Tolerance Revisited

A phrase that is oft used, seldom correctly, is the phrase YOU ARE INTOLERANT. One need only open the editorial pages of any mainstream newspaper or turn to the letters to the editor section to find this statement misapplied. If one is an addict of newstalk radio, as I am, it frequently passes the lips of talk show hosts as they attempt to explain the latest round of conflict in our cultural wars.

Toleration has become a buzzword for those on the left in our society. In trying to make sense of cultural shifts such as homosexual marriage, abortion, the demise of the traditional family unit, euthanasia and others toleration, automatically carries the conotation that those who adhere to a more liberal worldview are somehow enlightened, educated, free of bigotry, open minded and caring. Those who do not, like myself, are considered to be rightwing, fanatic, neandrathal, out of touch, out dated, stupid, religious or worse a Christian. It is more designed to shut down intelligent discourse my name calling than dealing with the issue at hand. Part of this is can be attributed to the fact that as a society, we have forgotten what the world toleration means.

The word tolerant does not mean that all of us need to agree with each other. It means that two people can have irreconcilable differences. It means that one can argue, debate and muster the best apologetic in an attempt to persuade the other party to one's position. After the rhetoric has subsided, both sides ought to have an appreciation of the coherency of their opponents viewpoint. It does not automatically mean they can and will come to agreement. Quite frequently both sides remain unpersuaded and entrenched in their respective positions. Both should be able to leave the room physically unbloodied. The fact they choose not to kill each other over their disagreements is the essence of toleration.

Inherent within the definition of toleration is a presupposition that disagreement exists if the word toleration is to have any meaning. Allow me to illustrate with the following example: "I completely agree with you that lesbians should be allowed to marry each other, therefore I tolerate you." The sentence is an absurd statement about the nature of toleration. It makes no sense for two people to be in complete agreement with each other and then to say, on the basis of that agreement, that they tolerate each other.

Tragically, the Left has redefined toleration in order to verbally bludgeon anyone with whom they disagree. To be tolerant, in their eyes, is to be uncritically accepting of any ideal that departs from a traditional Judeo/Christian worldview. Liberalism is seen as good and normal. Any good and normal person would think this way because this is how tolerant people think. Liberalism's biggest fear is open and honest discussion of the issues of our day. They need to hide behind bullying tactics such as adhominem rhetoric in order to stifle a reasonable exchange of ideas.

I maybe disagreeable. I happily lay claim to the accusation and stand by my Christian worldview of life and how it should be lived. I am happy to discuss with anyone why the Christian worldview is true and normative for all people. I also realize that there are many who, despite my best persuasions, will thumb a nose at my beliefs. But I am not intolerant. You have every right to disagree with me but after we finish disagreeing I guarantee you that I will not blow you up, put you down or threaten your extinction. I do however promise this, that I will do whatever I can to love you and respect you without compromising those values that I hold precious.

We may disagree with each other, but toleration means that you and I are both image bearers of God, created in His likeness. It means that I have no right to strike against, denigrate or impugn the dignity given anyone created by the hands of the Master. You and I answer to the same God whether you choose to accept this or not. It is before Him that you will have to give a final answer.

Soli Deo Gloria

Islamic Riots Over Danish Cartoons

In recent days, we have seen a number of riots in Europe over some religous cartoons depicting Mohammed and Islam in a disparaging light. I am unashamedly a born-again Christian. As a Christian living in North America, I have seen my own faith bare the brunt of ridicule, discrimination, criticism and acrimony from the society at large. Because of this I inwardly cringe when anyone's sacred beliefs become a target of derision and scorn. It demonstrates, in large part, the character or lack thereof of the individuals who get some delight in belittling religious idealogy. I share their outrage but I cannot sympathize with their method of expressing their agitation.

