Comment in Blog Form

I was hoping to be able to do this in comment form, but I can't comment. There are locks in place to prevent me from commenting. Maybe there's a secret I don't know, but I couldn't get in. But there are some things that really need comment, and since I can't do it there, I'll have to do it here.

I'm referring to this post at Left of Calvary. There are several problems here. Some are of little consequence. Some I have already addressed. But some really require a response. Please, please, please keep in mind: I am addressing the ideas, not the person. I have no ill will for the blogger and have no desire to be unkind. Nor is it because I am the subject of the blog that I am writing this. That's irrelevant. It is the ideas that require a response because they have ramifications that are common and problematic.

Make no mistake about it: exclusivity (a.k.a. prejudice, bias, bigotry), if left unchecked can quickly metastasize from beliefs born of ignorance into hatred and outright violence against those who are different.

Exclusivity here is also known as prejudice, bias, or bigotry. It is a common belief, but it takes a simple examination of the facts to find the problem with it. Indeed, it is actually the blogger that points out the error.

Suppose you know a child who asserts that 2+2 equals 5. Offering that child the correct answer does not mean you don’t value that child it means you show concern for his education.

You see, 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't equal 5. In fact, when we agree that 2 + 2 = 4 and nothing else, we have immediately excluded an infinite number of other possible answers. Now, having become exclusive in our answer, is there anyone who would reasonably complain that we are suffering from prejudice, bias, or bigotry?

It is one of the constant attributes of truth -- truth is exclusive. When we say "In the case of Y, X is true", then in the case of Y, anything else is excluded. It's the nature of truth. Truth excludes that which is not true about the question at hand.

So what about the claim that exclusivity "can quickly metastasize from beliefs born of ignorance into hatred and outright violence against those who are different"? Well, of course he's right about that. If exclusivity is built on a lie, it will obviously produce problems. And if exclusivity is misused, it will also produce problems. We can all agree on that. So what is the solution? One might argue, "Therefore we can never be exclusive", which automatically ignores truth and eliminates "4" as the right answer to "2 + 2". No, that isn't the right approach. Or we could take the opposite view that so many do. "Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead!" "Who cares if exclusivity sometimes produces error; we're going to do it anyway." No, that's not right, either. Unfortunately, the right approach isn't as easy as either of those. The right approach is "What is true?" The right approach is to find out what is true, eliminate what is false, and avoid allowing it to "metastasize" into faulty results. Neither eliminating nor indulging exclusivity is the answer. The right answer is embracing the truth, whatever that requires.

Included in the "exclusivity" question, then, is the question of truth, which is included in the "orthodoxy" question. The concept of "orthodoxy" -- "right belief" -- affirms that there is truth and that the truth excludes that which is not true. The misuse of orthodoxy doesn't preclude either truth or the necessary exclusivity that accompanies truth. The fact that some people have constructed their own truth statements and called them "orthodoxy" doesn't mean that there is no orthodoxy. Because people misuse truth doesn't preclude truth.

What is the answer, then, to what to do with orthodoxy? Well, apparently it's the same as what to do with exclusivity. Be sure you have the truth. That, admittedly, is a lot more work than rejecting truth or embracing prejudice, bias, and bigotry. But it is the only reasonable answer.

Where does this leave us? This leaves us out in the field of ideas. You say, "I have beliefs and you have beliefs. Let's compare them and see where the differences are. Then we can discuss them." This entire dialogue is short-circuited when we grasp at either extreme. But excluding either "no exclusivity" or "prejudice" leaves room for conversation. Now you can tell me, "I think you're wrong at this point because ..." and I can say, "No, I think I'm right here because ..." and we have a dialog. If you say, "We're all right" you forfeit the right to tell me where I'm wrong. If you say, "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you think because you're a heretic", you forfeit the right to engage in a dialog at all. (Diatribe will be your only venue.)

Now, I've tried to address ideas, not people. I have made no attempt to defend myself. I've made no attempt to discuss minor issues. My point here has been to address what I believe to be patently obvious but often viewed in error. I do have one truth issue, however, from the blog in question that I need to mention because it is, from my perspective, very important.

Stan’s theology in my view continues to lack a certain sophistication. Judging by what I have read, he does not acknowledge that man’s relationship has changed over thousands of years – not because God has changed but because man has.

I will acknowledge without question that my theology (taken from the pages of Scripture) does not acknowledge that Man's relationship with God has changed ... that Man has changed. The nature of Man is documented in Scripture as "inclined only to evil", "hostile to God", "blinded by the god of this world." Man hasn't found a way to improve his condition. He has found new scientific data he didn't have before, but it doesn't alter the fundamental aspects of human nature. And that fundamental aspect of human nature is the primary reason for God's gift of His Son, the Substitutionary Atonement, the Resurrection ... the Gospel. If we move Man from "sinner" to "much better off now", we also eliminate any real need for the Gospel. If we hold to a "new and improved Man", we can pretty much eliminate biblical Christianity because the fundamental premise of biblical Christianity is "We are sinners and without Christ we have no hope." If we are not so bad, then any religion will do because you just need to be relatively good, well within your capabilities, and any religion (including those doggone "fundamentalist Christians") will do. I'm sorry, but I can't go there.

(One little personal note. I will willingly affirm without reservation that my theology includes an omniscient, omnipotent, Sovereign God, which necessarily includes "predestination". Just removing any doubt there. "Gnosticism" is out completely, but I'm right there with the Sovereignty of God. Note, also, that "condemned by various denominations as heretical" doesn't make something heretical (or everything is heretical since anything you care to mention has been condemned as heretical by some denomination or another) or wrong or "unorthodox". Orthodoxy is "right belief" regardless of the denomination that agrees or not.)