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……
Sunday, October 11, 2009
I'm not getting it.....yet!
I really want to get to the bottom of this movie! My senses are telling me that Dan Merchant is not someone who resides in “the middle of the road” when it comes to political or religious issues.
Here’s what I think about him, and I haven’t even been able to find anything about him on the internet. When you Google his name, or his movie, nearly ALL of the links that come up are in regards to his movie, Lord Save Us From Your Followers, and they are all glowing reviews. Listen: NOBODY GETS 100% POSITIVE REVIEWS. Where are the negative reviews? Something is just not right.
Ok, so what to do? Well, we shall be detectives, and we shall look for clues. Keep searching the internet, but change the search parameters. Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to research on Google, but this time, I’m going to instruct Google NOT to return any results that have “Lord Save Us From Your Followers” in the article or title. You can do that by entering the following: “Dan Merchant, -“Lord Save Us From Your Followers” ” The hyphen (negative sign) tells Google NOT to show any results that contain those words. By putting the quotation marks around the whole title, it tells Google not to return any results that contain that group of words in that specific order.
Ok. Now, what do I find? Well, there are different things that you find, not many of them very interesting, and none of them having to do with the movie. But that’s ok, because we don’t want to read any more POSITIVE critiques of the movie. If you want to really know about the movie, you’ve got to discover who the man is that is responsible for the movie.
And here is my first clue: I found an interview of Dan Merchant by Robert Schuller, on The Hour of Power. Well, without even looking at the interview, I can already tell you that Robert Schuller denies the exclusivity of the Gospel, preaching Universalism – a belief that all people will ultimately end up in heaven by God’s side. Now, tell me, if you do not believe in Universalism, would you agree to be interviewed by Robert Schuller, and thereby promote the understanding that you don’t oppose his belief in Universalism?
Ok, so that’s the first problem. Let’s take a look at the interview. You’ll find it at this URL: http://movie.teacup.com/video/watchframe/2eb7bad0c4c45171
Notice that Dan Merchant is wearing his “Bumper Sticker” uniform. If you look carefully, you will find left-leaning bumper stickers of a positive nature, such as an anti-war sticker, “Who would Jesus bomb?”, or another one dealing with world hunger. But those stickers which represent the religious right are of a negative nature, such as “Get the Hell out of my way, I’m late for church!”
This unbalanced presentation is evident in all of the materials regarding this movie that I can find. For example, Dan Merchant claims that “I spoke with Liberals and Conservatives, both believers and nonbelievers, and everyone in between.” Yet some of the “conservatives” interviewed are not known for their religious work, but for their political work, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (a conservative Catholic), talk show radio host, Michael Reagan (a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel), Tony Campolo (Liberal theologian), and Jay Barnes (President of Bethel University, who allowed gay activists onto his campus under the guise of diversity of opinions: “We have an obligation, if we claim to be a liberal arts university, to credibly represent multiple points of view.”)
You’ll notice that Barnes and Campolo are presented by Merchant as “evangelicals” and therefore “conservatives.” Yet nowhere do we find those that Dan would consider the more strident voices in Christianity who would at the very least attempt to balance a presentation of grace with TRUTH. That’s because Dan Merchant’s agenda is one of marginalizing those on the right.
A telling commentary by Robert Schuller is found in his introduction of Dan Merchant that he “has been invited to speak at some of the most liberal academic institutions in the United States.” Why is that? Not because that is where the battle is, but because that is where his base of support lies. After all, what liberal will argue with Dan Merchant that Christians are divisive and that they spread hate?
What other things can be learned of this movie and the man who made it? Well, he quotes Philip Yancey as stating that “No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.” Really? And this is proven how?
Another technique of Dan Merchant is to redefine the Gospel from that of being one of “repentance” to being one of “grace and love.” In all of the clips I can find that promote the movie, the Gospel is repeatedly referred to as “The Gospel of Grace.”
Dan Merchant asks, “What if the Church became known, not for what it’s against, but for what it’s for?” An interesting concept, but how does that play out in the grand scheme of things? Well, to begin with, there is the old adage, “If you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” We must be careful, and understand that Christianity is not simply a proponent of peace of love, but that it accomplishes that through the transformation of lives from one of death and destruction, to one of living for Christ.
You can’t help people accomplish that transformation by simply telling them that “God is love” and ignoring the wrath of God that stands upon their heads. Not only are we fooling ourselves with such drivel, but we are simply sealing their fate to one of eternity without God.
