Obnoxious Christians, Pt. 1 of 2

There is plenty of disdain out there for the "bigoted Christian." TG at the Drudge Forum finds herself shocked that "Christian bigots, sometimes referred to as Christian Fundamentalists, will flat out tell you that if you do not believe as they do, that you are going to suffer damnation in an eternal and torturous hell." She sees a "thought template" here that is indistinguishable from that of "Muslim Radical Theology" that is "killing hundreds of thousands all over the world."

Her perspective deserves some analysis for the fact that she is not alone. A rising tide of invective threatens anyone who dares to believe that salvation is found in Jesus alone. I am confident that if you are sharing the Gospel with any frequency, you have reaped such a "how dare you" response. So let's use her comments as the basis for some analysis of the trend.

First, let's examine the definition of "bigotry" that TG us using. According to the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, "bigotry" is "extreme intolerance of a . . .  belief that differs from one's own." Note that there are two components to this definition. There is "extreme intolerance." And there is a "belief that differs from one's one." Based on this definition, there are two tests that must be passed before the term "bigot" is appropriately assigned. First, there is the belief test. Person A (the possible bigot) has beliefs that differ from those of Person B (the possible target of the bigotry). Second, Person A demonstrates intolerance that rises to the level of being "extreme" toward person B. Even though person A may have a fundamental disagreement with person B, by itself, this does not constitute bigotry in the absence of "extreme intolerance." Both components, different beliefs AND extreme intolerance, must be present before the term "bigot" is appropriate.

In TG's world, she defines bigotry using a modified definition; when Christians "flat out tell you" what they believe, they earn the label. Here is a mystery to solve - How have they met both conditions necessary to earn the label? Clearly, the Random House first condition for bigotry has been met. There is a difference of opinion between TG and the "Christian bigot." But where's the "extreme intolerance?" Here's my best shot at an answer. When the Christian bigot "flat out tells you" his view, he has, in TG's mind, gone to extremes and met condition #2. For person A to merely COMMUNICATE his view to person B is "extreme intolerance."

I wonder if this sword cuts both ways? Isn't TG, whose opinion differs from the alleged Christian bigot, "flat out" communicating her opinion, too? What makes the Christian's self-expression bigotry and not hers?

Comments

[Alex Marshall]

Don't know that I can specifically explain TG's perspective, but it seems to me that "bigotry" comes to be a label for Christians in two ways that need to be differentiated.

First, from a postmodernist perspective, any view that claims exclusive access to some form of truth is bigotry. So Christianity's claim that salvation comes from Christ alone earns us this label from the postmodernist camp. This can and should be addressed on a philosophical and apologetic level and doesn't necessarily communicate any real flaw in Christianity, instead it is an underlying philosophical difference in the two belief systems.

A second way Christianity earns the title "bigot" comes about when Christians are indeed bigots. It has been my unfortunate experience that many Christians (but certainly not all, don't hear me saying that) have taken their differences of opinion to extreme levels that lead them to treat others with a disdain reminiscent of racism. These individuals then paint a stereotype that must be overcome by all Christians if we want to be effective in ministry.

[Randy]

I wonder where Jesus would land on TG's bigot scale?

[Jeff]

That's a good question. I'm going to ask.

[ms]

As long as we're defining terms, let's look at Webster's 9th Collegiate Dictionary definition of "intolerant: unable or unwilling to endure; unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression esp in religious matters; unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights." Is that truly what is going on here? If so, how?

[Randy]

Great point MS. As one university professor was quoted "We are intolerant of any view that isn't tolerant." That’s what is really going on.

[Jeff]

I appreciate the want to define terms, but who of us are going to witness going "What you mean by bigot or intolerant isn't what the terms mean."? Bottom line is that it's THEIR terms. It doesn't matter if they're wrong...they're still going to use it in the same vein. So the real question, I think, is how do we get around that to meet them where they are?

[ms]

Actually, that is one way to meet them on their own terms - by asking them to define their own terms. How else would they define bigotry or intolerance? Where in the world does that happen? What does it look like?
A Reformed Jewish friend said that, to her, Christians are more of a threat than Muslims, because we want to change the laws to be more conservative. I asked if she is fearful when she visits her son in Colorado Springs, a known hotbed of Christianity. Of course she is not, yet she would not even be allowed into a Muslim country.

[Jeff]

OK, I guess I was misunderstanding it because I got the impression that by trying to define the term ourselves, we were demanding that others agree to our term which is kind of what gets us into the mess in the first place. I think we're on the same page, just were talking about two different paragraphs.