I wrote recently about an under-recognized shift in the way many people object to Christianity: that it is immorally arrogant in its exclusivism. Historic orthodox Christianity claims that there is one God uniquely revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the one way, truth, and life for all people everywhere in all times. This means that other paths to God are excluded. Once the principal objection to Christian exclusivism was that it was false. Now, at least in my experience, the main problem have with it is that it seems immoral.
To Understand, So As To Be Able To Translate
Missionaries to distant lands know that their first task is to understand their host country’s language and culture. Many are the stories of messages that have backfired for lack of doing that deep cultural study. Christians in Western culture can make the same mistake of delivering a message that makes sense coming out of our mouths, but get completely garbled going in our listeners’ ears. We need to understand so as to be able to translate.
And so at the high risk of over-simplifying, I offer some ways to understand our culture’s view of truth, so as to suggest some ways to translate our message.
We are in a condition of widespread extreme skepticism about any person’s ability to know true religious and ethical truth. This skepticism has reached as the confluence of multiple streams of thought and history. We could go back at least as far as Descartes and his studied refusal to take anything as true that could not be proved true rationalistically, or to Hume’s empiricist reaction, or Kant’s attempt at synthesizing the two views, which resulted in agnosticism about what anything is in itself.
We could trace this skepticism also to the shrinking world of the twentieth century, which led us to discover at close hand all the many religions of the world, many of whose followers are sincere, wise, and honorable in action. It seems odd, does it not, to say that they are all wrong?
And then there have been all the challenges laid against the truth of Christian belief, from the Darwinian/Lyellian assault on Genesis, to the German schools of skepticism toward Scripture, to today’s New Atheist rantings about the evils of religion. Christianity is hardly immune to that charge. World War I severely shook the warring “Christian” nations’ confidence that they were a superior civilization. Pastoral moral scandals continue to fertilize doubts of this sort.
How “Truths” Are Chosen
This has left the formerly Christian West doubting that there is any transcendent truth that we mere humans can know. Nevertheless there remains an existential need for a sense of meaning and purpose, and besides that there is cultural momentum sustaining the value of believing in something. So that’s typically what people do: they believe in something. But it is not something they can objectively confirm as true; rather it is something they choose to believe in spite of its being impossible to confirm as true. We could ask whether the word “believe” really applies here, since it’s hard really to believe something one has no reason to take as true. Still, people choose their own truths, they say, and they adhere to them as important sources of personal identity and meaning.
We need to recognize just what’s going on in this process. Stated simply (all of the above has been over-simplified, I confess), it goes like this: “I have a truth to which I adhere. It is my truth. I have chosen it because it seems to fit me, my identity, my experiences. It works for me.” And this is how many people believe everyone chooses their religion: we all find what fits us, our identity, and experiences. We all choose our own truth that works for us.
The Christian’s “Chosen Truth” Really Is Arrogant!
Then along comes the Christian with a message of one God and one way to God. Now, as missionaries do, we have to get a sense of how that message comes across to others. If what I have just described is accurate, then they believe that Christians choose our religious beliefs just the same way they think everyone does. They think we have found something that fits us, our identity, and experiences, and that works for us. “Fine,” they say, “it works for you; I’m glad for you. But how do you get off thinking what fits you fits me? What makes you think your truth ought to be my truth?”
Do you see what needs translating there? Let me paraphrase it once again, from a perspective common among non-Christians: “I’ve picked a truth that fits me. You’ve picked a truth that fits you. And now you think you have some high-and-mighty right to impose your truth on me. What an arrogant jerk you are!”
Now let me say in all sensitivity to my Christian brothers and sisters: If that’s what we are communicating, then we are in effect being arrogant jerks. Maybe we’re not intentionally being jerks; maybe our intentions are entirely humble and loving. Maybe the words coming out of our mouths are perfectly gracious and “seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6); except that if we do not (as the end of that verse says) know how to answer each person, then we may be having that arrogant effect whether we mean to or not. The fault in that case is not in our hearts; it is in our failure to translate.
To send a true and accurate message is our moral obligation. If we do not understand our audience, and how they approach truth, we’re liable to inadvertently communicate that Christianity is “our chosen truth”—which is first of all false, and second of all a truly arrogant message to impart, even if unintentionally! This is step one of the morality of Christian exclusivism.
