I’ve been talking with a girl in one of my classes whom I’d like to help, but I don’t seem to be able to. And the reason I can’t help her is that she’s a victim of a society that has lost its ability to reason. Ravi Zacharias, an evangelist I respect very much, addresses this societal disease in a weekly radio broadcast entitled “Let My People Think”. He has it right, because if this people were allowed to think, they would be able to break out of the meaningless material rut that this world runs in—even able to break out of that dangerous spiritual rut called Tolerance.
That’s the rut this girl is in. She’s bought into the lie that Tolerance is the be-all and end-all of religion. She can’t conceive of a God who would be so intolerant as to send people to hell for believing in Muhammed as well as Jesus, and so she has to accept all religions as equally valid. And she can’t even see the most basic problem with that, which is that religions that contradict each other can’t all be true. The way she avoids this is simple: the Multiplicity of Truth. Truth is not Truth, truth is your truth, and my truth, and Bob’s truth, but all truth and all equally valid. So the sky may be blue for me, and gravity may be true for me, but when I try to force “my” truth on others, I miss the point of the thing.
Not so very long ago, this kind of unreason would be unthinkable in any educated person. Now we’re taught it in our universities.
I’m not really surprised that some people out there advocate illogical creeds like Tolerance, but I am (perhaps wrongly) surprised that so many people can fall for it. Like this girl, a student at a public university, and a pleasant, intelligent person—but believing wholeheartedly that religion necessitates leaving Reason at the door.
I’m left at a loss. How does one combat such a disease? If a person admits the necessity of Reason, you can help him reason his way to the truth. But if Reason itself is thrown out—what then? If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?
I think the only answer is the Holy Spirit working through His Word. The Word of God is a double-edged sword, and I shouldn’t be considering it as my weapon of last resort. What I can’t do, God can do. This girl doesn't need to hear me, she needs to hear what God says about the belief that all roads lead to Him. I read it only this morning:
That’s the rut this girl is in. She’s bought into the lie that Tolerance is the be-all and end-all of religion. She can’t conceive of a God who would be so intolerant as to send people to hell for believing in Muhammed as well as Jesus, and so she has to accept all religions as equally valid. And she can’t even see the most basic problem with that, which is that religions that contradict each other can’t all be true. The way she avoids this is simple: the Multiplicity of Truth. Truth is not Truth, truth is your truth, and my truth, and Bob’s truth, but all truth and all equally valid. So the sky may be blue for me, and gravity may be true for me, but when I try to force “my” truth on others, I miss the point of the thing.
Not so very long ago, this kind of unreason would be unthinkable in any educated person. Now we’re taught it in our universities.
I’m not really surprised that some people out there advocate illogical creeds like Tolerance, but I am (perhaps wrongly) surprised that so many people can fall for it. Like this girl, a student at a public university, and a pleasant, intelligent person—but believing wholeheartedly that religion necessitates leaving Reason at the door.
I’m left at a loss. How does one combat such a disease? If a person admits the necessity of Reason, you can help him reason his way to the truth. But if Reason itself is thrown out—what then? If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?
I think the only answer is the Holy Spirit working through His Word. The Word of God is a double-edged sword, and I shouldn’t be considering it as my weapon of last resort. What I can’t do, God can do. This girl doesn't need to hear me, she needs to hear what God says about the belief that all roads lead to Him. I read it only this morning:
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
But the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
18 Comments:
So tolerance to you is "a spiritual rut", "an illogical creed", "a disease"? Not many Christians would agree with you there.
Tolerance in its proper place, no, you're right. But I'm referring to Tolerance as a religion in itself--as the belief that to discriminate between one belief and another, between Truth and Falsehood, is a bad thing.
One should tolerate brussels-sprouts. One should tolerate sales tax. One should tolerate people one doesn't like; but one should not tolerate sin. God is not a God of tolerance--he is a God of Everlasting Love, amazing forgiveness, but also of justice. To tolerate sin (as this girl said He must, since she's too tenderhearted to believe in a God that punishes evil) is to leave people in bondage to sin. The only way to set people free from the law of sin and death is to acknowledge the sinfuless of man, the righteousness of God, and the need for atonement for that sin.
The answer isn't tolerance, it's Jesus Christ's perfect sacrifice for a dying world. This girl, and others who glorify Tolerance as a creed can't accept Christ's sacrifice because their unwillingness to judge at all means they can't admit they've done anything they deserve to be judged for.
It's a sad creed, because the only solution it has to offer is to pretend the problem doesn't exist. The truth is that I AM sinful, and I need Christ's atonement for my sins before I can be right with a just God.
Rather than live in bondage and pretend it's freedom, I'd take Christ's sacrifice, and the Truth that sets me free anyday!
"The Truth shall set you free, and you shall be free indeed!"