Winston Churchill once said, that "Democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others". One of the cornerstones of western democracy is the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. I won't deal with the question of censorship at this point, but when I speak of freedom of expression, I am mainly concerned with the freedom to present idealogies, thoughts and arguments no matter how outlandish or offensive those thoughts might be. As I stated earlier, as a Christian, I have seen depictions of Jesus Christ, claims made by the likes of Conyay West, inaccurate presentations of time honored biblical principals that have frankly sickened me to my stomach. Having said this, I would never countenance any government to dissuade public discourse no matter how disagreeable the content of that discourse might be. The healthiest antidote to bigotry, hatred and intolerance is a free and open exchange in the market place of ideas.

The maxim "I may disagree with your ideas, but I will defend your right to say them" is quite appropo in this situation. Again, I do not ever believe it is a good thing to profane anyone's belief system. However, the rules that allow sophomoric idiots to display their hatred and ignorance are the same rules that allow me to critique my government, openly question public policy, engage the critics of Christianity and permit me that latitude to declare that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one comes to heaven apart from the salvific work of Christ. While Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna and a hundred other religious spokespeople may have some minor contribution to make on surface ethics, they are not the Son of God, have no messianic status and cannot save people from the wrath of God. That is an offensive message to many, but that is the heart and soul of the Christian Gospel. This Gospel has been on the receiving end of numerous barbs, but this is to be expected in a society that cherishes the freedom of expression.

Let us also not fall under the false assumption that religious zealotry has largely fueled the Islamic outrcy. It is curious to note that these cartoons have circulated openly in the public arena since last September and October. It also more than a little coincidental that during the period between October 2005 and January 2006, the Palestinian people have been embroiled in electing a new government with Hamas tragically now at the controls of Palestinian interests. During the pre-election period, Hamas was conspicuously silent over the publication of these cartoons. A terrorist organization bent on the absolute and utter destruction of Israel has been granted government status. It is also interesting, that Hamas, after the election, has been the catalyst in the last two weeks inciting clerics to rally the faithful to carry out Jihad in Europe. Islam has always been a religion that has the state inextricably intertwined within its theology so that the state becomes the mechanism by which religious compliance is enforced. I fear that these recent riots have more to do with Islamic politics than theology.

What is truly disturbing is the manner in which Islamic critics of these cartoons have linked journalistic expression with the policy of the Danish government. The reasoning is, that since the newspaper was in Denmark it must by nature have been sanctioned and approved by the Danish government. It is the Danish government's policy to disparage Muslims and therefore pressure is being brought to bear upon the government to silence journalistic expression. This goes beyond any rational attempt to voice disapproval. This is an assault on the very foundations upon which western democracy is based. If they achieve success in this arena, it will demonstrate that violence, murder, fear and carnage are effective weapons in silencing the free exchange of ideas.

That Muslims are offended I completely understand. That Muslims wish to voice their frustration, anger and disapproval is completely reasonable. That Muslims view this as a threat to Koranic orthodoxy is debatable. That they wish to freely exchange their doctrine in the marketplace of ideas is a total myth. Historically, Islam has never believed in a peaceful coexistence with other religious ideas. It is not interested in assimilation into North American society, but will only be satisfied with domination.

I hate saying this, but if any Canadian magazines desire to run these cartoons, they should be free to do so. Fear and intimidation ought not to be a consideration if we truly believe in a free and open exchange of ideas. I will be the first to stand in line and denounce these depictions of Islam but I will not call for the government to interfere with anyone who wants to place their ignorance on display.

Reflections from a dad about Dad

Yesterday, February 9, marked the birthday of my eldest child, Lydia. She has reached her 15th year and I can honestly say that she has been a real blessing to my wife and I. In our wildest imagination we could not have designed a more delightful child. Her coming into adulthood was part of my morning reflections as I spent time alone with God in prayer.

