 - 1/22/2013
The quote is an excerpt from a Politico article of a speech given by Wayne LaPierre in Nevada this week in response to a line in President Obama's Inaugural speech.
This was the line he was responding to: "We cannot mistake absolutism for principle"
In my interactions throughout any given week I am often asked how it is possible for me to do my job in such a realitivisitic setting as a College Campus. I smile and say that such a setting aids discussion.
When Inclusion is one of the highest of moral standards, then my world-view is safely included. When there can only be one way to see an issue then my way of seeing it is in severe danger of being excluded. If every student in St. Louis took the stance that they already knew the "Truth" and believed they had no reason or requirement to open their minds to new ideas or opposing views then I would be out of a job.
When Inclusion is one of the highest of moral standards, then my world-view is safely included. When there can only be one way to see an issue then my way of seeing it is in severe danger of being excluded. If every student in St. Louis took the stance that they already knew the "Truth" and believed they had no reason or requirement to open their minds to new ideas or opposing views then I would be out of a job.
While it is ridiculous to consider discussing dinner with two wolves if you are a sheep, it is less ridiculous if there is a very large, well armed, Shepherd standing nearby to control the conversation.
Christ demanded that we love our neighbor as ourself. When I ask Christians what attitude they would wish their family and friends took towards them and Christianity, all of them say they wish that their Unconnected family and friends would just have an open mind, listen to what they say, and if it is compelling and coherent then be willing to convert to Christianity. I hear so many well meaning Christians sigh with regret at how hard it is to get their friends, co-workers, and neighbors to listen to the Gospel with an open mind. They look at me and ask me how I manage to have so many discussions with such antagonistic audiences. I try to explain it is because I first behave in the conversation exactly as I would wish the other person to behave.
Whether it is a political/social issue like how Guns are handled in society or a discussion about Spirituality and the possibility Christianity may be a compelling answer to how Humanity got here. The need to first arrive in the attitude you want the other person to take is probably absolutely essential.
Finding the capacity to not confuse Conviction with Character is the first step. I respect the people I talk to. They can feel that respect and that engenders trust. Then that trust engenders safety, which creates a place for us to discuss what we believe and why we believe it.
Arriving bemoaning how closed minded the other person is to the fact that they are obviously wrong and totally immoral is hardly conducive to healthy discussion. Then to demand that there is only one way that everyone must walk is to ignore the fact that God created humanity with the capacity to disagree with Him. Would The Fall have been possible in an Absolutist Eden? Would choice to depart have been possible in any other context than a Divine being willing to allow others the right to disagree?
We need the courage of our Creator when entering into the post-modern world of the 21st Century.
God still has an absolute standard. Thankfully, he has also provided the means to achieve that standard, which we can not accomplish on our own. Even that grace has an absolute in it. We certainly can disagree with God, but there is a consequence to that.
ReplyDeleteI read a great quote by Richard John Neuhaus, who was quoting Pope John Paul II, it went something along the lines of, "We do not impose our beliefs on anyone. We propose what we believe. But what we are proposing is the truth, which by nature, is imposing."
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like you desire Christians to be Gospel-centered, rather than demanding things of people. The Gospel does not demand, nor should our methods of communicating the Gospel; otherwise we are turning the Gospel into yet another law to be followed.
If we never have an open, respectful conversation with those we disagree with. Then there is little hope of anyone changing their mind. If I have no reason to listen, why should I have the right to speak?
ReplyDeleteFirst comment was in response to Dave. Ethan, yes that is what I was suggesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying, Robert. But I cannot deny that there are absolutes. Whether or not you agree with God doesn't change those absolutes. I see no reason to make a person behave the way I want them to unless their behavior harms me in a real way. Offending my sensibilities is not real harm, but depriving me of something, that I could otherwise have, is harmful.
ReplyDeleteWe should have open discussions as Christians and as people of differing beliefs. I cringe when a person who holds beliefs similar to mine on a topic resorts to name calling and vile speech. That is the last resort of a person who holds a position, but has no idea why.
"If you love me, you will follow my commands." Is that not placing a demand of sorts on Christians? Certainly, we cannot perfectly act that out, but it is not merely a suggestion.