Oh, and while the "illogical creed" and "spiritual rut" was referring to Tolerance, the bit about a "disease" was referring to the inability of our society to reason, to think logically. It's the disease of illogic that prevents society from seeing the problems with beliefs like Tolerance.
However you wrap it up, your creed still sounds a harsh, unforgiving and illogical one unlikely to appeal to mainstream Christians.
I gather you are at Wayne University in Michigan (not Wayne College in Nebraska?). If so, it must be difficult for you to support wholeheartedly its mission statement, which includes the words: "The programs and activities of the University are open to all qualified persons without regard to race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, age, national or ethnic origin, political belief, or physical handicap, except as may be required by law. The University seeks to demonstrate, through all its programs and activities, its appreciation of human diversity and to maintain an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect that will nourish human liberty and democratic citizenship."I imagine that provided you keep a low profile the authorities wouldn't care too much about your beliefs as the university is committed to tolerance, even to extreme creeds like yours, but if you are going around preaching intolerance you may get into serious trouble. Be careful.
You're combining logical thought and religion? You are too funny. MM
Yes, I attend Wayne State University in Detroit. Why should I have a problem with their mission statement though? I support the public university being open to everyone, regardless of what they believe. I appreciate human diversity and mutual respect. Within a school setting, I even think it's better to err on the side of over-tolerance than under-tolerance. I should like it if they'd apply the tolerance-standard evenly, though. At Wayne State, Tolerance means that all religions and beliefs must be tolerated and respected by the students...with the critical exception of Christianity.
I am opposed to tolerance in the church. The place of the church is to love the sinner, not to tolerate the sin. There is a difference between what a public university should allow, and what the church should allow.
For instance, I support equal rights in the public arena for gays. That is, I believe they should have the rights of every American citizen--the right to vote, the right of free speech, and the right to equal protection under the laws (which does not include special treatment, or redefinition of the traditional meaning of marriage). However, this does not extend to the arena of the church. The church should not "tolerate" having gays in leadership positions in the church, because that is contrary to God's law. Neither should the church condone homosexuality either actively (by saying there is nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle) or passively (by not broaching the topic for fear of offending others).
The church has a moral obligation to be the "salt of the earth". If the church loses its saltiness (i.e. backs down on crucial theological issues upon which the Bible is very clear), what good is it?
It's not a harsh creed--it's a just creed. It's harsher to admit that evil exists but have no solution for it. Neither is it an unforgiving creed. The whole point of Christianity is that man NEEDS forgiveness. Tolerance says, "Forgiveness for what? You believe your way and I'll believe mine, and we're all okay. There's no such thing as sin, man! That's outdated!" You can't advocate forgiveness if you don't believe in sin.
MM: Certainly! Who do you think created Logic anyway? Insofar as Man's story goes, it's perfectly logical. Man is created sinless, he is given a choice, and he chooses to sin. He is now separated from the righteous God who created him. How is the chasm between sinful Man and just God to be bridged?
The only UNreasonable part of Christianity is that God is willing to pay the price for Man's sin. The logical end to the story would be that He lets all of mankind follow their own way to destruction. I prefer the undeserved gift of Grace that allows me to be in fellowship with God again to the "reasonable" outcome of pursuing my own merry way to hell.
Jamie,
You seem like a nice girl. You are smart because you clearly got into a good school, Wayne State. Your belief is very important, probably the most important thing in your life. That's great, it clearly makes you happy. But please do not insult me, or yourself, by thinking that your rationalization for logic is in any way logical. Religion is diametrically opposed to rational thought; belief is irrational. Religion is the source of your happieness. If you applied a little logic to life you might not be so happy. Religion plays a large role in the world, but it not a substitute for logical thought, and cannot be applied to such thought without a great deal of scholastic twists and turns. Spare me Thomas Aquinas and other church writers. Biblical inerrancy is not a source of argument.
Tell Pieter he needs to put up comments again.
Hey, wait a minute! I'm smart because I got into Wayne State?? That's an insult to my intelligence! A lot of very stupid people get into Wayne State. Getting into Wayne State was easy. Being smart was a lot of work ;)
As regards Reason and Religion...they are not mutually exclusive. Granted, "religion" (a term I don't really like...because nowadays its been redefined to mean a set of rituals, not a personal relationship with God) is not based exclusively on Reason. It necessitates an element of faith. However, simply because faith is not BASED on logic or reason does not mean it is ANTI-reason. That assumption is itself a logical fallacy. Faith is not contrary to reason, it is outside and above the sphere of reason.
You say Reason and Religion are antithetical; I say they are not. They share, for example, a common presupposition--the existence of Truth. The whole point of logic is to avoid falling into error, or "untruth", if you will. Also, they are similar in that while neither Religion nor Reason can themselves be proved, they are the tool by which we prove or test other beliefs and statements.
Its nice you grant that religion makes me happy. But it is not an opiate, and I am not the masses; furthermore it's an insult to me and to every other Christian to suggest that Faith precludes Reason. That is what society has done, and that's what has relegated religion to the place of "personal belief" (i.e. irrelevant to real life).