Here’s what I think about him, and I haven’t even been able to find anything about him on the internet. When you Google his name, or his movie, nearly ALL of the links that come up are in regards to his movie, Lord Save Us From Your Followers, and they are all glowing reviews. Listen: NOBODY GETS 100% POSITIVE REVIEWS. Where are the negative reviews? Something is just not right.
Ok, so what to do? Well, we shall be detectives, and we shall look for clues. Keep searching the internet, but change the search parameters. Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to research on Google, but this time, I’m going to instruct Google NOT to return any results that have “Lord Save Us From Your Followers” in the article or title. You can do that by entering the following: “Dan Merchant, -“Lord Save Us From Your Followers” ” The hyphen (negative sign) tells Google NOT to show any results that contain those words. By putting the quotation marks around the whole title, it tells Google not to return any results that contain that group of words in that specific order.
Ok. Now, what do I find? Well, there are different things that you find, not many of them very interesting, and none of them having to do with the movie. But that’s ok, because we don’t want to read any more POSITIVE critiques of the movie. If you want to really know about the movie, you’ve got to discover who the man is that is responsible for the movie.
And here is my first clue: I found an interview of Dan Merchant by Robert Schuller, on The Hour of Power. Well, without even looking at the interview, I can already tell you that Robert Schuller denies the exclusivity of the Gospel, preaching Universalism – a belief that all people will ultimately end up in heaven by God’s side. Now, tell me, if you do not believe in Universalism, would you agree to be interviewed by Robert Schuller, and thereby promote the understanding that you don’t oppose his belief in Universalism?
Ok, so that’s the first problem. Let’s take a look at the interview. You’ll find it at this URL: http://movie.teacup.com/video/watchframe/2eb7bad0c4c45171
Notice that Dan Merchant is wearing his “Bumper Sticker” uniform. If you look carefully, you will find left-leaning bumper stickers of a positive nature, such as an anti-war sticker, “Who would Jesus bomb?”, or another one dealing with world hunger. But those stickers which represent the religious right are of a negative nature, such as “Get the Hell out of my way, I’m late for church!”
This unbalanced presentation is evident in all of the materials regarding this movie that I can find. For example, Dan Merchant claims that “I spoke with Liberals and Conservatives, both believers and nonbelievers, and everyone in between.” Yet some of the “conservatives” interviewed are not known for their religious work, but for their political work, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (a conservative Catholic), talk show radio host, Michael Reagan (a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel), Tony Campolo (Liberal theologian), and Jay Barnes (President of Bethel University, who allowed gay activists onto his campus under the guise of diversity of opinions: “We have an obligation, if we claim to be a liberal arts university, to credibly represent multiple points of view.”)
You’ll notice that Barnes and Campolo are presented by Merchant as “evangelicals” and therefore “conservatives.” Yet nowhere do we find those that Dan would consider the more strident voices in Christianity who would at the very least attempt to balance a presentation of grace with TRUTH. That’s because Dan Merchant’s agenda is one of marginalizing those on the right.
A telling commentary by Robert Schuller is found in his introduction of Dan Merchant that he “has been invited to speak at some of the most liberal academic institutions in the United States.” Why is that? Not because that is where the battle is, but because that is where his base of support lies. After all, what liberal will argue with Dan Merchant that Christians are divisive and that they spread hate?
What other things can be learned of this movie and the man who made it? Well, he quotes Philip Yancey as stating that “No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.” Really? And this is proven how?
Another technique of Dan Merchant is to redefine the Gospel from that of being one of “repentance” to being one of “grace and love.” In all of the clips I can find that promote the movie, the Gospel is repeatedly referred to as “The Gospel of Grace.”
Dan Merchant asks, “What if the Church became known, not for what it’s against, but for what it’s for?” An interesting concept, but how does that play out in the grand scheme of things? Well, to begin with, there is the old adage, “If you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” We must be careful, and understand that Christianity is not simply a proponent of peace of love, but that it accomplishes that through the transformation of lives from one of death and destruction, to one of living for Christ.
