Before the Enlightenment theology was considered the queen of the sciences following the Enlightenment theology was kicked out of the field of science and not long afterwards the science vs. religion wars begun. Today science has moved into the realm of religion and the academy has become its temple. Can this be true? While maybe I added a little hyperbole I believe it is not far from the truth.
In reading an article from the AP this morning I was struck with the insanity of an academic system driven by political correctness and the prophets of the religion of science. Martin Gaskell a top astronomer in his field who oversaw the design and construction of the observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and advised the University of Kentucky in the building of the MacAdam observatory was past over for the position of Director of the new student observatory at the University of Kentucky because he was a Christian. He was at the top of the list of candidates for the position and one member of the search committee said he was, "breathtakingly above the other applicants." Why then was he passed over? They were worried that his faith would conflict with his duties as a scientist.
Are we now to understand that one of the future requirements for those who seek to be hired as a professor in a universities' science department must be an atheist? Are our universities moving away from free thought, open discussion and the marketplace of ideas? Are our universities' science departments moving away from the foundation of the scientific method? I think so.
Science is now answering the question they cannot without becoming a religion are entering the discipline of philosphy. The question of origins cannot be answered by science. Science most be able to observe, reproduce and then prove. We cannot reproduce our origins. Even when it comes to humanities origin and development evolution is a theory not a proven scientific fact. Whatever its merits are to eliminate other theories from the academy and worse yet to eliminate a professor because he is a believer in God, not a professed Creationist, moves into the category of religious fanaticism.
Whatever "Pure Science" looks like it is not what is taking place at the University of Kentucky. But what is taking place is an example of the evolution of science into a religion that has no room for other religions, scientist who believe in a God, besides science, and no room for alternative theories regarding humanities' origin and development. I hope Martin Gaskell wins his lawsuit against the University of Kentucky and I hope we would do what one of those who commented on this article said they would do, "If this guy got hired at the University my child was taking science classes at I would have my kid change schools. There is no way I'll give a school money to teach my kid religion." We should be willing to take our children out of universities that refuse to have science faculty that believe in God and do not allow free expression of faith. I would say to the one who made this comment and any others who share this opinion that if you put your child only in schools that refuse to hire people like Martin Gaskell you are putting your child in science classes that are teaching him/her religion - the Religion of Science.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Church Of The Rollback
I read an article yesterday about Walmart's recent extreme rollback strategy. It seems that Walmart implemented an extreme rollback campaign in response to the nation's severe recession. Over a period of time they increased the amount of rollbacks on numerous items within their stores. The strategy was not only to help their customers but to enlarge and strengthen their customer base thereby increasing store sells and helping Walmart Corp. during the recession. The article went on to report that the strategy failed. Instead of increasing sells, overall, in their stores it only increased sells on the extreme rollback items. Customers were coming to their stores and buying only the items on extreme rollback and then going home. The result was loss of revenue and zero gain of customers. They are now slowly increasing the prices on extreme rollbacks while not getting rid of their rollback marketing tool and offering a wider variety of products which their research shows their customers want.
Walmart might not be the only one to offer extreme rollbacks in hopes of attracting more people. In many churches across America one can find the rollback sign flipping lower and lower. In the market of religious-consumerism coupled with the passion to fulfill the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus we are offering the gospel at extreme rollback prices. It is a gospel without discipleship, a gospel without cost, a gospel without sacrifice, a narcissistic gospel that does not produce more followers of Christ or loyal followers. I must admit this is not new to our time or this generation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed this in the Church in Germany during the rise and reign of Hitler. In his classic work Cost Of Discipleship he writes how the church is selling grace at the five and dime store. He calls it cheap grace which is not grace at all. Rollback theology and ecclesiology does not produce more attendance in our churches nor does it produce more disciples of Jesus rather it produces consumer Christians. These followers of Christ go from one church store to another looking for what fulfills them without the pain, the cost or the sacrifice of discipleship. Bonhoeffer also said, "When Christ bids a man to come follow him he bids him to come and die."
