![74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power](http://ag.christianbook.com/g/tiny/7/74325.gif "74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power")
The Truth Gets ‘Em All Riled Up
I wonder how many people had the same reaction I did to the Tim Tebow ad put out by Focus on the Family. After all the hype I expected something at least mildly in your face. Instead, the ad was just mild. We learned a couple of things from this escapade.
First, anything in the public sphere (i.e. Super Bowl commercial) that is sponsored or supported by Christians and Christian values (in this case life) will be met with severe condemnation and, if possible, censorship. The anything goes, say-what-you-want-to-say crowd only cares about free expression when they are the ones doing the expressing.
Second, the ultra-radical left thinks the opposite of encouraging women to let their babies live to be homosexual kissing. I suppose they are right. It is simply startling that anyone thinks encouraging life is offensive. If anyone can make a good case, I’d like to hear it.
The knee-jerk reaction shows just how far from the truth they really are.
the thing is, eric, good is such a subjective quality, i don’t know if there is a case that can appeal to your sense of good. all i can offer is maybe a little understanding.
what the liberal left deems as more important than biologcal life is societal life. by that i mean the life that an unwanted child is condemned to have. we know our foster system is in shambles, we know that disenfranchised youth often lead lives of violence, addiction, and aggression. these are things we know. what we don’t KNOW, what has to be taken on FAITH, is that a human life begins at conception (and ends where? that’s a discussion that’s likely not fit for now, but it IS the other end of this spectrum, and i do think that true philosophical ponderings as to where life ends, might give us some insight to where life actually begins).
pro life, pro choice. these are both GOOD positions. the trouble is that they present only part of the reality that each position hides. pro-choice ultimately leads to the death of a potential human life, where pro life can lead to an overwhelming impoverished disgruntled population. if you are open to another evaluation of ‘good’, my friend, then there ARE good arguments to be made.
lastly, i don’t think you’ll ever hear anyone, conservative or liberal alike that thinks that abortion is good. but there are a number of people that know that our social systems cannot support such a large population, particularly if it’s flooded with indigents. allowing unwanted babies to be selected out is the first step in recognizing and addressing a serious threat humanity faces. is it the end? is this where it will stop? of course not. and anyone who really thinks otherwise needs to step back and see their opposition as people first and liberals (or conservatives) after.
Rev Nev Reply:
February 10th, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Vitamin K – Thanks for the reply. Naturally, I disagree with you on several points:
(1) Good is not subjective. Good is a quality rooted in the nature of God and objectively understood by human beings. I wrote “good” when I meant “persuasive.” Liberal arguments against life are not persuasive, which leads to my next point.
(2) I like your point about what the left considers the more weighty argument. Thank you for making it. The irony is that the Tebow ad was designed to combat your exact argument. The left assumes that the life of millions of aborted babies would be downtrodden. What about all those who might have grown up to make something of themselves or maybe even win a Heisman? We’ll never know.
(3) The best argument I ever heard for when human life begins was from Peggy Noonan. She wrote that everyone knows what a “fetus” develops into if it has the time. No one expects a ’57 Chevy to come out of there. She was saying that it ought not matter if we can pinpoint the moment of humanity. They are human from the start.
(4) You make some foundational assumptions in your last paragraph that are based in Darwinism. A worldview that believes in natural selection would be as callous as that paragraph. A Christian worldview, though, sees every individual human being as valuable regardless of their circumstance because they carry the Imago Dei, the Image of God. It is His to give and take life alone.
(5) Another difference in worldview is the question of the threat humanity faces and the solution to it. Liberals think humanity is its own worst enemy. Christians believe people were created good but fell into sin and, through faith in Jesus, are being redeemed.
This is a good response, Kev. You have highlighted the fundamental differences in the way we see the world.
vitamin k Reply:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:33 PM
okay, so i can give you a couple of things. first, i can agree that in many cases, ‘good’ is objective. as in we know that a balanced diet is basically good FOR you, but is it good TO you? well, that’s entirely subjective. so it basically comes down to a distinction between needs and wants, which is heavily intertwined with world view, as you pointed out.
but, you said you meant ‘persuasive,’ anyways, that’s kinda moot, because persuasion is highly subjective. kenneth burke’s highly respected body of work on rhetoric pretty well showed that in order for persuasion to occur, identification must take place. think of how we give constructive criticism – you give the good news first, then the bad. because you have to establish identification with the subject in order for your criticism to be considered. socrates himself knew of this so innately that he resisted the art of writing partly because one would lack control of one’s audience, being unable to alter the message to reach different audiences and would thereby pervert the meaning and effectiveness of the argument (i believe this can be found in “the phaedrus” where plato offers a number of socratic critiques to writing). identification is intrinsically tied to beliefs and attitudes, therefore because of the disparity in world view, according to burke and many others before after him, persuasion can never take place. and i believe that is the case in many matters. anyone with the correct kind of knowledge, can resist all forms of persuasion (which is no one, just to be clear).
