UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES: 2003/05
Print Version
E-mail This Article
Leave CommentUNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc
1 Chronicles 12:32
MAY 2003
The Joy of Education and The Irony of Liberal Tolerance
ONE DOWN, TWO TO GO
As many of you know, I am enrolled in the new doctoral program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, pursuing a Doctor of Ministry degree in Christian Apologetics. May marks the end of the first year in this three-year program.
After LOTS of hard work and by the grace of God, I have survived the first year. Praise God! While working on the doctoral classes I also took a year of Hebrew on the Master’s level. While earning my Master’s degree in seminary I had already had Greek (which is where I met Deborah), so it has been wonderful to begin to understand the basics of the beautiful and intricate language of Hebrew as well.
I will be forever grateful for the brilliance and skillful teaching of Dr. Tom Howe in Hebrew and Dr. Barry Leventhal and Dr. Norman Geisler in the doctoral classes.
UGLY LIBERAL TOLERANCE
Have you ever noticed how those who claim the mantle for themselves of being “tolerant,” “inclusive,” and “diverse” are often the most intolerant and exclusive among us, demanding uniformity instead of diversity when it comes to certain matters?
Such liberal tolerance reared its ugly head recently when our local newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, decided not to run a comic strip affirming the resurrection on Easter Sunday, April 20, 2003.
The comic known as “B.C.” is written by outspoken Christian Johnny Hart. Every year when Christian holidays come around, Mr. Hart includes clearly Christian themes in his strip, often giving the Gospel message to millions of readers. This past Easter was no exception, but, in the spirit of tolerance and celebrating diversity, the Observer decided NOT to run this comic. I'm sure there were other “open-minded” and “inclusive” newspapers around the country that did the same thing.
I was both disappointed and incensed when I looked at the comics that Sunday morning. I think it reflects the Observer's blatant bias against orthodox Christianity and against Christians who rightly proclaim the exclusivity of the faith.
Isn't it interesting that many who take pride in their liberalism (as do many leaders at the newspaper) say they love diversity of opinions and ideas, as long as everyone thinks the same way as they do?
The irony of this is fascinating to me.
Those who call themselves liberals say they are opposed to censorship. In fact, it is considered by liberals one of the greatest evils in our world today that some people want certain books removed from the library and certain TV shows off the air. Of course, these are not examples of real censorship, because no one is saying that a book cannot be published or a show cannot be produced, but that the taxpayer should not pay for certain books in the library and the consumer can avoid objectionable shows and the products sold by their sponsors.
But what about a newspaper that regularly runs a syndicated comic on a weekly basis pulling that comic because they object to its Christian content? Is this not true censorship by the newspaper?
Consider that people are paying via their subscriptions to see this comic, yet the Observer replaced it with a secular B.C. strip. There was no notice in the paper announcing this, explaining this, or apologizing for it.
In response to angry letters to the editor, the Observer editors admitted on April 23rd that they chose not to run the Christian B.C. comic because they did not want to “offend any readers.” My response to that is, “Where is the disclaimer that should be run daily apologizing to conservatives for the offense of their editorial cartoons and the ‘Doonesbury’ comic strip?”
For those who would like to see it, the Easter B.C. comic is available at this link.
SPEAKING SCHEDULE 2003
May 25, 2003
9:15 – Living Word SS Class & 11:00 – John Leake SS Class, Calvary Church, Charlotte: Is Jesus Really the Only Way to Heaven?
www.ContendfortheFaith.org
CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH
UNDERSTANDING THE EXCLUSIVITY OF CHRISTIANITY: PART ONE
In the last several weeks, before, during, and after the war with Iraq, there have been intriguing debates in the broadcast and print media concerning Christianity. How should Christians view war? Is war waged by America against Saddam Hussein really war between Christianity and Islam? What role should Christians play in post-war Iraq?
Let me give a brief survey of what I have seen.