You can’t help people accomplish that transformation by simply telling them that “God is love” and ignoring the wrath of God that stands upon their heads. Not only are we fooling ourselves with such drivel, but we are simply sealing their fate to one of eternity without God.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Lord Save Us From Your Followers, the Movie
Ok, first subject: The new movie, Lord, Save Us from Your Followers. I recently was encouraged by a fellow employee (who shall remain nameless) to go to see this new movie. I had only heard about it in passing, and my initial instinct was that the film was going to be the Left's newest effort to marginalize those of us on the Right.
Alright, so I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think I've already confirmed that the movie is exactly as what I originally suspected. To begin with, the filmaker included in his movie a scene where he goes to a gay pride parade, and sets up a booth for confession.
That's interesting. So, you set up a confessional booth at a gay pride event, and what do you expect gays to do? Confess? Well, of course not! And did you really believe that was the purpose of the confession booth? Come on, you got to be kidding me. The confessional was not meant for gays and lesbians, but was meant for the filmaker as a means of him confessing his sins against those homosexuals!!
You may be thinking to yourself, "Ok, so what's the problem here? Haven't homosexuals been offended by Christians for the hateful speech that they have engaged in when debating this issue?" Most certainly, but the real issue here is to ask, did the filmaker ever engage in such hateful speech, and if so, then he is proper and right to apologize to them. But the whole confessional booth thing is not a means of simply apologizing for HIS sins, but is a ploy to apologize for ALL CHRISTIANs who have sinned against homosexuals.
That kind of tactic is the same nonsense that has so angered conservatives against Obama when he as gone globetrotting and asking forgiveness for the sins of the United States. There's just something inherently wrong for someone to ask forgiveness for sins that they never committed, on behalf of individuals who may, or may not, be ready to apologize.
Ok, so on the off chance that you may have already seen this movie, I'd like to have your opinion on whether you think the movie is a means to marginalize those on the far right, or is it truly a work of mediation, intended to bring peace and civility to discourse between the two sides? What say YOU?
Alright, so I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think I've already confirmed that the movie is exactly as what I originally suspected. To begin with, the filmaker included in his movie a scene where he goes to a gay pride parade, and sets up a booth for confession.
That's interesting. So, you set up a confessional booth at a gay pride event, and what do you expect gays to do? Confess? Well, of course not! And did you really believe that was the purpose of the confession booth? Come on, you got to be kidding me. The confessional was not meant for gays and lesbians, but was meant for the filmaker as a means of him confessing his sins against those homosexuals!!
You may be thinking to yourself, "Ok, so what's the problem here? Haven't homosexuals been offended by Christians for the hateful speech that they have engaged in when debating this issue?" Most certainly, but the real issue here is to ask, did the filmaker ever engage in such hateful speech, and if so, then he is proper and right to apologize to them. But the whole confessional booth thing is not a means of simply apologizing for HIS sins, but is a ploy to apologize for ALL CHRISTIANs who have sinned against homosexuals.
That kind of tactic is the same nonsense that has so angered conservatives against Obama when he as gone globetrotting and asking forgiveness for the sins of the United States. There's just something inherently wrong for someone to ask forgiveness for sins that they never committed, on behalf of individuals who may, or may not, be ready to apologize.
Ok, so on the off chance that you may have already seen this movie, I'd like to have your opinion on whether you think the movie is a means to marginalize those on the far right, or is it truly a work of mediation, intended to bring peace and civility to discourse between the two sides? What say YOU?
New Beginnings
Today I am trying to start a discussion with my friends and any others who wish to engage in the act of discovering truth. Now, notice that I stated "discovering truth", and not creating truth. There are many who might consider truth something to create for themselves. Therefore, you will see many people say, "That's YOUR truth, not mine" as if to say that truth can be manipulated or tweaked to fit your own style or philosophy.
So, we will be examining many issues from the perspective that truth can be discovered and then applied to each situation, resulting in a consistent application of truth to every aspect of our lives.
I think that this should be fun, and certainly not torturous, so my aim is to do this in a way that we can disagree without calling each other names. Please work with me toward that goal.
If the topic agrees or disagrees with you, please engage myself and others with the reasons that you do. Let's make this a true process of understanding and discovering truth.
So, we will be examining many issues from the perspective that truth can be discovered and then applied to each situation, resulting in a consistent application of truth to every aspect of our lives.
I think that this should be fun, and certainly not torturous, so my aim is to do this in a way that we can disagree without calling each other names. Please work with me toward that goal.
If the topic agrees or disagrees with you, please engage myself and others with the reasons that you do. Let's make this a true process of understanding and discovering truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)