Walmart is learning an important lesson in marketing and service to one's community. It is not just about the price it is about the quality of the product, the service and sacrificing for the broader needs of the customer. The Kingdom of God, the Church and being a follower of Christ is about discipleship more than just attracting people. Discipleship is serving not being served, sacrificing not receiving and other-centered rather than self-centered. True discipleship, true community (true church) costs. Jesus died on a cross paying the price for it. This community, the one Jesus died for, is where we find true and lasting life, fulfillment, joy, purpose real relationships. The cost is worth it. May the church, may Jesus' followers learn a lesson from Walmart, rollback church does not work.
Walmart might not be the only one to offer extreme rollbacks in hopes of attracting more people. In many churches across America one can find the rollback sign flipping lower and lower. In the market of religious-consumerism coupled with the passion to fulfill the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus we are offering the gospel at extreme rollback prices. It is a gospel without discipleship, a gospel without cost, a gospel without sacrifice, a narcissistic gospel that does not produce more followers of Christ or loyal followers. I must admit this is not new to our time or this generation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed this in the Church in Germany during the rise and reign of Hitler. In his classic work Cost Of Discipleship he writes how the church is selling grace at the five and dime store. He calls it cheap grace which is not grace at all. Rollback theology and ecclesiology does not produce more attendance in our churches nor does it produce more disciples of Jesus rather it produces consumer Christians. These followers of Christ go from one church store to another looking for what fulfills them without the pain, the cost or the sacrifice of discipleship. Bonhoeffer also said, "When Christ bids a man to come follow him he bids him to come and die."
Walmart is learning an important lesson in marketing and service to one's community. It is not just about the price it is about the quality of the product, the service and sacrificing for the broader needs of the customer. The Kingdom of God, the Church and being a follower of Christ is about discipleship more than just attracting people. Discipleship is serving not being served, sacrificing not receiving and other-centered rather than self-centered. True discipleship, true community (true church) costs. Jesus died on a cross paying the price for it. This community, the one Jesus died for, is where we find true and lasting life, fulfillment, joy, purpose real relationships. The cost is worth it. May the church, may Jesus' followers learn a lesson from Walmart, rollback church does not work.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Who Are We?
What defines us? Have you ever thought about what really defines your life? Many times when I am at a cementary I will walk around and read the various grave markers. The markers offer a brief picture of what others feel defined the life of their loved one. If you had to write your obituary today what would you want it to say about your life? What do you want to be remembered for?
I began this post several months ago and never finished it but after reading an article about Kenny McKinley, wide receiver for the Denver Broncos I thought I would finish it. The article focused on the struggles of pro football players while mentioning the similar struggles we all have. It talked about the pressures of job performance, of superman complexes, of disorders and the fear to ask for help and the danger of self-indentity and self-worth being tied to our job, our vocation or the label our life is tagged with. Our identity is crucial to our health and fulfillment in life. Who are you?
I began this post several months ago and never finished it but after reading an article about Kenny McKinley, wide receiver for the Denver Broncos I thought I would finish it. The article focused on the struggles of pro football players while mentioning the similar struggles we all have. It talked about the pressures of job performance, of superman complexes, of disorders and the fear to ask for help and the danger of self-indentity and self-worth being tied to our job, our vocation or the label our life is tagged with. Our identity is crucial to our health and fulfillment in life. Who are you?
In talking with people I find that for many of us our lives are defined by actions, positions, abilities, appearance, status, accomplishments, and for many Christ-followers our gifts instead of "being." But all these will end one day, some sooner than we think. While these are descriptors of our life they are not what defines our lives. These are to flow out of who we are and the purpose of our life not the other way around.
Who I am is defined by God. If I have entered a relationship with God I am a Christ-follower, a child of God. The purpose of my life is found in my creator and Heavenly Father. If I have not entered relationship with God I am God's loved creation yet I am a lost child of God. The purpose of my life is to know God. We are eternal beings and the temporal things of our physical world cannot define us. Our value and worth finds its source in that we are created by God in his image and given the gift of life. Worth and value are not measured by the degree of my productivity. My worth, my value, life's worth and value is found in our creation, or being, not my title, position, possessions, status or whether I can still add value to the community I am a part of.