The Truth Holds Us
What then needs translating? Perhaps you saw it already: It is not our truth that we are communicating. If they think that it is (and they are likely to do so), then we have to take time to tell them otherwise. As I have said elsewhere, if we in any suggest that we hold some ultimate truth, we “lie and do not practice the truth.” We don’t hold the truth: the Truth holds us. We do not own the Truth. It is not ours. Instead we yield to it. We submit to it. We worship the One who is known personally as the Truth. We have no lock on Truth, and we certainly didn’t choose it for how it fits our identity and experiences. We didn’t invent our truths, we didn’t even stumble across them in our own superior wisdom; the Truth was graciously given to us. We didn’t find the truth; the Truth found us. We don’t hold the truth; the Truth holds us.
I’m not going to suggest that this is an easy translation to make, for the people with whom we interact, especially those born since about 1980 or so (give or take a decade) have had very little encounter with this attitude toward Truth. It will take some patience to get it across. But we must. For the perceived immorality of Christian exclusivism comes largely from thinking of Christians as taking our own private truth and trying to impose it on everyone else. We have to be on guard never to communicate that.
Part of our message of translation is this. We need to speak this gently yet with full firmness of the truth: “If you think my position toward truth is arrogant, consider yours and mine in comparison. You think you can shape truth to fit yourself. I don’t. I can only hope to let myself be shaped by the truth. And which of these is more humble: claiming to have your own piece of the truth? Or submitting to the Truth that is far bigger than yourself?” For the true arrogance is that of the person who thinks he can shape his own truth. Real Truth is not so amenable to every person’s personal preferences.
In Part Three (which I expect will be the final part in this series) I will cover one other crucial aspect of the morality of Christian exclusivism. This will be along the lines that many of you have brought up in your comments to Part One: It’s not just Christians: everybody is an exclusivist. They’re even exclusivist toward Christianity!
Part of a Series:
Part One posted on June 10.
Part Three Posted on June 20.
Part Four posted on June 27.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:21 pm | #1
“We don’t hold the truth: the Truth holds us. We do not own the Truth. It is not ours. Instead we yield to it. We submit to it. We worship the One who is known personally as the Truth. We have no lock on Truth, and we certainly didn’t choose it for how it fit our identity and experiences. We didn’t invent our truths, we didn’t even stumble across them in our own superior wisdom; the Truth was graciously given to us. We didn’t find the truth; the Truth found us.”
This is good, sound, Biblical thinking.
A Calvinist or a “Doctrines of Grace” Christian or a Theological Determinist would affirm these thoughts.
June 13th, 2011 | 6:05 pm | #2
Non-exclusivist: “You believe that Jesus is the one way, and there’s something wrong about you—evil, even—for thinking that.
Wouldn’t it be morally irresponsible for me to accept this belief?”
Exclusivist: “I don’t hold the truth: the Truth holds me. I do not own the Truth. It is not mine. Instead I yield to it. I submit to it. I worship the One who is known personally as the Truth. I have no lock on Truth, and I certainly didn’t choose it for how it fits my identity and experiences. I didn’t invent our truths, I didn’t even stumble across them in any superior wisdom; the Truth was graciously given to me. I didn’t find the truth; the Truth found me.”
Non-Exclusivist: “Well, your truth hasn’t found me.
Thanks for the conversation. Have a nice day.”
June 14th, 2011 | 9:24 am | #3
Good word for the mind and heart.
I always have to remind myself to be very, incredibly very, grateful for my Lord rescueing me from the broad and wide path I was walking, and taking up the whole path of. He had mercy on me. And but for His grace there go I as Osama Bin Laden, or whoever we like to think of as evil.
And even if we share the truth in perfect compassion, there will be those who say we are arrogant. Even other preachers in the church.
Have a good day in our Savior’s joy and peace.
June 14th, 2011 | 12:56 pm | #4
Believe it or not, I commented on the first post before I read this one. I’m glad we both see where arrogance lies.
June 14th, 2011 | 2:55 pm | #5
“And even if we share the truth in perfect compassion, there will be those who say we are arrogant. Even other preachers in the church.”
What?? Does that really happen?
If someone speaks the Truth-in-Love or the Truth-in-Perfect-Compassion, there will still be those who say that the loving truth-teller is arrogant??
How can that be? The substance is right, the delivery and style is right, but the message is still rejected?
No way. It’s always the Sender’s fault if a message is rejected by the Receiver. It’s never the Receiver’s fault. This is a known axiom.
It’s always HOW something is said or written or delivered.
If a message is rejected, then the HOW wasn’t good enough and was faulty.
Always focus on the HOW. Always focus on the STYLE. It’s utterly essential.