As I finished thanking God for giving us fifteen wonderful years, I paused and reflected on the other two children in my life, Michael (4) and Jonathan our most recent arrival. Michael has been a handful and quite different from our daughter. I reflected upon my interaction with him the night before. It occurred to me that I had been somewhat less than loving. I had come home from the office, extremely tired and more than a little preoccupied with my own problems. Michael was simply being Michael. Tragically, in my weakened state, Michael bore the brunt of dad's acrimony. My wife delicately pointed out the injustice of my actions.

With a night's sleep under my belt and in the quite presence of God our Father. I had to admit that Cynthia was right. I had a bad day. I was wrong and I needed to make amends with Michael. It then occurred to me how radically different our heavenly Father is in the way He deals with His children.

I have often taught that God is Holy, Sovereign, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He never slumbers nor sleeps. Nothing catches Him by surprise. There is not an atom in the universe that escapes His notice. He is at all times in complete and total control of all things in the created order. But most importantly, He never has a bad day. The stresses and anxiety that so mark my life and the lives of many in the Church are not part of God's composition. God never has a headache, never runs out of patience and never throws up His hands in disgust at our constant failures. Consequently, when He deals with us, He acts in accordance with His nature and character, never by acting in frustration or in arbitrary capriciousness. Thank goodness God never has a bad day.

We serve a heavenly Father that loves us enough to send His only begotten Son, Jesus, to take the punishment we deserve, to die in our place, that we might be adopted into the family of God. All the riches of Christ have been granted to us. He may chasten us from time to time because of our own folly and allow us the privilege of facing the consequences of our own actions. But He never, in desparation, change the rules of the relationship mid-stream.

Thank You for loving us this way. And thank you that you don't behave towards me in the same manner that I treated my own dear son.

Soli deo Gloria

Christianity and the Internet

Email, instant messaging, web browsing and blogging have become an integral part of our vocabulary. These terms represent advances in information technology that were inconceivable only a generation ago. I often bemoan the fact that I graduated from seminary before the number 286 represented state of the art technology in the world of personal computing. If only, I had access to a word processor to aid in the preparation of major papers dealing with Old Testament theology, I would have saved hundreds of hours of typing and retyping on my ancient IBM selectric. Never mind that now, one can carry an entire library of books on a sheet of plastic and silicone.

As a theologian, access to technology and the internet has opened doors of scholarship and academia in ways I never dreamt possible in seminary. The best and brightest of the world's theologians both past and present are only a mouse click away. I have observed however, that this electronic utopia has not come without a significant cost to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Most pastors will tell you that the internet has opened the door for men and women to entertain themselves in the mire of pornography. Normal, run of the mill church goers who would never dream of hiring the services of a prostitute; never venture into the doors of a strip club; never engage the notion of involvement in an adulterous relationship; never purchase a copy of Playboy or Hussler magazine are routinely swept into the addictive cesspool of online pornography. This includes ministers of the Gospel as well as laypeople. However, as sad as this situation might be, pornographic addiction is not the only aspect of the internet that deserves our attention and concern. There are other pitfalls to which unwitting Christians can succomb.

These pitfalls rarely receive any attention but they are just as insidious but not as sensational as pornography. Below is a list that should serve as a guide when counseling individuals on the proper and improper use of the internet:

• The internet is a great source of information. It is also a tremendous source of misinformation as well. Anyone with a blog, website or email can pass themselves off as experts in any number of disciplines. Human nature tends to give automatic credence to anything that is in print or available on e-media. As a society, we woefully lack the necessary critical skills that ought to protect us whenever anyone makes a truth claim. The first rule of critical thinking is to ask healthy questions like, who is the author of the article? What is his or her area of expertise to the discussion? Is the opinion based upon substantive fact or the rantings of a well intentioned but misinformed idiot? Does the author have an agenda? Has the author represented his or her claims honestly and fairly? Can the claim be substantiated by a second, third and even a fourth reliable party? As a theologian, I often receive emails, and internet articles concerning doctrinal aspects of the Christian Faith and their historical roots. It is appalling to see how often doctrine is misapplied and misrepresented. I have often observed that articles and criticisms appearing on the internet that try to handle thorny issues lack the research, thought and analysis that a difficult subject deserves. By the internet's very nature, articles tend to be uncomprehensive. The author is more interested in venting his spleen than engage in intelligent and edifying discussion.