To define ourselves by what we do, who we know, by our abilities, etc devalues who we are. As a Christ-follower my life has purpose whether I am in a productive season of my life, whether I am a multi-gifted person or a mono-gifted person. All my abilities, attributes, resources, and life whether they are in abundance or are scarce are to be used to fulfill my purpose in life. I am defined by who I am! Life is to be about being not doing. Who I am, what what I am defined by is found in my relationship with Jesus. All people have value, have worth whether they are Christ-followers or not our life is sacred because we have been created in the image of God and have been infused with purpose. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." I would suggest God created me and loves me therefore I am and my life has purpose and meaning. I am therefore I do; not I do therefore I am. Being precedes doing, being has value when doing ceases, being gives meaning to doing.
No matter who you are no matter what your title is, no matter how gifted or talented you are your life has great value and purpose. As I grow older I watch the limiting of certain abilities, does that mean I am of less value to my community, to my culture or to the world? No! We have been created in the image of God that is where our identity lies, that is where our worth is therefore; there is purpose and meaning even when life's abilities and productivity is diminished. Who are we? That is the foundational question. Jobs, vocations, strength, abilities, beauty, popularity, relationships and titles all eventually fade away, who are we when the light fades, the cheers and the crowds become silent and we are alone with ourselves? I, we are God's creation called into relationship with him, through Jesus, to eternal purposes that infuse this life and eternal life. You are loved today, your life has value today no matter where you find yourself.
No matter who you are no matter what your title is, no matter how gifted or talented you are your life has great value and purpose. As I grow older I watch the limiting of certain abilities, does that mean I am of less value to my community, to my culture or to the world? No! We have been created in the image of God that is where our identity lies, that is where our worth is therefore; there is purpose and meaning even when life's abilities and productivity is diminished. Who are we? That is the foundational question. Jobs, vocations, strength, abilities, beauty, popularity, relationships and titles all eventually fade away, who are we when the light fades, the cheers and the crowds become silent and we are alone with ourselves? I, we are God's creation called into relationship with him, through Jesus, to eternal purposes that infuse this life and eternal life. You are loved today, your life has value today no matter where you find yourself.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Stuck
Reading some of the news stories today you would think that the GOP's chance of winning back the Senate is all but dead because a GOP candidate won the Delaware primary. Christine O'Donnell a conservative republican beat out the believed shoe in Mike Castle for the spot on the republican ticket for Delaware's Senate seat. Now you may be thinking my blog today is going to be all about politics. No, it's really going to be about becoming stuck.
The GOP is unwilling to support Christine O'Donnell financially and has offered little congratulatory encouragement. The reason, she is to conservative, lacks experience and is viewed as not having a chance to win the seat. It appears the GOP is willing to cut off their nose to spit their face. Why? One reason is that they are stuck. Lifetime seats in the Senate can cause myopia and atrophy causing those in them to become more self-serving and defenders of the system instead of the principles that the system is founded on.
But isn't that somewhat true for all of our lives? What was once new and innovative eventually becomes canonized, systematized and seen as the rule or way we are to do it. We love our traditions. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing tradition has a very valid and needed place in society and culture. It is when the tradition or the system trumps the founding principles or beliefs than we are in trouble and stuck. Jesus said, "Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."
While our political system seems to becoming more and more mired in keeping power for power's sake, in keeping the old guard while others are adopting old socialistic ideologies the nation as a whole is experiencing entropy. But change always starts with the individual. How are we stuck? Is my life driven by eternal principles or have I become stuck in tradition for tradition sake? Are my decisions based in living truth or pragmatism, hedonism or other humanistic philosophies? Change is difficult, it is uncomfortable and will be resisted and mocked by the systems that are no longer driven by their founding principles. To not change is certain death whether it comes quickly or slowly.
Maybe an inexperienced conservative candidate is the answer or maybe not. Maybe staying in the place we are at is the right thing for us or maybe it is not. All of us at least need to be open to evaluating our position. Are we more concerned about tradition or keeping what we have than, living truth and eternal principles? Maybe we need our own personal tea party for the areas we are stuck in. If for no other reason the tea party movement will be beneficial if it makes us reexamine our political establishment and reexamine our actions and our life.
The GOP is unwilling to support Christine O'Donnell financially and has offered little congratulatory encouragement. The reason, she is to conservative, lacks experience and is viewed as not having a chance to win the seat. It appears the GOP is willing to cut off their nose to spit their face. Why? One reason is that they are stuck. Lifetime seats in the Senate can cause myopia and atrophy causing those in them to become more self-serving and defenders of the system instead of the principles that the system is founded on.