June 14th, 2011 | 3:39 pm | #6
TUAD:
I was once a professional musician (trombonist). If I was playing a unison part with another trombonist, and I noticed we were out of tune with each other on some note, it was always my responsibility to determine whether I was the one who was wrong, and to adjust. With enough practice a musician can do that very quickly, almost unconsciously. But whether it was conscious or not, there is an essential attitude to adopt there: “There is a problem between the two of us, and it might be me.”
So yes, it’s possible to speak the truth in love, with perfect compassion, and still be at fault for not communicating what you intend to communicate. “Denn also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, …” communicates to some people but not to others. “I’m sanctified and justified through the blood of the Lamb” communicates something very good and wonderful to some people, and something very, very foreign and yucky to others. “There is one God and one mediator between God and man” communicates a good thing to some people, and yet to others it communicates, “You think your private truth is good enough to be my truth.”
All of those are very biblical statements as delivered; but they still might need translating, and it is the speaker’s responsibility to do that. It is only the speaker, after all, who knows what he is trying to communicate.
Then if the message is rejected after appropriate translation, that becomes the listener’s responsibility. Sometimes it was the other trombonist who was out of tune with the rest of the orchestra, and I didn’t need to change my pitch for him.
But that never absolved me of the responsibility to be aware that I could be at fault. Neither is a communicator ever absolved of the responsibility to think that he or she could be at fault, and to test and explore that possibility, when his or her message doesn’t get across successfully.
June 14th, 2011 | 4:42 pm | #7
I’m in tune with you Tom.
Let’s consider the following as we “tune” together.
o “So yes, it’s possible to speak the truth in love, with perfect compassion, and still be at fault for not communicating what you intend to communicate.”
Let’s agree that Jesus always spoke the truth-in-love with perfect compassion.
Or would you say that there are times when Jesus did not speak the truth-in-love with perfect compassion?
Or would you say that while Jesus always did speak the truth-in-love with perfect compassion it was possible that He was still at fault for not communicating what He intended to communicate?
o “Neither is a communicator ever absolved of the responsibility to think that he or she could be at fault, and to test and explore that possibility, when his or her message doesn’t get across successfully.”
Would you absolve Jesus as a communicator or would you not absolve Jesus as a communicator since His message did not “get across successfully” (as you put it) to everyone?
June 14th, 2011 | 10:01 pm | #8
Good point.
I’m not sure whether his opponents and other non-believers failed to understand his message, or whether they understood it clearly enough but rejected it nevertheless. Not knowing which it was, I have to admit at least the possibility that a properly transmitted/translated message might be misunderstood through no fault of the communicator.
June 15th, 2011 | 12:06 pm | #9
Ok, we have the good Pharisee listening to Jesus and thinking. “Hmm, what he says isn’t very practical and cursing fig trees and attacking honest businessmen in the Temple are not the actions of a rational mind. I think I’ll pass on this.”
It is quite possible to listen to the message, hear the message and understand the message and be totally unconvinced by the message and think that the messenger is just plain nuts.
Or a more contemporary equivalent. The Christian asserts the absolute truth of the Bible and the secularists asks, “Have you read Revelation recently?” And when the Christian replies in the affirmative, the secularist responds, “And you honestly expect someone to take that seriously?”
And when the Christian says yes, the secularist can respond, “You realize that you are crazy.”
June 15th, 2011 | 12:23 pm | #10
Chuck, you are quite convinced you understand the message, aren’t you? Would you like some help with the translation?
June 15th, 2011 | 12:45 pm | #11
“The Christian asserts the absolute truth of the Bible and
the secularists asks, “Have you read Revelation recently?” And when
the Christian replies in the affirmative,
the secularist responds, “And you honestly expect someone to take that seriously?” And when
the Christian says yes,
the secularist can respond, “You realize that you are crazy.”
The Christian can respond: “I pray that the Truth will find you just like the Truth found me because please know, I did not find the Truth, the Truth found me.”
The secularist: “Whatever. You’re still crazy.”
June 15th, 2011 | 1:32 pm | #12
Certainly Scripture tells us that one may hear at length and repeatedly and not understand, whether from spiritual blindness or from wilfull rebellion.
Isaiah 6:9-10
And He said, “Go, and tell this people: Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand. Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed.”
Matthew 13:13-16
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 [a]In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘[b]YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, [c]BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
[d]YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’
16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
I’m sure Jesus was not at fault as the sender of the message for the failure of some of His hearers to understand or believe.
