You can read the full transcript here.
The issue of "tolerance" came up. I am growing quite weary of that word. It really means nothing anymore than, "Do you agree with me?"
Here is what Piers said last night amidst the discussion with Driscoll where he attempts to question Mark's views:
But I also think what is harming America right now, like many countries around the world, is just a fundamental lack of tolerance and respect for people who may not share your personal values.Tolerance has to be a two way street if people really want to be serious about that word. So I guess what I would seek to ask Piers is, "If you are such a champion for "tolerance" why are you not tolerating my views right now? Are you implying that tolerance has to be defined by agreeing with your definition of tolerance?"
I think in these types of discussions one can easily expose the hypocrisy and idiocy of our modern line of thinking about "tolerance" by putting the question back to the questioner. "Why are YOU being so intolerant of my views?" I think this needs to be spoken way more often by those who would seek to paint anyone who disagrees with them as "intolerant". Who really is the intolerant one?
The question really has nothing to do with "tolerance". People have always had and always will have different views about thousands of different topics. The bigger question is how to be loving or just simply civil in the midst of those differences. Which worldview can sustain that kind of love and civility?
But these days those two different concepts (tolerance and love) are being melting into one. You can't disagree with someone and love them at the same time. If you love someone that means you have to agree with everything they stand for. That is the challenge in todays culture, but if people really think about it, it makes zero sense and we should help them see that.
3 comments:
How exactly can such an argument be helpful?
Rather, I recommend believers recognize that our world view is very offensive to the world, and note that anyone who should chose to accept it does so at a certain loss of personal volition.
I've taken to saying that it is completely unreasonable to accept Christianity apart from a personal experience with God. To accept Christianity requires adoption of a set of peculiar behaviors, among which are personal sacrifice for invalids and praying for one's enemies, abstinence from certain temporal pleasures, rejection of opportunities to manipulate politics to our own advantage at the expense of others, relinquishment of privileges afforded to us by accidents of birth, and vulnerability to other's about our shameful faults.
John 1:8
"If we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us"
God wants us to relentlessly pursue perfection, knowing full well we will never achieve it. There will always be consequences of our sins.
I've seen hard core "Reformed Preachers" strictly dwell to their Congregations this "truth", "for the wages of sin is death". while failing to explain redemption, through blood of Jesus.
It's almost the same way Catholics teach scriptures. They fail to teach assurance of Salvation because they think one is unable to have that assurance.
If a Christian can't occasionally walk out of a church or go into the work place and have "joy" and "happiness" because of what Jesus did for them, there is something wrong with that Church.
If whole Congregations are walking out of Church Services after every service and lacking joy, how are they going to reach the lost?
Why would the lost want what Christians have in Christ, if Christians are more miserable than the post?
What can slow the growth of Churches is an Abusive Methodology that some extreme "Reformed Calvinist" embraces that lack Redemption.
(Do they fear if they include redemption, they fear Congregations will have minimal fear, in the act of sinning?)
In Ephesians 5:25 it instructs "husbands to love their wives as Christ love the Church".
In Ephesians 6:2 it instructs us "to honor your Mother and Father"
In Ephesians 6:4 "Fathers don't provoke your kids to anger"
It seems to me these verses teach us what we are suppose to do. Not only as Husbands and Children, but as Parents. In some respect we can provoke a Congregation the same way a bad parent will provoke their kids.
I think sometimes we want to carry our burdens for the actions of Congregations instead of sharing those burdens with the Holy Spirit.
When this happens is the Preacher really lacking faith?
Sometimes we have higher expectations of one's spiritual gifts, when in reality their actual spiritual gifts may be of a foot instead of the leg. The Preachers starts rebuking, not knowing he is the one who is lacking faith while robbing the Congregation the joy of serving.
David Adams
We should always speak the truth but only in (biblical) love and with all gentleness. To speak truth without love and gentleness can be as damaging, perhaps more, than a lie. We should refrain from asserting our views to simply win an argument. It is no secret what Piers Morgan's world view is and no one is going to appear on his show and win an argument contrary to his world view. Driscoll has a tendency to be crude and abrasive, asserts some questionable ideas and theology and did nothing to advance the gospel. This was about advancing Driscoll's celebrity. We Christians do way to much talking and not nearly enough living. The world may be blind to the truth of Christ but they're not blind to our hypocrisy.
Post a Comment