"I cringe when a person who holds beliefs similar to mine on a topic resorts to name calling and vile speech. That is the last resort of a person who holds a position, but has no idea why."
ReplyDeleteI love this line!
I too think Christ's commands place a demand upon the hearer. But only for those who claim Him to be an authority in their life.
Having my behavior reflect my beliefs is being principled,
Imposing my Principles on others is tyrannical.
Principles are what define our personal behavior but ought not be the rule for everyone's behavior.
Absolutism isn't about the source of truth, but about imposing my version of truth in the unwilling.
I really like this conversation. I really miss having you help me think well and live well. It is like being back in Munich together.
I want to say that this is fun, but it is more than fun. We're having an important discussion. It helps me to hone my understanding of an issue when I communicate with both those who agree with me and disagree with me. I've experienced too many people who think differently than I do, resort to name calling, or worse, condescension. When I see someone that I agree with using those tactics, it makes me re-evaluate my position.
ReplyDeleteAnywho, (an Americanism used as a folksy segue) I would argue that Christ places demands on the non-believer (unbeliever?) as well in that each individual is required to accept the action of Christ on the cross as payment for their sin debt in order to gain eternal access to the Father. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Joh 14:6)" An argument could be made that I have taken scripture out of context, but if studied, this verse holds up as evidence to support what I have said.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your understanding of John 14:6. I think it is wise to take into account the culture we live in and allow that cultural awareness form how we contextualize John 14:6's message.
ReplyDeleteI think today's American "under 30s" society is dismissive of people who claim ownership of absolute truth.
I see John 14:6 speaking of a journey, an approach, a quest for the desired destination. It leaves such an awesome amount of room for consideration to how one can approach the truth, the way and the life. Rather than saying "Jesus is truth", we could discuss what authentic Truth, authentic ways and authentic life looks like for our friends who are disconnected from Christianity.
I think Christians might be surprised if they do talk about Truth, Way, Life, they would discover that many of those disconnected express the contents of the sermon on the mount often without realizing it is the Great Sermon of Jesus.
Common ground is where we can agree on the things we all think are Principled positions. But when I stand in my position and express my Principles in my language, then all I create is an incoherent noise.
So to condense this let me set an idea out there.
"Communicating a complex message in the context of the audience is the whole game as far as Christians are concerned. I don't think I'm called to defend the truth. I'm called to communicate it to people who don't know it is truth. "
Did Jesus take culture into account when he called the Pharisees white washed tombs? Or how about when he told people to go and sin no more? I would suggest that he did not, but I am willing to change that view given evidence. It isn't that I am saying we should bash people about the head with their sin. But Jesus didn't seem to be shy about letting people know where he stood. He loved people, wept over them, but I don't see once where he cut slack due to culture.
ReplyDeletePharisees being dealt with in their cultural context. "They demanded Truth" Jesus provided it. Those Jesus instructed to "go and sin no more" were those He had just healed. In my experience when I find a way to produce change in someone's life I then have the right to offer advice about life choices. Equally when I'm accosted by zealots I'm given then eight to speak bluntly to them because they want that kind of communication. But there were many thousands of people Jesus just talked to offering questions and rarely offering blunt answers or direct commands for behavior. The one great exception would probably be the sermon on the mount and for 2,000 Christians have been claiming that was an ideal picture that we'll have to wait for in Heaven as it was too hard to obey it here in earth. Telling people things isn't the same as communicating with them. I really believe Jesus would be reacting to today' culture just as He did to his own culture. Sheep, and goats and fishermen were all staples of His sermons because they were relevant to His hearers. I know there is a danger of losing the message in our search for relevance, but there is also a danger of losing the audience in our passion to ensure we tell them everything at once and not be misunderstood as condoning anything immoral. Life is a tension of trying to say complex ideas to a conflicted audience with a limited time frame in a polarized society. "Sin" is not a good word to use near the front of that conversation. I find it is more suitable for after I've made a tangible contribution to a person's life.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if there is a perfect method for communicating the message. I just know talking about sin too soon means no one is listening to what I say.
I truly wonder what Jesus would be saying today...... What is the same as "eating" with sinners today?