June 15th, 2011 | 6:01 pm | #13
“I’m sure Jesus was not at fault as the sender of the message for the failure of some of His hearers to understand or believe.”
Jesus, the Perfect Communicator of Truth-in-Love said: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
June 15th, 2011 | 10:57 pm | #14
Milton makes a good point — Jesus always communicated perfectly, but it wasn’t always in order to be understood. So His example might not be entirely relevant in any discussion that assumes an intent to be understood.
June 16th, 2011 | 3:40 am | #15
“I have to admit at least the possibility that a properly transmitted/translated message might be misunderstood through no fault of the communicator.”
We’re in tune, Tom.
Although I wonder whether this is a reluctant admission on your part.
June 16th, 2011 | 7:22 am | #16
Reluctant? No, sheepish. I had to admit that I failed to think it through all the way the first time.
June 16th, 2011 | 7:26 am | #17
We need also to bear in mind that misunderstanding is not the only reason people reject the message. They might block it through pride or rebelliousness (“they have closed their eyes”) and thus not let it in. They might disobey, merely acting as if they had not understood. So there are many things potentially going on all at once, none of which would be the fault of the communicator.
June 16th, 2011 | 11:20 am | #18
On re-reading the Isaiah passage while quoting it, it struck me that the LORD may be using a sarcastic taunt to sting some into actually paying attention enough to understand, repent and be saved. The passage could be taken as, “Better not listen or understand or you might return and be healed. You wouldn’t want that, would you?”
That would seem to be Jesus’ desire and purpose also. When He says several times in the Gospels, “Let he who has ears, hear!”, and, “Truly, truly, I say to you,…” (Literally, “Amen, Amen, I say to you…”), He is urging His listeners to be perceivers, understanders, repenters, and hearers also. In Hebrew to “hear” also meant to obey what one had heard. The Lord’s intent is always to communicate, and He is always clear to the repentant heart.
June 16th, 2011 | 2:25 pm | #19
“On re-reading the Isaiah passage while quoting it, it struck me that the LORD may be using a sarcastic taunt to sting some into actually paying attention enough to understand, repent and be saved.”
What????
The Lord would use a “sarcastic taunt”?
Can a “sarcastic taunt” really be a loving way to communicate T/truth?
Suppose the Lord did use a “sarcastic taunt” here. And further suppose that no one repented upon hearing the Lord’s “sarcastic taunt.”
Can it be said that the Lord did not communicate the truth-in-love? And that if He had only done so, then some would have repented?
June 16th, 2011 | 3:09 pm | #20
TUAD, have you read very much of Isaiah? Say, Isaiah 1:3, 10, where the LORD says that an ox and a donkey know their master and owner better than Israel knows Him, and then calls them metaphorically rulers of Sodom and people of Gomorrah? Or Isaiah 30:8-11, 15-17, where the LORD first mocks Israel’s refusal to listen to Him or His prophets, preferring pleasant lies, and then mocks their refusal to repent and attempt to escape His judgment by riding swift horses?
Look at Ezekiel. What about Ezekiel 16:1-63, where the LORD reminds Israel that He rescued her from Egypt as an abandoned baby, raised her to marriage age as a bride for Himself, only to see her prostitute herself by whoring after pagan idols and spending the gifts He gave her in idolatry? Is it not sarcasm to state that Israel is different from common harlots, only in that she pays her clients instead of them paying her? To call Israel the older sister of Sodom, and the younger sister of Samaria, who had not committed half the sins of Israel? That Israel made both Sodom and Samaria seem righteous by comparison? I could find other examples in Jeremiah and the minor prophets, but I think anyone would agree these passages would suffice!
June 16th, 2011 | 3:10 pm | #21
Perhaps one could call it “speaking the truth in tough-love”!
June 16th, 2011 | 3:39 pm | #22
“Perhaps one could call it “speaking the truth in tough-love”!”
Is a “sarcastic taunt” an example of speaking the truth-in-tough-love?
If so, if the Receivers or Recipients of messages conveyed in the manner of “tough love” reject the message because they don’t like the “tough love” manner, is it fair game for folks to criticize and savage the “tough-love” truth-teller?
June 16th, 2011 | 3:44 pm | #23
(Slight rewrite)
“Perhaps one could call it “speaking the truth in tough-love”!”
Is a “sarcastic taunt” an example of speaking ” truth-in-tough-love”?
If so, if the Receivers or Recipients of messages that are conveyed in a manner of “tough love” reject the message because they don’t like the “tough love” packaging, is it fair game for folks to criticize and savage the “tough-love” truth-teller for not telling the truth-in-love?
