I thought the lack of a response to the posting I made at the end of January was a little strange. It was absolutely the most opinionated, inflammatory posting in the young life of my blog, but the response was mild, to say the least.
Until today. Wow!
There are three entries here, but it is only the last two (from today) that require a response. Allow me to address the issue of the talk-radio host condemning liberals as "anti-God", and I'll address the rest later.
If this talk-radio host was referring to the entire Democratic party as "anti-God" then he is an idiot. But he no more speaks for the majority of Republicans with his opinion than the nutcase professor Ward Churchill speaks for the majority of the Democratic party with his. ("The people who died in the World Trade Towers were Nazis who had it coming," or words to that effect.) Extreme opinions exist in both political parties, and nobody in the mainstream of either party can fairly judge the other by the tail ends of their bell curve.
If the talk-radio host was referring to a sub-set of the Democratic Party as "anti-God", I find that position hard to argue against. There is an "anti-God" subset of the Republican party, for that matter.
But are you serious that a visitor to your church is "invited to participate in communion regardless of his ...personal spiritual beliefs"? Is a visitor asked to believe that Jesus is the Christ? How about that communion is a holy sacrament remembering the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf? Would one of my "anti-God" Republicans be invited to communion?
I assume there is some expectation about a person's essential spiritual beliefs, and that failure to agree with those beliefs would mean you were not invited to participate. If so, then we agree in principal that some things are not to be tolerated - we just might disagree on the details of where to draw those lines. If not, then communion is not really a holy sacrament - it's snack time with really small portions. In other words, if it can mean anything, then it means nothing.
Speaking of tolerance, you agree that "certain things should not be tolerated", (t-shirts to be printed soon), but then do not specify that which shouldn't be tolerated. Surely you're not saying that the free, public expression of the opinions of that radio host shouldn't be tolerated? I await your clarification.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Glad to see that you are up for a debate….and to be given the opportunity to clarify the statements you questioned.
It would be easiest to say that the radio host is an idiot, and leave it at that. But, just for the sake of this discussion, let’s pretend that he is not an idiot, simply inflammatory. (which, I do understand, is the way he gets ratings)
We must make certain assumptions about the radio host:
Because he referred to those who are anti-God in a derrogatory manner, we must ascertain that he believes anti-God is bad, thus pro-God is good, and that he is speaking from the position of pro-God, thus, is a believer.
When a believer attends a church service, there are certain things generally understood:
He would understand what scripture is and why it is used, he would understand what prayer is, the concept of praise and worship etc. It would also be safe to say that he would recognize the Lord’s table as sacrament and ritual. Not only would a believer recognize these rituals of worship, but would also be present to hear the words of invitation and be able to determine for himself whether to participate. He would indeed be welcome to participate in communion, as is every person present….man or woman, young or old, dark skinned or light skinned, rich or poor, friend or stranger.
Let’s take this a step further, and imagine that a visitor enters the doors of my church, and has never before in his life been inside a place of worship. One can only assume that since he is present in the service, he can decide on his own from the words spoken, the traditions practiced, the prayers uplifted, the messages delivered, and the words of institution spoken at the table, and may choose to participate in the Lord’s supper when invited. Who can say whether God inspired a soul at that moment to participate?
How can this be meaningful, you ask?
It is meaningful because the invitation comes from Christ. That communion table is not the minister’s, the elders’ or the congregation’s….it is the Lord’s table. It is sacred because Jesus extends that invitation to everyone, and you and I do not get to decide who participates. Who are we to withdraw Christ’s invitation to someone we don’t know or approve of? We are merely the humble servants through which the sacrament is shared with others. Christ’s invitation is so huge, so inconceivable that even those who we do not know, or even may not like, can stand beside us and share in the love of Christ represented there. Who among us can know whether the person next to us is “worthy” of taking communion? If worthiness were a requirement, it would, indeed be a table rarely visited!
We do not ask for certifications of Christianity when people enter our doors. We do not require that everyone who participates is a member of our congregation. We do not pretend to decide for others whether they are “in communion with God” at any given worship service. We provide a place to share the message of Christ, to praise God for His love, forgiveness, and grace poured upon us. The rest is up to God. Afterall, God does work in mysterious ways.
As for my tolerance level….Free speech is a right of citizenry with which I adamantly agree, and frequently utilize. I am grateful for a country where I may state my opinions openly. I would not propose that the talk show host be denied that same freedom, and be quieted from the airwaves. I simply have little tolerance for someone getting paid to promote hate…I do choose, therefore, to quiet him from my ears, so I let the radio scan continue and move on past the idiot’s propaganda.
Please sign me up for one of those t-shirts!
Speaking of silence not always being golden...are you ever going to update this?
Post a Comment