• The use of email and instant messaging tends to depersonalize human contact. As Christians, we are commanded not to foresake fellowship, to care for each others burdens and to express love and concern for the saints and the greater community. These mandates are extremely difficult to fulfill if one is constantly hunkered down in front of a computer screen busily text messaging friends and neighbors. I love the fact that email allows us to distribute information quickly. It is a horrible tool to try and foster any meaningful sort of fellowship in the biblical sense. In some cases, I have observed that emails have been inadvertently used to follow up with church members in situations that required the care and nurture that only a personal visit by the local pastor can give.
• Another darker aspect to instant messaging is the fact that the users of IM can hide behind a cloak of anonymity to a certain degree. Teens especially have been notorious for using IM to spread gossip about each other. Using login id names rather than their given names, teens have been known to rip into each other with a reckless impunity that would not be tolerated in polite society. Because it is believed that no one knows the identity of the sender, those who use IM to verbally destroy another's character, are emboldened to use language, symbols and metaphors that they would never use outside the chatroom. This is especially troubling if these young folks are professing Christians.
• Older Church goers are not immune from the misuse of IM either. It is astounding how much private and confidential information is distributed without permission, via email, under the guise of sharing prayer requests. The Bible calls this gossip. Those of us guilty of this transgression need to confess, repent and exercise greater discernment when sending sharing discrete material via the internet.
• Certain other church members, that ought to know better, have been guilty of entering into adulterous relationships with people through chat rooms. It is striking how many married men and women engage in explicit flirtations with total strangers at the other end of the computer screen. This is infidelity and a violation of marital vows. There is nothing safe, harmless or innocent.
• Communication is stilted when ones main human contact is on the screen. Part of communication goes beyond mere literal words. Eye contact, tonal inflection and body language often convey more meaning than the words themselves and frequently give greater comfort or approbation. It is a futile exercise to try and read eye contact, inflection and body language online. I shudder to think how many needless heartaches have been caused by attempting to read between the lines of someone's email. Nothing can ever replace the impact of an actual smile, hug or pat on the back that comes from loving fellowship.
• It is often used as the coward's approach to thorny issues. No one ever like confrontation, even loving confrontation. Rather than face the person with which we have a disagreement it is easier to lash out via electronic media.
  
• It can be an enormous time waster. Like anything in the created realm, the computer can become a task master rather than task saver. Many of us are guilty of neglecting personal responsiblities, family obligations and opportunities for productive service by becoming ensnared to email, IM and the internet in general. It needs to be balanced against other life issues that are of greater priority. As parents, we need to set limits for the amount of time our children spend on the computer. But after they have gone to bed, do we ourselves violate the very principles that we are trying to teach our kids?
• We need to become very cautious about what we share in cyberspace. An email, blog or comment on the web has the potential to live forever. Information, once it is distributed over the internet can reside in any number of computers in any place on the planet. Careless thoughts and words, in the form of electronic media, can come back years later to our dismay. How often, in conversation, do we regret careless statements made in the heat of a moment. On the web, these same careless statements can come back to haunt us and continue to cause harm. We are powerless to take them back. Careful thought needs to be given before we press the send button and then say "oops I wish I had'nt sent that".

  
  

Please don't misunderstand. I love technology and I am grateful for the opportunities that is afforded me in my personal and professional ministry. Judiciously used, computers can enhance one's life and improve communication but only to a certain point. It has the potential to be addictive, destructive and dangerous. Perhaps, it would be a good idea, that as a church, we devote a portion of our pastoral care and counseling time to educate our flocks on both the postive benefits of technology along with the discretion that needs to be exercised in order to avoid becoming a ministerial casualty.

Soli deo Gloria