June 16th, 2011 | 3:45 pm | #24
TUAD, your dispute is not with me, but with Scripture. God did not begin His relationship with man with sarcastic taunts or tough-love, but seemed to resort to them only after repeated appeals, often of heart-rending poignancy, were coldy, arrogantly, determinedly rejected by His people Israel.
OK, how would you describe the passages I referred to? And what do think was the LORD’s intent in having the prophets deliver those messages? It would be nice if you did not avoid answering the question this time. No right or wrong answer here, just your take on the passages.
June 16th, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #25
“God did not begin His relationship with man with sarcastic taunts or tough-love, but seemed to resort to them only after repeated appeals, often of heart-rending poignancy, were coldly, arrogantly, determinedly rejected by His people Israel.”
Is there a lesson there for us fallible communicators?
Suppose you, Milton, followed the same pattern, the same trajectory in communication as the Lord did with the “stiff-necked” people of Israel with someone you know, someone who rejects an objective truth of some high import.
Should you bear blame and criticism for *how* you conveyed a truth that was ultimately rejected?
P.S. I have no dispute with you, Milton. Please know that. Your contributions to this thread are immensely appreciated.
June 16th, 2011 | 4:49 pm | #26
Re: your ? – If I conveyed that truth accurately, no. I would not likely use sarcasm, since I am not the LORD and only another forgiven sinner.
June 16th, 2011 | 4:55 pm | #27
Q: “Should you bear blame and criticism for *how* you conveyed a truth that was ultimately rejected?”
A: “Re: your ? – If I conveyed that truth accurately, no.”
I agree with you, Milton. You should not bear blame and criticism for having conveyed the truth accurately.
June 19th, 2011 | 7:27 pm | #28
Again, I’m interested in the consequences for those that still do not buy the claim that the truth that you profess is *the* truth for all people in all times and places. I would like to see you address that more clearly. I ask because history is filled with examples of coerced conversions for those that refused to be held by the Christian faith. You indicate that missionaries often face problems of translation, but you don’t address the various forceful responses that have followed that mistranslation or plain old refusal to accept what the Christian missionary announces. What is the proper Christian response to those that don’t buy your claims? Are there instances were coerced conversion is justified?
Also, you say:
“Do you see what needs translating there? Let me paraphrase it once again, from a perspective common among non-Christians: “I’ve picked a truth that fits me. You’ve picked a truth that fits you. And now you think you have some high-and-mighty right to impose your truth on me. What an arrogant jerk you are!”
Is it less arrogant to say?: I don’t think that I’ve picked a truth. No! The truth has picked me and I know it without doubt. It seems that your position is no less arrogant — perhaps even more arrogant to the ears of the very people you are trying to bring to God. How do you respond to those that continue to find your claims arrogant? How can you translate that sense of certainty in a way that does not come across as arrogant?
Your risk here is not imposing a claimed “private truth” but imposing a claimed “objective truth.” Just because you claim that the truth is objective and you know that objective truth does not alleviate the sense that you are putting the same wine in different bottles.
Finally, you say:
“Part of our message of translation is this. We need to speak this gently yet with full firmness of the truth: “If you think my position toward truth is arrogant, consider yours and mine in comparison. You think you can shape truth to fit yourself. I don’t. I can only hope to let myself be shaped by the truth. And which of these is more humble: claiming to have your own piece of the truth? Or submitting to the Truth that is far bigger than yourself?” For the true arrogance is that of the person who thinks he can shape his own truth. Real Truth is not so amenable to every person’s personal preferences.”
What if someone says to this: So what? All I see here is two different *perspectives* on truth: one perspective claims truth is objective and universal and one perspective claims truth is situational and pluralistic. Why should I buy the claim that truth is objective and universal? Or, if it is not a matter buying a claim, explain why. Why has the objective truth not impressed itself on my senses so far in life? And if the truth that holds you is objective and universal, then your proselytizing words mean very little. Conversion is God imposing his objective self on my senses.
June 19th, 2011 | 8:05 pm | #29
“What is the proper Christian response to those that don’t buy your claims?”
For those who have heard the Gospel, understood the Gospel, and who reject Christ nonetheless as their Lord and Savior, then a proper Christian response is to know that God is glorified in salvation through His Judgment.
June 19th, 2011 | 9:22 pm | #30
“The Christian asserts the absolute truth of the Bible and
the secularists asks, “Have you read Revelation recently?” And when
the Christian replies in the affirmative,
the secularist responds, “And you honestly expect someone to take that seriously?”
