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……