the second thing is that i like what noonan has to say about humanity. i hadn’t heard that before, and it’s difficult to argue against. so, like a true rhetoritician, i’m going to ignore it…for now. but that brings me to my next biggest point, and probably a bit of a personal philosophical crusade – my world view prevents me from seeing things the way peggy noonan does, and i always say that there is as much information in what’s not present as there is in what is. we can talk all day about what we do believe, what we see, how we feel, but we rarely try to consider everything we don’t know. things we can’t see because of the way we think. so i ask, do you know what you are missing? do you know and consider the things that you have to ignore in order to maintain your beliefs?
i know i don’t. not as well as i would like to, anyways. i mean, we really can’t. a world view is a world view, and i’m not entirely certain we get to choose that. but that’s why it helps to have people that you can trust that can inform you. i really hope we can find a way of discussing these things without attacking, but i s’pose pop shots here and there are inevitable. after all, we do have to identify with our own constituencies.
but, since you’ve thrown it out there, how is my statement callous? the mere use of the concept of selection does not imply darwinism. how many divisions christian churches are there? how many books aren’t there in the bible? it seems that christianity is no stranger to selectivity. there is nothing really “natural” about interpreting texts just or a society choosing to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
what seems to me to be callous is your implication that lives of millions of aborted babies WOULDN’T be downtrodden. just how many heisman trophy winners are there a year compared to unwanted pregnancies? how many cancer discoverers? the loss of all of those nobel prize winners would be offset by the loss of all the hitlers, spanish inquisitors and king richard the lionhearteds. and if we’re talking individual lives, then i’m saying it’s a price i’m willing to pay to avoid the misery of this existence through “grace”. for those that are fortunate, it is easy to accept the suffering of others, particularly when the ultimate sacrifice has already been made for you. i mean, you can’t really take any more than you’ve already been given, right? much the same way that those that have suffered would gladly sacrifice the would-be goodness of the world to have never had to suffer in the first place.
but back to the subject at hand – thanks for the reply. i’m sure i’ll be coming back to this a lot in trying to see things as you might, to interpret the world the way you might. i’m sure we could discuss world view differences all day. i hope there will be moments when we can discuss similarities, too! :p
also, eric, you won’t find messages that promote illicit drug use that isn’t met with severe opposition. and prior to maybe the 1970s, you would have found extreme opposition to anything that depicted black people in anything but subservient views.
the point being, that the christian perspective isn’t the only one to be chastised in the public sphere. these days anything that doesn’t align with popular views will not find much life in popular media. anti-feminist or anti-civil rights perspectives are extremely unpopular view these days, and unfortunately, christianity has aligned itself with values that are counter to those positions. whether in reality, or solely in the virtual realm of mediated reality, the christian perspective has positioned itself into opposition of these dominant social values – oppose gay marriage, even the pro-life argument is viewed as oppressive to women.
it would really help your case if more women spoke out against abortion, or if more gays spoke out in opposition to gay marriage. which, i gotta say, will be really hard based on the hundreds of years of malarchy perpetrated by organized religion. anyone of those marginalized groups speaking out on behalf of christian values will be met with a high degree of skpepticism, simply because of the past shenanigans perpetrated by organized religion. people will wonder what kind of oppression goes on that such people would speak out against their own interests.
in today’s world, where communication travels fast and the techniques of voyeurism have elevated the public sphere into what used to be fairly discreet goings on, organized religion in all of its incarnations is being seen for what it really is. which, really isn’t all that bad, but it’s not what many were led to believe. it’s full of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and extreme oppression – just like the rest of us. so, if the purveyors of organized religion are just as flawed and reckless and weak as the rest of us, then what gives them the claim to the moral high ground?
i have no desire to discuss the tenets and values of organized religion, simply because there is no point. there is nothing inherently wrong with the theology and nothing inherently dangerous about its values. it’s the behavior and practice of organized religion that has put christianity where it is now.
it might behoove the christian right (which, mind you, is not the entire right) to focus a little more on its practices, its flaws, its mistakes in order to restore christianity to respected perspective it deserves to be, and not try to point out all the misgivings of the other side. i don’t see as many liberals vehemently attacking the right as i do the right towards the left. but i don’t see very many liberals being critically self-reflective, either. doing so might actually earn you the the moral high ground that so many in your corner claim to already have. an idea that much of the rest of the world finds absolutely preposterous, and if you look at history, it becomes iminantly clear why.