Larry King Live, CNN, March 11, 2003:
In a program titled “Christians Debate War” religious leaders representing Protestantism and Roman Catholicism discussed the imminent war. Some were adamantly opposed to war, others said going into Iraq was justified.
But the most fascinating exchange was between Larry King and retired Bishop Melvin Talbert, the ecumenical officer for the United Methodist Church Council of Bishops. After John MacArthur, the conservative evangelical pastor of Grace Community Church in California, made a strong statement affirming the Christian faith is true and Islamic theology is therefore false, the following dialogue ensued:
KING: Bishop, don't you believe, Bishop Talbert, that Christianity is the right path?
TALBERT: I do believe for Christians, but we're not here to settle which religion is right. That settle—that dispute belongs to God. We are here to practice what we preach.
KING: Do you believe your religion is right?
TALBERT: Yes I do.
KING: Or else why believe it?
TALBERT: That is right.
KING: So therefore the other religions have to be wrong.
TALBERT: No, I don't say that at all.
KING: If you believe your religion is right the other religions are wrong.
TALBERT: I believe my God is large enough to be inclusive of all human beings who were created in God's image and that includes those religions that are not Christians.
So Bishop Talbert, while claiming to believe that Christianity is right, refused to state that other competing religions must be wrong. God is “inclusive of all human beings” and therefore inclusive of non-Christian religions.
New York Times, April 13, 2003:
Frederick Streets is the Chaplain of Yale University Divinity School and Assistant Professor of Pastoral Theology. After reading an article in the New York Times concerning Christian missionary groups from Samaritan’s Purse (headed by Franklin Graham) and the Southern Baptist Convention eagerly awaiting their opportunity to go into post-war Iraq to assist residents with food, shelter, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Chaplain Streets wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper in response. His letter was titled “Missionaries’ Duty,” and in it he strongly objected to the plans for evangelism by these organizations:
"To the Editor:
I am appalled as a Christian and a Baptist by the proposed evangelism campaign in Iraq by some Christian organizations. I am concerned that this would become an example of religious imperialism.
God is not found in only one religion. Religious communities should not try to dominate other religions and cultures. . . .
To engage in this work as a means of converting people to their Christian view of God degrades Christianity."
So in the opinion of Chaplain Streets, who claims to be a Christian and a Baptist, for missionaries to go into Iraq offering aid and the Gospel amounts to “religious imperialism” since “God is not found only in one religion.” For these missionaries to proclaim an exclusive message to Muslims in Iraq is for the Christian community to “try to dominate” Islam.
Larry King Live, CNN, April 20, 2003:
The topic for this Easter Sunday show was “Religion, God, and War.” On the panel Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, the New Age, and Protestant Christianity were each represented by a spokesman.
Dr. John MacArthur was again representing the evangelical viewpoint, and he made clear statements proclaiming Jesus to be the only way to heaven. The majority of the program consisted in criticism of Dr. MacArthur’s position. The rest of the panelists were unified in their opposition to the exclusivity of Christianity.
The irony here was that each of the other panelists was criticizing Dr. MacArthur for holding an exclusive position, while each of them excluded the possibility of his view being correct. Each man held an exclusive view; they were simply unified in their exclusion of orthodox Christianity.
There is an inescapable fact that we all have to live with: Truth is exclusive.
If a statement or belief is true, then anything that contradicts it must be false.
But even truth claims that are false are still exclusive. “Jesus was not God” is an exclusive false statement. So truth is not based on exclusivity but on whether a statement or claim reflects reality.
Consider this: Anyone who says the exclusive Christian message is wrong because of its exclusivity is arguing against his own position. In fact his position is also exclusive, because he believes he is correct and anyone opposed is wrong. He does not include those with whom he disagrees as being correct, but he excludes and criticizes them. So if the premise that “all exclusive positions are false” were correct, then by his own premise his position would be false. It is self-defeating.
Next month: what the Bible says about the exclusivity of Christianity
