"Inscrutable" means "impossible to understand or interpret." To me, the mind of the liberal Christian is inscrutable. I will never understand.
What does the Bible require of believers regarding immigration? I'm told that God's Word requires open borders. I know that the Old Testament requires that you do not oppress strangers (Exo 22:21; Exo 23:9; Lev 19:33-34) and that we love them (Deut 10:19), but I don't see where it says we have to openly admit all of them without regard. Hospitality is a good thing (Heb 13:2), but I don't see where it is required on a national level. I know that we are regarded as strangers in this world (Eph 2:19; 1 Peter 2:11) and should expect not to be well treated. I don't see anything in my Bible that says or suggests, "You shall not do anything that blocks the free flow of refugees from other countries to your own." But the liberal Christian would like to make it a law that we open our borders and embrace all who come at whatever cost because it's there in the Bible.
Almost everyone is clear that the Bible is not ambiguous about the sin of homosexual behavior. All of history -- Jewish and Christian -- has understood God's Word to teach that such behavior is a sin. (There were times in history that it was punishable by death.) Beyond homosexual sex, it is absolutely clear that adultery is a sin. There is no room for doubt there. It's clearer than the "abomination" of homosexual behavior and certainly clearer than immigration thinking. The liberal Christian is concerned that some might try to pass laws that would try to forbid sexual sin. "Oh, no," they argue, "you can't make your laws based on your religious views." Now, hang on a minute! Didn't you just say that we should make immigration laws based on your religious views? But not this? I don't get it.
One of the serious problems brought to light by liberal Christians is the problem of poverty and the opposing problem of excessive wealth. The solution to this problem, they say, is to pass laws that will tax the rich and give to the poor. Heavy taxes. It's a good thing, so it ought to be a law. Generosity is biblical, so we ought to make it the law. The rest of the Christian world believes that doing what is good is not accomplished by making it civil law; it is accomplished by being personally responsible and obedient. If you do what is right under force of law, there is no benefit to you. If you do it voluntarily, there are blessings and rewards. I don't get it.
Contrasting "conservative" and "liberal" in Christian terms means generally, first and foremost, a worldview based on Scripture versus a worldview based on the world. Still, it seems completely irrational that liberal Christians would conclude that it is ungodly to have a biblical worldview and argue that Scripture should be interpreted through a cultural, current-world filter. Really? It is "ungodly" to take God at His Word? It is more godly to reinterpret God through a worldly screen? How does this make sense?
I really don't understand. To me, on one hand I see clear instructions for people in general and Christians in particular on how to live. (Note: I see more instructions for Christians than for non-Christians.) It is my responsibility to follow those instructions. It is not the job of the government to make me. (Trust me; God is much better at that than the government is.) I have no need to pass laws to force people to give to the poor, admit immigrants, or stop sexual sin. There are clear biblical mandates on these, but making them the law of the land is not one of those clear biblical mandates. So when I see the so-called liberal Christian arguing on one hand that my "stop sexual sin" laws (which I just said I don't advocate) shouldn't be on the books but their charity and hospitality laws should, it just seems like a double standard -- an irrational double standard. But it seems as if these kinds of double standards abound with them. Judgmental anti-judgmentalism. Intolerant tolerance. Exclude those who we deem not inclusive. "Can't we just get along? Oh, no, not you." "I hate haters." "Some of us are more equal than others." I really don't get it.
14 comments:
Several thoughts about this post.
First, you point out the double standard, but it's interesting that when conservatives try to "legislate morality" based on Biblical principles they're accused of wanting to institute a theocracy. But somehow when the left wants to enshrine the Biblical principles of "open borders", or eradicating poverty in US law, it's somehow not theocratic. It's more about the control of language and being able to weaponize it than about actually imposing laws.
Second, it's interesting how they want to enforce rules that are clearly intended for Christians or Jews on nonbelievers by codifying them into law.
Third, "God's word" is murky when they want it to be, yet crystal clear when it benefits their political agenda.
Just this week we saw a leftist lynch mob go after a young man based on manipulated evidence and lies from the media, for simply turning the other cheek when confronted. What we've seen in the aftermath is a bunch of people who claim that love, acceptance, inclusion and pacifism undergird their political philosophy, doing the exact opposite of what they claim to represent. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to call for someones death, because that person responded with silence?
You are definitely right, it's almost impossible to understand.
I see the same.
One reason it’s so difficult to understand is the fact that there is a lot of what appears to be obfuscation about what specifically is being advocated.
While not addressing everyone making these types of arguments, one person is quite specific about wanting “more” open borders than we currently have, but not providing anything beyond the vague “more”.
One other problem is that folx will spend a long time dwelling on their interpretation of scripture regard these issues, then launch into some vague “the government should...” without having the courage to specifically link the two things.
Again it seems like obfuscation is a significant part of the narrative.
We also see the “harm principle” being employed, except it tends to focus on not harming the immigrants and not on not harming actual legal residents and citizens.
The method and aim has always been not to present clear reasons and evidence for a position, but to address the issues using emotional weight. It think the true consistency of the left comes from that. Evidence and logic are not significant, so violating it is not important. A continuous call to "the heart" seems to be the pattern, even when the calls are on opposite ends depending on the issue at hand.
I completely agree. It’s why their position on abortion is incoherent. How does one support something that causes undeniable “harm” to the “least of these”, if preventing “harm” and protecting those who can’t protect themselves are important tenets.
I guess that actually posting quotes and links that support the position you’ve articulated without reading them is what passes for reasonable discourse among liberals.
"A continuous call to "the heart" seems to be the pattern..."
It's been an incredibly successful strategy and one the right refuses to adopt of is incapable of figuring out how to adopt. There's no wrong in doing so, only in doing so dishonestly. We already know we have facts on our side. Now we just need to craft stories that touch the heart based upon those facts. Shouldn't be so hard given the actual harm of leftist policies. But people are moved to act more so due to emotional pleas than they are to mere truth, facts and logic. Sad, but true.
The problem is the Left is (unintentionally) playing to the Jer 17:9 problem. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. So if they tug at heartstrings without reference to actual truth, it is a bad thing. We don't want to do that.
I guess I'm so conditioned about it now that I could never present the emotional argument. Now, if someone is trying to convince me of something by appealing to my emotions, I know it's a load of hooey. Emotions are too fickle to rely upon for making decisions. It's why they say not to make life altering decisions after experiencing a tragedy. Emotion is never a good basis for clear thinking
I know for me it's unwise to make life choices based on emotion.
But gents, to appeal to the heart is not at all a bad thing. It's how the appeal is made. If it is dishonest or based on falsehood (even if sincerely told), then it's certainly a bad thing. But if it is based on truth, it is a great way to bring attention to the position espoused. The only real downside to the plan is that the leftist activists don't care about the emotional toll their policy proposals inflict upon their victims. But the typical human being will be moved and once moved, the facts and evidences will be harder to ignore.
One guy we all know and love continues to present anecdotes of hapless illegals seeking refuge from all manner of dangers. Assuming the stories are all true and accurately related by this guy, one cannot help but feel for the victims of whom he speaks. But do the stories truly stand as legitimate reasons to alter our laws and procedures? Not necessarily, though some who hear such stories may begin lean in that direction...given that people are generally empathetic.
Consider also how much mileage the homosexual community has gotten out of their emotional appeals. They totally ignore both the moral as well as medical arguments against their behavior, and their appeals to the heart has led to the legal enabling of their immorality.
The strategy is sound, but like all things can be used for good or ill. They've been using it for ill and winning. We need to use it for good...for His sake, as well as our own. We simply need to learn how.
No, an appeal to the heart is not a bad thing in itself. An appeal based solely on the heart can be. An appeal based on truth that engages the mind, the will, and the emotions is a good one. It isn't the norm.
Ah, there's the phrase I was looking for: "change hearts and minds." The Left focuses on the former, the Right on the latter. The need is for both.
Agreed.
Post a Comment