Irony - A Plea for Some Thought

A blogger recently did a series of articles on drama, movies, and the gospel. It was an entertaining series of articles. (He will hate that I said that ... I am just ribbing him a bit.) It was thought-provoking in many ways. I did not study it in depth, but my recollection at having read it is that it seemed to lean heavily on Tozer, and IMO, not as heavily on God. That seemed to be a major drawback, IMO. I thought he had some good things to say, some good warnings, and ... well ... some other stuff.

The irony was that he concluded his series with the statement, Moreover, what right have you or anybody else to inflict your whims of religious experience and preference on other believers?

I did a double take. Did someone who has spent a number of articles ostensibly trying to inflict his whims of religious experience and preference on other believers just condemn such a tactic? It sure looks like he did. I am quite sure he would respond that he was not addressing his religious whims and preferences, but rather scriptural demands. Which leads to the question, Why not more Scripture to demonstrate these demands? I never saw a place where he was able to remove his point of view from the category of religious experience and preference and into the category of mandate.

This followed on the heels of an unrelated conversation I was having with someone who made a universal categorical statement about a topic. I pointed out that his universal categorical statement was an overstatement. He responded that it was what he believed, and as such was not an overstatement of his belief. I pointed out that I did not address whether or not he overstated his belief. I addressed the fact that he overstated the facts. (Interestingly enough, the person involved in the "overstatement" discussion admitted his overstatement by acknowledging that the evidence against him were mistakes and exceptions. If you make a categorical statement that "All A is B," then later admit that "Some A is not B, but those are mistakes and exceptions," you have proven yourself wrong since you have admitted that not all A is B; some of it is not B. The reason why "not all A is B" is irrelevant to the fact you have just stipulated.)

Don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing for Christian movies or dramas, or anything else for that matter. I am rather addressing the method through which one goes about establishing a position.

While we are all convinced in our own mind (at least to some degree), somehow we too often fail to recognize that "belief" and "fact" are quite often not the same. While your conscience may not permit certain things, and while you have every right to try to persuade others of the value of the position you hold, it seems to me that we need to be more careful with the facts. If your position is true, then the Scriptures rightly interpreted and applied will bear it out. Using such language as "religious whims" does nothing but prejudice the reader. You have just called him a name.

If the gospel demands anything of us in communication, it at the very least demands that we argue ethically, and truthfully, without prejudicial, hyperbolic language. I could say, "Everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid idiot. If they had the least bit of intelligence, they would see that I am right." (And I may even believe such a thing.) But such language would not enhance the strength of my argument; it would likely weaken it. Nor would it encourage the reader to interact with what I actually said about the topic. They would respond to what I said about them.

In communication, the word of God demands the highest level of honesty and ethics. If there is legitimate divergence from my position, I must deal with it honestly. I must not resort to less than ethical tactics.

So in our speech, let's be careful to accurately represent the true state of affairs about whatever topic we might address. Let's be careful to address those who disagree with kind and loving language such as the image of God in all men (even those who disagree) demands (cf. James 3:9-10).

(In case you want to appeal to Christ's dealings with Pharisees as evidence of your right to use strong language and call those who disagree with you names, I would simply say that when you get to be Christ, you can do that. Until then, our sinful nature is far too prone to ungodliness. There is fine line between sinful anger andrighteous anger; few of us ever come close to it.) The gospel would be better served by temperate communication.