Many ports of the Bible present such a horrific and vile view that not even a fundamentalist Christian can take them seriously. A fundamentalist Christian just claims the text is trying to say something else than it really says. Consider the verse about a rapist marrying his victim. Or stoning a disobedient child or killing a witch. Or every non-believer being tortured forever. Or not to eat shellfish.
June 19th, 2011 | 9:33 pm | #31
TUAD, thank you for a concise and accurate answer to Jacob’s first question.
Jaocb, you asked about “coerced conversions.” Short answer: it’s wrong for one person to coerce another to a spiritual decision. (I doubt any genuine spiritual decisions happen under coercion anyway.)
You ask,
I’ll be covering that in part three.
You also ask,
What if someone says that? That’s certainly their right. But they would be wrong, as I will also cover in part three. There is objective truth.
June 19th, 2011 | 9:47 pm | #32
Jeremy,
I can’t speak for fundamentalists, but for myself I would say that the text means what it says, provided that we interpret it in the full context of the culture of the day, and in light of the full context of Scripture. It does not, however, mean what you seem to think it means, taken out of context as you have done.
After all, Jeremy, this is what you have said on this blog:
(http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/05/campings-crime-turning-judgment-day-into-entertainment-piece/#comment-18462, #5 and #8)
It’s out of context and distorted. That’s what happens to Scripture, too. Some people seem to think they don’t need to understand the full context to grasp what it’s actually affirming, but that’s so obviously wrong, it ought not require any further argument.
June 20th, 2011 | 9:02 am | #33
Tom, you keep delaying your response until “the next post.” Please address my concerns.
Tom says: “Jaocb, you asked about “coerced conversions.” Short answer: it’s wrong for one person to coerce another to a spiritual decision. (I doubt any genuine spiritual decisions happen under coercion anyway.)”
Christians, like Muslims, have a history of coerced conversions. For instance, the Crusades is one obvious example. Also, some missionaries during the colonial period (e.g. the “scramble for Africa”) offers additional examples. In more contemporary terms, there are examples of certain groups (e.g. my Southern Baptist neighbors) coercing their children to convert (e.g. compelling their children to attend church and worship). All of these examples also get back to the first question that I asked: What are the consequences for those that do not heed your message? If one believes that the truth holds them, then there is clearly the possibility that the believer will try to compel nonbelievers to accept the believer’s truth. I mean, afterall, when one believes that one is right without doubt, then it becomes easy to justify any number of means to get the desired end result: conversion.
June 20th, 2011 | 11:34 am | #34
Jacob,
In previous conversations we had over the course of many months at the Thinking Christian blog, you spoke about what you considered the illegitimate use of language in acts of power. Please consider your impatient (imperious?) request in your first line here in that same context. Am I to address your concerns on your timetable? Yesterday was Father’s Day. I have responsibilities on my desk today. Most of all, there is a sequence to this topic that makes sense to me, and I choose to follow it.
When Christians attempted forced conversions of other peoples they were wrong. Parental teaching is another matter altogether, for (briefly stated) it is impossible for a parent not to teach a child some view about ultimate spiritual reality. My brother raised his children “in all of the traditions,” as he put it; in the process he taught his kids that no religion was trustworthy or true. That’s coercive parental instruction as much as any other.
There is much more to be said about that, but you are trying to take me far afield, and I am going to follow no further in that direction. I generally respond to comments that are part of the conversations I start with my blog articles, but this matter of coerced conversions is part of some other conversation.
Except for this: “If one believes that the truth holds them, then there is clearly the possibility that the believer will try to compel nonbelievers to accept the believer’s truth.” If you read carefully what I wrote here, you’ll see hints of a Christian response to that question, in the stance of humility that comes with being granted the truth through grace. But I will have more to say about it in a future blog post.
June 21st, 2011 | 11:53 am | #35
On to read Part 3! But before then, in #33, Jacob, you seem implicitly to be denying the possibility of objective truth (what is true regardless of our opinion of it):
“If one believes that the truth holds them, then there is clearly the possibility that the believer will try to compel nonbelievers to accept the believer’s truth.”
Leaving aside that coerced conversion is an oxymoron (“He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”), your statement dismisses the truth that has convicted and converted the believer as “the believer’s truth”. Was it only subjectively true for Jesus and not true objectively regardless of anyone’s opinion or Personal “truth” that He was and is “the Way and the Truth and the Life”?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact