“If you just act like them, it’ll be okay!”


Conservatives – both in politics and in Christianity – have upheld absolute morality for quite some time. Unfortunately, as of late, they’ve been slowly acting postmodern. The political conservatives are bending to public opinion polls, saying, “Well if we don’t do these certain things, people won’t vote for us.” Thus, they caved in, started supporting liberal ideology…and aside from failing to live up to their promise to true conservatives for ten years, lost the election last cycle.

Conservative Christians are starting to say that they need to tone down certain messages in Christianity because if they don’t, people won’t come to church. They’ve begun to water these messages down and all we’ve seen is an increase of immorality, emptiness, and pointlessness in the Church…all the while the numbers have been declining.

This is because they have forgotten one simple rule: Truth is immortal. If what you are supporting is truthful, if it is virtuous, then all the opinion polls, the demographics, and pressure have nothing to do with determining how you should act on the truth. If it is truthful, if it is good, then it is to be followed no matter what.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on ““If you just act like them, it’ll be okay!”

  1. “Conservatives – both in politics and in Christianity – have upheld absolute morality for quite some time.”

    Really? I don’t recall that last time a child was stoned to death for disobeying their parents. At least in this country.

    1. The main problem with this line of thinking is that it’s a logical fallacy (equivocation). It takes the term “conservative” and equates it to “fundamentalist,” regardless of cultural context or even context of time. For instance, in some mainline Muslim nations, “conservative” could mean stoning someone to death for disobeying one’s parents. But in the United States, upholding a “conservative” mentality means adhering to virtuous living, or a Judeo-Christian ethic. Thus, before linking “conservative” with “stoning,” you’d first have to show how the culture the term “conservative” is being applied to at one point held it vital that stoning be an adequate punishment for violations of certain laws. Since the United States has never had this (nor has Western Civilization after the 4th century), it’s a fallacy. It doesn’t even work as a joke or as sarcasm, because it’s not accurate to begin with.

      Now, before you begin the typical tirade about how the “Old Testament says the pretty bad things,” I’d highly suggest you read “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan (his follow-up article, “Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites” is also a good read). Once you have read that, I’m sure we can come back and discuss the values of a Judeo-Christian ethic.

      Furthermore, though you might have problems with a Judeo-Christian ethic, it far surpasses any other ethic you could possibly offer (which, I’m guessing, would be akin to a naturalistic version of ethics, which would be pragmatic, utilitarian, or a combination of both).

      1. “regardless of cultural context or even context of time.”

        I’m sorry, but you wrote of absolute morality. What should context have to do with an absolute? And if that absolute is altered due to context, then in what way is it still an absolute?

        “Furthermore, though you might have problems with a Judeo-Christian ethic, it far surpasses any other ethic you could possibly offer”

        Oh, I most certainly beg to differ. There are quite a few secular ethics that are far superior to any religious ones, mainly due to the fact that they provide for freedom where religion does not.

      2. Correct, I made claim to absolute morality. What does that have to do with the use of the word “conservative”? The term conservative IS subjective, while morality is not. This is why we are able to judge these other cultures and say they are wrong (I can look at Pakistan and say with certainty that killing in the name of an “honor code” is wrong, though that is the conservative stance over in Pakistan). If you want to be nit-picky, so be it, but being nit-picky doesn’t aid in intellectual development. It should be clear to anyone reading this post that I was discussing Western conservatives, mostly in the United States (or conservative Christians, which isn’t limited to the West).

        As for secular ethics – such as what? Libertine freedom has shown to be a horrible thing as it actually negates freedom in the end by forcing government interaction. Libertine freedom always leads to tyranny and an irresponsible public, so I fail to see how it is “superior.” Let us also not forget that no matter what ethic you produce, not only will it fail to reach the objectives you want, it lacks any proper foundation to begin with, thus making it inefficient even when compared to polytheistic ethics, much more theistic ethics. In terms of ethical justification, polytheism is far more justifiable than atheism or secularism because it at least lays claim to a foundation.

  2. A church that rigidly adheres to a disciplinarian role risks the same consequences as well. A successful church exists as a spiritual educator and instructor and sometimes that requires forgiveness and wider thinking.

    1. To a certain extent, yes. But true forgiveness can only come from a church if the person in need of forgiveness is willing to repent. Both Christ and Paul are very clear on this issue; if the person is unwilling to repent after being approached multiple times, then the person must leave the church. If, however, the person repents (or at least makes the effort – obviously repentance is not something that occurs overnight), then forgiveness must be given.

      I am curious about “wider thinking” – what do you mean by that term?

      1. “Wider thinking” is perhaps a bad phrase for what I was aiming at. I agree with your stance upon forgiveness as to continually forgive and incorporate people who have no interest in incorporating or adhering to a set of values and principles would be a frivilous practice.

        One thing that concerns me with certain religious institutions are aggressive steps taken against other institutions. In my hometown for instance one minister through his influence in the community took steps to discredit another church and tried to remove a number of teachers from the area high school who had included reading he considered inappropriate in their World Lit. curricculum.

        If truth is immortal then patience is needed. If individuals are questing spiritually for a system of values and a specific church or institution believes it holds the key to that peace and enlightenment then they should work at preserving that key as opposed to destroying others. If judgement awaits us all then we cannot be the ones to judge others.

        “Longer thinking” might be the more appropriate term. “But that on the good ground are they that, in an honest and good heart, having heard the Word, keep it and bring forth fruit with patience. ” – Luke 8:15

      2. I agree somewhat – I think we do have to take a proactive stance to bring down certain beliefs, especially when those beliefs act as a barrier to true beliefs. At the same time, going so far as to ban certain books or silence people through avenues other than debate is way out of line.

  3. Amen Joel. The children of God are increasingly conspicuous as the darkness deepens. We cannot be politically correct and scripturally correct at the same time.

    We are not worldly civilized, for we are not of this world. We do not act like mere men.

    Praise and honor to our Lord and King.

Comments are closed.