The concept of the "stupid findie" is the arrogant domain of the so-called enlightened Christian that is "tolerant," an ironic assertion of those that would reject an absolute "Law-Gospel" endoctrination of the Bible. This position is fostered by a post-modern ideology that would assert it's greatest truth with absolute certainty, if such absolute certainty was allowed. There's where the hold matter collapses. If the fundementalist Christian who holds Scriptures as authoritative is de facto imbecilic, is would be the hallmark of an intolerance, a rejection of the person whose position is contrary to the "politically correct" philosophy. This notion, if not recognized, leads to positive hypocrisy. The whole matter rises or falls with your opinion on absolute morality and the fearsome idea that one may be on the wrong side of same.
This is the contents of the e-mail derected to Mr. Brierley:
Justin,
When you started talking up this past Saturday's show "Is the religious right wrong?" two weeks prior, I had a decided ill-feeling about the title of the program. I wondered how wording the debate would presuppose the "correct" answer. I have learned that the wording of the debate is crucial to both sides pro and con. I had surmised that a title as "Is the religious left a hijacker of the Gospel of Christ crucified?" as an equally unworthy approach to the issue. I trusted that your remarkable ability to remain neutral to the parties invited to speak on the point would remain rock solid, even though severely tried. You had quite the feisty exchange (good!) and made sure both sides had their talking points freely expressed (better!). My confidence that you can arrange for such meetings of minds can be calmly presented (best!) in an amiable environment was confirmed.
Now, if it hadn't seemed that the parties were talking past each other (thud!) ...
As for myself, I feel that the Christian faith is an apolitical entity. I hold politics as a continual effort to construct a Utopian society where freedom, justice, and equity shall be achieved. I emphasize the word "Utopian." Our political leanings often checker our understanding of the Gospel of Christ, but it is a huge mistake to feel that the kingdom of God is better advanced when "Party A" is in power, and going to the devil when "Party B" is voted in. I am conservative myself, and feel that one party is liberal, the other is moderate (lest we offend!); thus I hardly feel that government is responsive to my beliefs. While I do vote according to my conscience (and we all must), I hold no panacea for the country will be attained should the right candidate lands the job. As a Christian, I do hold to a dual citizenship, that to my country and that to my God. Thus it has always been. The early Christian honored the Roman emperor, but did not deify the fellow. They recognized the kingship of Jesus above that of Caesar, a notion threatening to imperial power. It is that loyalty to Jesus is daunting to the citizen. Is it loyalty to the culture (which can be corrupt) or Christ? We must be confident on the understanding of Christ's ministry on earth, why had He come? If as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," a secular society would never appreciate that. We must beware that we do not reinvent Jesus to a Messiah of our liking. He did not come as an earthly king (John 6: 15), much less a social reformer. He would render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, even if Caesar's system of government was not perfect. The thing of importance was render to God the things that are God's.
I appreciate the forum that you offer. Such matters are not debated either in Britain or America, and are even now legislated against in Canada. Your flair for dialog is desperately needed. Continue the excellent work in keeping the conversation going, in a spirit of gentility and respect.
Yours in Christ,
Doran Fischer (no relation to the Brian Fischer of the broadcast)
Ixonia, Wisconsin, USA
No comments:
Post a Comment