If you think Christianity is unreasoning, its because you don't know Christianity.
As regards Pieter...I tell him and tell him, but he doesn't listen to me. I suggest you flood him with mail until he relents :)
"..At Wayne State, Tolerance means that all religions and beliefs must be tolerated and respected by the students...with the critical exception of Christianity."What can you possibly mean? That at Wayne State Christianity is not tolerated or respected? Surely not. If so, this is a very serious matter indeed. Please explain.
Jamie,
Well said!
"So tolerance to you is 'a spiritual rut', 'an illogical creed', 'a disease'? Not many Christians would agree with you there."
Raises hand as at least one Christian that agrees with her.
"Tell Pieter he needs to put up comments again."
It was partly in order to avoid wasting my time replying to aggressively whiny atheists like yourself that I took comments off my site, Anon.
And good post, Jamie.
Gervase,
It's not overt discrimination, but it's there just the same...little things...it's harder for the Christian groups on campus to get access to school services that are supposed to be open to all...the rules regarding an information table (how close you can stand to the entrance of buildings, or "public" thoroughfares to pass out literature, etc.) are enforced very strictly with Christian groups and much less with the other religious or non-religious groups. And of course, the professors themselves and the classes they teach routinely attack traditional Christian values.
But what did you expect? It's a very politically-correct university.
No, Jamie, this won't do at all. Making access to school services difficult for some people to access is clearly overt discrimination, and should be stamped on. You do not say whether this applies to all Christians including mainstream ones - Roman Catholics and so on - or only to the smaller sects, but either way it is unacceptable.
As for regulations about distributing literature, I have a certain sympathy with the authorities. In a campus environment one has to limit proselytizing since it can lead to serious problems amomg those who take their religion very seriously, whatever it is; I know this from my experience over many years of teaching or administrating in a number of universities both in the States and in France.
Professors attacking "traditional Christian values" is a difficult one; I suspect you define these rather narrowly to mean fundamentalist Christian values, and you will find few academics even in the Bible Belt who adhere to these. If you seek to be taught only by those who share your religion you might be happier at, say, Bob Jones University.
However, I think you are quite right to express concern at what is going on at Wayne State: I am writing to David Strauss to ask for his comments, and I will let you know what he says.
I appreciate your concern, Gervase, but I don't see that anything can actually be done about it! It's not that it's the institution itself trying to make things harder for Christians...at least not any more than the all of society does. It's an attitude on the part of individual people in the employ of Wayne State that typifies the usual attitude towards Christians in politically-correct environments...grudging acceptance of its presence, and no desire to cut them any slack.
Technically they haven't broken any school rules...else I'd have brought it up myself.
You can't stamp out an attitude. People just don't like Christians here, and why should they? They didn't like Jesus either.
Well, you've back-tracked a little from talking about covert discrimination and now you are merely saying that people don't seem to like you very much; if you go around telling everyone that any beliefs other than yours are sinful and lead to eternal damnation I'm not surprised.
You didn't say whether the attitude you complain of applies to all Christians or only to your particular sect. If it's only fundamentalists that are disliked then there are lots of reasons why; I doubt if Jesus would have cared for them much either.
Jamie, I'm writing a paper about religious discrimination in the academic world, and I'd be interested to have your answer to the query I raised in my previous comment in your blog: does the antagonistic attitude at Wayne State that you complain of apply to all Christians, including mainstream ones, or only to your particular fundamentalist sect? I need to know because I an writing mainly about European seats of learning where, as you probably know, there are very few fundamentalist Christians so they would not really be relevant to my argument.
Gervase, that's a hard question to answer. I've only been involved with one Christian group on campus, Intervarsity, and you'd be hard-pressed to call Intervarsity a "fundamentalist sect". In practically every respect they're more liberal than I am. I'm not sure how you would define fundamentalismh, though. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist--because to me that implies an emphasis on the letter of the law rather than on the spirit of the law, and a pharasaitical (if i'm spelling that right!) attitude towards Christianity.
So...seeing that I'm not sure of your definition of fundamentalism, AND that I've only been involved with one Christian group on campus, though I know there are others....I really don't know.
I'd find out for you, but i'm really incredibly busy right now getting ready for a handful of finals. Sorry I couldn't be of more help!
Hello Jamie
Thank you for your reply. The word is Pharisaical, by the way.
There is a good note defining Fundamentalism HERE. As far as I can gather from what you have said, you would certainly qualify as a fundamentalist if only for your belief that the Bible, all of it, is the word of God and to be taken literally.
But I apologise for having asked you questions when you are so busy and I will not trouble you again.
When you are in calmer waters you might like to call in HERE, though you might find a lot of stuff about the Icelandic sagas which won't interest you!
Good wishes.
Post a Comment
<< Home