Merchant states that there are four main ways that our ideas are conveyed across ideological spectrums:
Myopia
Hyperbole
Hysteria
Truth
It’s a quaint theory, but it doesn’t represent reality. Are people myopic in their presentations? Of course, that is ONE form of presentation when you are unable to engage in one-on-one conversation with the person to whom you wish to convey your ideas. But stating that this is “typical” fanfare from Christians is quite misleading.
Are people hyperbolic in their presentations? Again, of course they are. Hyperbole is a great way to get others to focus on the main point because they will naturally digress from the exaggerated one.
Are people hysterical in their presentations? Oh, brother, you sure can bet on that. I just finished watching Al Franken blow up in a conversation with Michael Medved. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEj7vit4G74) If you’re human, and you have emotions (which humans actually have), then you will probably blow it every once in a while. That’s not to say that is the best approach at handling things, but that everyone screws up once in a while.
The truth of the matter is that people, regardless of which side of the fence that they are standing on, use Myopia, Hyperbole, Hysteria, and Truth with varying mixtures. Preachers and expositors of all kind, if they are any good at the art of rhetorical delivery, will come to recognize and accept that all of those styles are acceptable in establishing a point.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Dare to LIVE the Truth!!
There are many clues as to where Merchant stands if you really want to look. For example, on page 12 of his book, Merchant states that “I hear people on TV ranting about “Nine out of 10 people believe in God….therefore we should throw Darwin out of school, sing ‘Michael, Row Your Boat Ashore’ before class, and all vote Republican.”
Follow me as I “put words” in Merchant’s mouth, and cull his thoughts and ideas from out of his mind, and put them out directly for all to see: “What kind of people are strident? Well, they are the ones that are “ranting”, don’t you know? And here’s a rant, one where those on the right (you know, those extremist, 6-day creationist types) are saying that since 9 out of 10 people are Christian that we should therefore teach Christian doctrine in school. Well, hell no, that ain’t happenin’ on my watch! If we can get them to capitulate by forcing them to engage in a “civil” discourse, then we will win without arguing!!!”
That’s the movie, in a nutshell. After all, who among us REALLY believes that conducting Man on the Street interviews is a proper way of analyzing how Christians should conduct themselves? If you do, then you need to hang up your Jesus coat, because Jesus said that He did not come here to bring peace between “us” and “them.”
Matthew 10 we find Jesus speaking of how we are to be sent out to proclaim the gospel, and yet the disciples know that this will bring much persecution. Jesus senses this and tells his disciples not to fear those people who would silence them. He tells them, “Don’t be afraid, because you are worth more than many sparrows.”
If I listen to Dan Merchant, I should refrain from speaking with boldness the message of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus clearly tells us that if we are afraid to speak His name, He will likewise not speak their name (convey him as His disciple) to the Father. “Whoever publicly acknowledges me I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven.”
He clearly stated that as we lived our lives out the way that He expected us to, that His ideals would divide between those who accepted and those who rejected. The division is so severe that it would play itself out even within families.
His next set of instructions are telling, because therein lies the ‘secret’ to being a true disciple of Christ: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies will be the members of your own household.”
Don’t just dare to KNOW the truth. Dare to LIVE the truth!
Follow me as I “put words” in Merchant’s mouth, and cull his thoughts and ideas from out of his mind, and put them out directly for all to see: “What kind of people are strident? Well, they are the ones that are “ranting”, don’t you know? And here’s a rant, one where those on the right (you know, those extremist, 6-day creationist types) are saying that since 9 out of 10 people are Christian that we should therefore teach Christian doctrine in school. Well, hell no, that ain’t happenin’ on my watch! If we can get them to capitulate by forcing them to engage in a “civil” discourse, then we will win without arguing!!!”
That’s the movie, in a nutshell. After all, who among us REALLY believes that conducting Man on the Street interviews is a proper way of analyzing how Christians should conduct themselves? If you do, then you need to hang up your Jesus coat, because Jesus said that He did not come here to bring peace between “us” and “them.”
Matthew 10 we find Jesus speaking of how we are to be sent out to proclaim the gospel, and yet the disciples know that this will bring much persecution. Jesus senses this and tells his disciples not to fear those people who would silence them. He tells them, “Don’t be afraid, because you are worth more than many sparrows.”