But isn't that somewhat true for all of our lives? What was once new and innovative eventually becomes canonized, systematized and seen as the rule or way we are to do it. We love our traditions. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing tradition has a very valid and needed place in society and culture. It is when the tradition or the system trumps the founding principles or beliefs than we are in trouble and stuck. Jesus said, "Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."
While our political system seems to becoming more and more mired in keeping power for power's sake, in keeping the old guard while others are adopting old socialistic ideologies the nation as a whole is experiencing entropy. But change always starts with the individual. How are we stuck? Is my life driven by eternal principles or have I become stuck in tradition for tradition sake? Are my decisions based in living truth or pragmatism, hedonism or other humanistic philosophies? Change is difficult, it is uncomfortable and will be resisted and mocked by the systems that are no longer driven by their founding principles. To not change is certain death whether it comes quickly or slowly.
Maybe an inexperienced conservative candidate is the answer or maybe not. Maybe staying in the place we are at is the right thing for us or maybe it is not. All of us at least need to be open to evaluating our position. Are we more concerned about tradition or keeping what we have than, living truth and eternal principles? Maybe we need our own personal tea party for the areas we are stuck in. If for no other reason the tea party movement will be beneficial if it makes us reexamine our political establishment and reexamine our actions and our life.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Bad Religion
It seems to be in vogue or in fashion in the media and more recently in sermons and blogs to bash "religion." For years Christians or Christ-followers have worked hard at making a distinction between religion and a relationship with Jesus. It is not uncommon today to hear preachers and Christ-followers joining the chorus of atheists, agnostics and those who are merely spiritual saying how horrible religion is, how they hate religion or that religion is just a pile of whatever. I, myself, have added my voice to the chorus of those who have offered a harsh critique of religion from the inside. But is religion truly wrong or bad? And where would Christ-followers be without religion?
I believe that what most people are attacking or critiquing when they offer their comments on religion is "bad religion" not religion itself. Religion defined by Webster is, "1 Belief in and worship of God or gods. 2 A specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics." Religion is a term to define belief in God and its outflow of worship and life. The belief in God and worship of God results in a lifestyle that honors and glorifies God (ethics based in a theological or biblical worldview). If we were to forsake or throwout religion, as historically defined, Christ-followers would be throwing away their relationship with Jesus. As a Christ-follower, myself, I would not be willing to do that.
Revisionist history or revisionist grammar (language) is not always helpful to the truth and at times can be detrimental. The etymology of "religion" can mean to reconnect or to reverence God or gods. This is at the core of a Christian's belief. We belief all people need to reconnect with God that is why Christ came. If is Christ who reconnects us with God. The term religion has been used to refer to the belief systems that develop out of a belief in God or gods. I find many of the critiques and calls to eliminate religion really come from one's problem with certain belief systems or structures that have developed out of a certain belief in God or gods. Why don't we just call these systems or structures "bad religion?" Redefining "religion" sends the wrong message we end up saying we want to get rid of all belief in God and all ethical standards of life that come from a belief in God and our creation in God's image. There are the purest who really do mean and want to get rid of all religion, all belief in God or gods because they truly belief that any belief in God is self-deceptive at best and dangerous at worst.
Words are important and as a Christ-follower I need to be careful how I use words. I need to be careful what actions I am calling for and how I am revising historical terms for I might find myself calling for the deconstruction of the very thing that gives my life purpose, meaning and that gives me life itself. Is it merely semantics? Maybe but I don't think so. Religious systems that are based in humanism, human efforts to please God and earn our way into relationship with God are "bad religion." But also are belief systems based in "cheap grace" that mirrors a humanistic ethical system where Christ-followers have higher divorces rates than non Christ-followers, have lower work ethics than non Christ-followers, do not care for the widow, the orphan and the poor and do not hold to absolute truth. These are examples of "bad religion" not pure religion. Religion is not a pile of "crap" and something to be thrown out "bad religion" is.
These are just some of my thoughts on a current pet peeve. If they are a cause for further thought I am happy. If they offend you I apologize. If they make you uncomfortable that may be good. If it makes us thank about God than I am really happy.
