Andrew Jones (aka tallskinnykiwi) has gotten to the core of a controversial issue: criticism of emerging churches. I may not attend an emerging church, but I definitely see the need for the movement, and I wholeheartedly approve of this challenge.
The Shot Heard Around the World
by MandiI was trying to avoid posting on this issue, because so many people out there have turned Dick Cheney into a laughingstock. We all know what happened. While hunting, Dick Cheney accidentally shot a 78 year old man. Initial reports indicated that the victim would recover just fine.
However, Mr. Whittington has now suffered a minor heart attack due to birdshot migrating close to his heart. Hugh Hewitt said this: “It was what they call an asymptomatic heart attack, meaning he suffered no, um, symptoms. No chest pain, no arm pain. He’s conscious and talking to folks. Pray for his health.” God bless men like Hugh Hewitt.
I can only imagine what folks will now be saying. My question is this: so what? If this had happened to anyone else in the world, the media wouldn’t have cared (unless of course it was the President). Accidents happen. World leaders are human and fallible.
Give it a rest people!
Conservative and Liberal Translations?
by MandiThis is definitely one of the funniest things I’ve read recently. I think his post makes a valid point. Check it out.
The DaVinci Code
by MandiDan Brown has become a household name since his best-selling novel gained notoriety via controversy. Walk into any bookstore and you’ll find books called things like Breaking the DaVinci Code or The DaVinci Deception. There are even blogs out there devoted to it (Check out Gary Burger’s blog.)People have been scrambling to prove this novel as a fraud since it hit bookshelves in 2003. The controversy has once again picked up since an adaptation of the novel will hit the big screen on May 19, 2006.
Now, I am personally a fan of both Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code. I eagerly await Tom Hanks’ portrayal of the stodgy Harvard professor on the big screen. You see, I didn’t miss that word I used twice in the opening paragraph: novel. By definition, a novel is a work of fiction. A fact page contained within the covers of a novel are part of the fiction. I read the book with that assumption in place and was not bothered by the worldview presented in the fictitious world of Robert Langdon. (Sidebar–this is also why I am a fan of JK Rowling and Harry Potter).
The center of the controversy, at least in my circles, is the Christian aspect. I have seen so many Christians just absolutely bash the book and tear into Dan Brown, calling him a blasphemer and other, much worse, names. But I ask, how does that advance the kingdom of God? How will attacking someone show them the unconditional love of God? It seems, rather, to portray a rather conditional view of God’s love. “Do this, and God will love you.” “Don’t do this, and God will love you.” This view is totally works driven and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I want no part of that.
The heart and soul of Christianity is the love of God. The unconditional love of God. As Christians, it is our job to show that love. We are the light of the world. How much light are we emitting when we tear down our neighbors? Christ was truthful, but never condemning. Sin is sin, of course. Being a Christian does not give you a license to sin or condone sin. What it does give you is grace. And after you have experienced grace, you should be bubbling over with graciousness towards each other–this does not include tearing people down.
The controversy around The DaVinci Code should not even include Christians. Christians shouldn’t instigate it or add to it. By feeding the animosity, Christians are given a bad name, as well as helping perpetuate stereotypes that, quite frankly, I wonder if they are accurate portrayals of Christians in this country.
Freedom of Speech and Religion
by MandiWhen I saw the recent cover of Rolling Stone Magazine, I was mortified. I felt an instant revulsion towards Kanye West for trivializing the crucifixion and emulating Jesus Christ. So the question arises, how patriotic am I if ignore the first amendment right for freedom of speech? In theory, Kanye should be able to do or say whatever he wants because here in America we are to be tolerant of everyone.
But how tolerant is Kanye being of Christianity?
A friend of mine pointed out the similiarities between Kanye’s cover and the recent controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons of Mohammad. Both involve the overlap of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In theory, everyone has the right to worship who or what they want to. In practice this obviously isn’t the case. As opposed as I am to the Muslim religion, I sympathize with them. Whatever happened to good old fashioned respect? When did it become too much to ask of people to respect others for their beliefs, opinions, and practices?
Both Kanye and the Danish newspapers have slapped two world religions in the face. And by doing so, they have alienated millions of people around the world. Is this what we call tolerance? What are we tolerant of? Disrespect? Intolerance?
If I take a step back, I see validity in both arguments. But as Normblog suggests, it is possible for two sides to be equally sincere and seemingly right while only one side is truly right. His example about the Nazis and the Jews is right on target. Those who rally together and cry “Freedom of speech!” need to be aware of how intolerant their views may be. They often stand up and cry “Intolerance!” when they are criticized, but what is it they want us to be tolerant of? Their own intolerance!
Why should we be tolerant of intolerance? I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I’m tired of being told I have to be tolerant of the athiests, the liberals, the muslims, the jehovah’s witnesses, and everyone else while no one wants to be tolerant of me, the Christian! And because I have experienced this over and over again, I can very well empathize with the Muslims on this issue. They should not have to be tolerant of someone who is not tolerant of them.
See Randy Thomas’ blog for a fabulous article, that includes the following:
I am no fan of Muhammad. He was a false prophet. I am a great big humongous fan of free speech. It affords me the right to say Muhammad was a false prophet.
What is the truth? I am a pseudo-intellectual at best but I don’t think this is ultimately about Muhammad or the freedom of speech. Like warriors of old lining up on a battlefield taunting their adversaries, this is about a world getting ready for a world war on one level. On another level this is about the war over souls, a spiritual battle.
…
Continuing on this personal level, reprinting them for the sake of Freedom of Speech could be a stumbling block for a Muslim person finding freedom in Christ. If a Muslim visits this blog they are going to be upset about my statements concerning Muhammad and possibly my support in shutting down the murder of people they do not see as innocent. At least they won’t have to argue with me about those cartoons. They will challenge me on who the True Prophet is and the concepts of liberty for people and souls. That is fine and we can attempt to have that discussion. The cartoons are already reprinted everywhere and will do nothing but drive people away.
I wish that my own first instinct had been so gracious.