If I listen to Dan Merchant, I should refrain from speaking with boldness the message of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus clearly tells us that if we are afraid to speak His name, He will likewise not speak their name (convey him as His disciple) to the Father. “Whoever publicly acknowledges me I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven.”
He clearly stated that as we lived our lives out the way that He expected us to, that His ideals would divide between those who accepted and those who rejected. The division is so severe that it would play itself out even within families.
His next set of instructions are telling, because therein lies the ‘secret’ to being a true disciple of Christ: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies will be the members of your own household.”
Don’t just dare to KNOW the truth. Dare to LIVE the truth!
Lord, Save me with your Truth
One of the things that Dan Merchant does in his book, and movie, is to reduce those of us on the right to being strident, and unyielding with a penchant for winning the debate at all costs. I’m really having a hard time distinguishing how it is that those on the other side of the debate don’t fall into that same trap. Why is it that Merchant insists that only those on the right are prone to use such tactics and devices?
Dan Merchant is a Social Liberal. I am a Social Conservative. What does a Social Conservative do? A Social Conservative is politically or morally ideological and believes the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent. (see: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_conservative )
If that is true, then it stands to reason that a Social Liberal is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal )
What is at stake between Dan Merchant and me – or as an extension, between Social Liberalism and Social Conservatism? The answer is, the rights to insist on what Social framework will guide America.
Yet if we listen to the movie and book, the proper/correct avenue of approach is to compromise your values, close down the gauntlet, and capitulate to THEIR understanding. The only winners in that scenario are those who are to the left of center in the political/religious debate.
Am I wrong? How so? The movie’s (ergo Dan’s) position is that it is those on the Right who must silence their rhetoric. After all, those on the Left are only strident in opposition to those on the Right. If you close down the rhetoric from the Right, you will automatically close down the rhetoric from the Left. Or, so goes the argument.
Ultimately, the only thing that Dan Merchant accomplishes is to learn something about “where my new friends were coming from.” The stated purpose of this learning was to enable Dan to “have a more interesting and fruitful dialogue with them.” (pg 6)
I’m still left wondering where the “fruit” is in all this. If all we have to show for this is a “conversation”, I fail to see how this is “fruitful” to Christianity, because all it accomplishes is to show that Dan Merchant does not believe that, as a disciple of Christ, he has been commanded to “preach the gospel to all the world.” (Mark 16:15) This command of Jesus does not insist that the conversation should be two-way, but is a one-way conversation, “Us” bringing “them” the message of salvation and repentance.
More to follow……
Dan Merchant is a Social Liberal. I am a Social Conservative. What does a Social Conservative do? A Social Conservative is politically or morally ideological and believes the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent. (see: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_conservative )
If that is true, then it stands to reason that a Social Liberal is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal )
What is at stake between Dan Merchant and me – or as an extension, between Social Liberalism and Social Conservatism? The answer is, the rights to insist on what Social framework will guide America.
Yet if we listen to the movie and book, the proper/correct avenue of approach is to compromise your values, close down the gauntlet, and capitulate to THEIR understanding. The only winners in that scenario are those who are to the left of center in the political/religious debate.
Am I wrong? How so? The movie’s (ergo Dan’s) position is that it is those on the Right who must silence their rhetoric. After all, those on the Left are only strident in opposition to those on the Right. If you close down the rhetoric from the Right, you will automatically close down the rhetoric from the Left. Or, so goes the argument.
Ultimately, the only thing that Dan Merchant accomplishes is to learn something about “where my new friends were coming from.” The stated purpose of this learning was to enable Dan to “have a more interesting and fruitful dialogue with them.” (pg 6)
I’m still left wondering where the “fruit” is in all this. If all we have to show for this is a “conversation”, I fail to see how this is “fruitful” to Christianity, because all it accomplishes is to show that Dan Merchant does not believe that, as a disciple of Christ, he has been commanded to “preach the gospel to all the world.” (Mark 16:15) This command of Jesus does not insist that the conversation should be two-way, but is a one-way conversation, “Us” bringing “them” the message of salvation and repentance.
More to follow……
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)