I believe that what most people are attacking or critiquing when they offer their comments on religion is "bad religion" not religion itself. Religion defined by Webster is, "1 Belief in and worship of God or gods. 2 A specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics." Religion is a term to define belief in God and its outflow of worship and life. The belief in God and worship of God results in a lifestyle that honors and glorifies God (ethics based in a theological or biblical worldview). If we were to forsake or throwout religion, as historically defined, Christ-followers would be throwing away their relationship with Jesus. As a Christ-follower, myself, I would not be willing to do that.
Revisionist history or revisionist grammar (language) is not always helpful to the truth and at times can be detrimental. The etymology of "religion" can mean to reconnect or to reverence God or gods. This is at the core of a Christian's belief. We belief all people need to reconnect with God that is why Christ came. If is Christ who reconnects us with God. The term religion has been used to refer to the belief systems that develop out of a belief in God or gods. I find many of the critiques and calls to eliminate religion really come from one's problem with certain belief systems or structures that have developed out of a certain belief in God or gods. Why don't we just call these systems or structures "bad religion?" Redefining "religion" sends the wrong message we end up saying we want to get rid of all belief in God and all ethical standards of life that come from a belief in God and our creation in God's image. There are the purest who really do mean and want to get rid of all religion, all belief in God or gods because they truly belief that any belief in God is self-deceptive at best and dangerous at worst.
Words are important and as a Christ-follower I need to be careful how I use words. I need to be careful what actions I am calling for and how I am revising historical terms for I might find myself calling for the deconstruction of the very thing that gives my life purpose, meaning and that gives me life itself. Is it merely semantics? Maybe but I don't think so. Religious systems that are based in humanism, human efforts to please God and earn our way into relationship with God are "bad religion." But also are belief systems based in "cheap grace" that mirrors a humanistic ethical system where Christ-followers have higher divorces rates than non Christ-followers, have lower work ethics than non Christ-followers, do not care for the widow, the orphan and the poor and do not hold to absolute truth. These are examples of "bad religion" not pure religion. Religion is not a pile of "crap" and something to be thrown out "bad religion" is.
These are just some of my thoughts on a current pet peeve. If they are a cause for further thought I am happy. If they offend you I apologize. If they make you uncomfortable that may be good. If it makes us thank about God than I am really happy.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
When Did It Become All About The Party?
Well I am back from being lost in cyberspace. I am going to try to start small with my blogging with the goal of 2 blogs a week. For my 2 followers hope you stay with me and maybe if I get it right we will have more followers if nothing else I hope I have fun.
I was at a family member's wedding this weekend. The setting was beautiful, the ceremony and reception areas were beautiful with great decorations and most of all the bride was gorgeous, the groom was handsome and the bridal party looked great. Food was great, music loud and everyone enjoyed themselves.
So you might be asking, "What's the point?" It was all about the party! When did weddings, baptisms, funerals, dedications become all about the party? These moments of life, at one time, were considered to be Sacraments. A grace moment and for some an element in the salvation life of a believer. It was a sacred moment when the eternal touched the temporal. They were moments when the gift was not just celebrated but honored and cherished with God and the larger community of family and friends. God was recognized as the giver of life, marriage and salvation. Weddings were times when vows were taken, commitments made, promises given, love professed and confirmed, community strengthened, God recognized as the one who makes a bride and groom one, the source of love and the center and foundation of a marriage, and a time to celebrate the gift of marriage, love, family and community.
When life, marriage, child birth, life's milestones and community become all about the party the foundations for a healthy strong life, marriage, family and community are eroded, weakened and faulty. It has been said by one of our contemporary poet/songwriters "party like there is no tomorrow." But there is a tomorrow and an eternity. One of our ancient writers said, "If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.' Do not be deceived bad company ruins good morals."
Life is to be full of celebration, let us celebrate! But celebration without acknowledging God as the source of all life and every good gift is empty. True celebration requires the eternal to touch the temporal, commitment to anchor it from the storms of frivolity, true friends and family to walk life with us, and faith to sustain us during the difficult times and the ordinary times that give depth and meaning to our celebrations.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I feel like I need to start with a confession so that I can experience forgiveness. I have failed it has been approximately a month since my last blog forgive me for my lapse I will work hard at being more consistent. I feel so much better, not really, but it was fun anyways.
I read a blog earlier today that got me thinking about tolerance and the relationship between it and acceptance, agreement and condoning. Sociologically and politically tolerance is central to unity and for a healthy and safe state or nation. It has also been used as a club to attack those who hold to opposing viewpoints. Etymologically words evolve they morph over time and take on variations and applications of their original meanings. Tolerance is a word that has experienced some significant changes in the last century. Webster defines tolerance as "being tolerant of others' views, beliefs and practices." Coming from the "Latin tolerare meaing to bear meaning to allow, to respect others beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear someone or something disliked; to put up with." Today sociologically and politically, for the most part, this is not how tolerance is defined or used.
Today tolerance does not only mean to respect and allow others' beliefs put to agree and condon them. Tolerance, as I understand, never meant that one had to agree with others' beliefs or actions nor condon them. One can show tolerance, show respect and even acceptance of the person without agreeing, accepting or condoning that person's belief system, practices or actions.
Now Christians or Christ-followers, like myself, have to admit that the church throughout history has not always shown tolerance to those whose beliefs disagree with Christianity. We have not always shown love that gave respect to the person(s), understanding of their beliefs and actions, accepting them for who they are while at the same time disagreeing with their beliefs, practices and actions. All Christ-followers need to daily grow in loving and accepting people as Jesus did and does. God loves each of us equally and meets us where we are at and we must do the same.
Just as Christ-followers have some things to learn about tolerance so do those who are not Christians or Christ-followers. Claiming to be tolerant and not granting Christians and Christianity the same amount of tolerance as all other people and beliefs is not tolerant. Condemning all Christ-followers, all churches as being intolerant and having no place in the public square is not showing acceptance and respect of the beliefs and actions of a group you disagree with. True tolerance must be offered to all groups not just to certain ones if it is true tolerance.
Christ-followers and those who are not Christ-followers need to understand that tolerance never means acceptance of wrong actions nor agreement with conflicting beliefs. It never means one cannot say they disagree with another's belief system or that they believe it is wrong. True tolerance supports open dialog and disagreement.
I ended my post on the other blog site with the same words I will end my blog for today. "How tolerant are we?"
I read a blog earlier today that got me thinking about tolerance and the relationship between it and acceptance, agreement and condoning. Sociologically and politically tolerance is central to unity and for a healthy and safe state or nation. It has also been used as a club to attack those who hold to opposing viewpoints. Etymologically words evolve they morph over time and take on variations and applications of their original meanings. Tolerance is a word that has experienced some significant changes in the last century. Webster defines tolerance as "being tolerant of others' views, beliefs and practices." Coming from the "Latin tolerare meaing to bear meaning to allow, to respect others beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear someone or something disliked; to put up with." Today sociologically and politically, for the most part, this is not how tolerance is defined or used.
Today tolerance does not only mean to respect and allow others' beliefs put to agree and condon them. Tolerance, as I understand, never meant that one had to agree with others' beliefs or actions nor condon them. One can show tolerance, show respect and even acceptance of the person without agreeing, accepting or condoning that person's belief system, practices or actions.
Now Christians or Christ-followers, like myself, have to admit that the church throughout history has not always shown tolerance to those whose beliefs disagree with Christianity. We have not always shown love that gave respect to the person(s), understanding of their beliefs and actions, accepting them for who they are while at the same time disagreeing with their beliefs, practices and actions. All Christ-followers need to daily grow in loving and accepting people as Jesus did and does. God loves each of us equally and meets us where we are at and we must do the same.
Just as Christ-followers have some things to learn about tolerance so do those who are not Christians or Christ-followers. Claiming to be tolerant and not granting Christians and Christianity the same amount of tolerance as all other people and beliefs is not tolerant. Condemning all Christ-followers, all churches as being intolerant and having no place in the public square is not showing acceptance and respect of the beliefs and actions of a group you disagree with. True tolerance must be offered to all groups not just to certain ones if it is true tolerance.
Christ-followers and those who are not Christ-followers need to understand that tolerance never means acceptance of wrong actions nor agreement with conflicting beliefs. It never means one cannot say they disagree with another's belief system or that they believe it is wrong. True tolerance supports open dialog and disagreement.
I ended my post on the other blog site with the same words I will end my blog for today. "How tolerant are we?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)