Posted on 07/21/2006 9:23:07 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
What do you get when you hold a conference with 1,200 people who are all afraid of offending one another? I’ll tell you what you don’t get. You don’t get unity, and you don’t get agreement on anything.
That’s what happened when the Spiritual Activism Conference took place recently in Washington, D.C. According to the New York Times, this group of religious liberals came together to discuss “taking back religion from the conservative Christians.” But the conference members had trouble getting anything specific done.
The Times hit it right on the nose when it explained, “Turnout at the Spiritual Activism Conference was high, but if the gathering is any indication, the biggest barrier for liberals may be their regard for pluralism: for letting people say what they want, how they want to, and for trying to include everyone’s priorities rather than choosing two or three issues that could inspire a movement.” Never mind even setting policy goals; some conference members were afraid that singing hymns might be enough to upset some members. Instead of coming away with a clear set of objectives, the conference members mostly came away frustrated.
Ironically for a group that prides itself on tolerance, it seems the only thing the conference could agree on was its opposition to the “religious right.” But frustrating as it was for them, the group had to concede that the “religious right” is a lot better at getting things done. Beliefnet suggests this was because “religious conservatives are willing to argue there is one correct view on policy issues.”
You see, that’s the crux of the liberals’ problem. This conflict is not about political or social divisions. It’s about authority—specifically, whether or not Christians are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is our authority.
Tony Campolo certainly recognized this. Though Tony and I disagree on lots of things, I really like Tony. He’s honest, and he loves the Bible. He tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, “I thought this was a spiritual progressives’ conference. I don’t want to play the game of ‘the Bible says this or that,’ or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.”
There you have it. Validation from ourselves simply means you make up your own god. We Christians may interpret the Bible differently; we may apply it to life differently; we may have arguments over exegesis. But the Bible has to be the ultimate authority. Otherwise we end up worshiping the goddess of tolerance and believing that tolerance takes precedence over truth.
Dorothy Sayers, the great English writer, said it best: “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
This kind of so-called “tolerance” can never bring people together, but only as we saw in Washington, pull them farther apart.
If this guy used his Bible, he would have found this verse:
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.--Proverbs 14:12, NIV
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I think the author missed out that the participants already have a unifying theme - that their judgement exceeds that of God, therefore they should have the right to set the rules of religion.
Doesn't taking something back imply you had it to begin with? Lefty "religious" types are the most arrogant, self-centered, and hypocritical group I've ever encountered.
"real" tolerance is great. Liberal tolerance disgusting.
They have no tolerance.
Public display of faith is verbotten.
They have envy in their hearts for the goods someone else has. Everyone wants the fast track to riches (greed) but they despise the rich (envy).
They also preach hedonism (if it feels good, do it) and denounce the teaching of moral restraint.
Liberal tolerance is like liberty under socialism. Incompatible concept.
They play word games. Political correctness (AKA diversity training) is merely political re-education.
Well it is clear that they have a god complex and believe that they MUST be in power to craft the new socialist utopia.
I suppose that's fine if they don't want to believe that, but why do they not call themselves the Episcopal Country Club?
Shalom.
It was kind of a joke.
I wonder what the word "spiritual" means to these people? Does it mean "what makes me feel good?"
Shalom.
Chuck Colson, the man who ordered the Watergate break-in and destroyed a President.
From Revelations 3: 14...
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."
The liberal Christian Church is today's Laodecia.
I think you mean that you are intolerant of tolerance.
Then you're a prime candidate for membership in BRAAD - the Bigot and Redneck Alliance Against Defamation. Their motto is, "We're here, we're intolerant, and we'll kick your a$$." The official theme song is "BRAAD to the Bone."
Shalom.
I was thinking about my classroom as I was reading this article and imagining what it would be like if I allowed every viewpoint and every opinion from every student to shape the curriculum, the lesson plans, the tests, and the final exam.
In fact, I used to go the Unitarian church, back when they were Christians. I wouldn't dare expose my son to what passes for religious thought there now. In fact, it seems quite clear from this vantage that life consists of choices and ethical judgment, and those of us who have a solid foundation based on a sound tradition are better off than someone who can't make up his or her mind or, worse yet, can't make a judgment about the actions and the beliefs of other people and yourself.
Someone once told me that consensus is the absence of leadership. Yep.
"The liberal Christian Church is today's Laodecia."
I would say that Laodecia is more characteristic of broad portions of Evangelical Christianity. ("You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.'") - i.e. outwardly sucessful, but spiritually impoverished.
The liberals aren't even a part of the Church.
Doesn't taking something back imply you had it to begin with? Lefty "religious" types are the most arrogant, self-centered, and hypocritical group I've ever encountered.
The funniest part is they think we're arrogant and paint us as thinking we've heard directly from God in some special way, but their whole schtick depends on believing that they have a special insight that's extra-Biblical and yet godly. In other words, they hear from god in a special way we mere knuckledraggers can't understand, and the conduit of God's voice is lefty colleges.
I've noticed a lot of them aren't terribly bright, either, especially considering they're the wing of the Church that is supposedly more intellectual. Take for example, the pastor of a lib church here in town, who told me (that my protest against a local appeasenik group was the same as restricting their right to speak and vote, and also told me he was a big supporter of the troops but was worried that American flags and a "Honk if you support the troops" sign would reflect badly on his church. He was right, BTW, another pastor from his denomination was passing through town and called him up to ask him why he was tolerating the actions of "that jongoist member of your congregation I keep seeing outside your church."
You're not real big on the whole conversion, atonement, redemption thing, are you?
Therein lies the question. Even if they want to call themselves a religion, they're basically Unitarians at this point.
Good observations.
Hey, Jerk...yeah, you.
It was a pun, get it? Not very tolerant of you. Perhaps you should read someones previous posts and/or profile before you attack.
"They have no tolerance."
Bingo. Liberals have created their own creeds and world view and they are as zealous in enforcing it at the point of a sword or gun as Torquemada or Hitler ever was. As Coulter's book points out, it is their religion. Therefore they are every bit as, if not more so, bigoted, intolerant and self-righteous as any of their stereotypes of the religious right. Their current quibbling among themselves is no different than the ecumenical movement in Christianity.
In the current American lexicon, "spritual" mainly means "not a materialist," though much of the population couldn't tell you what a materialist is. In this particular use, "spiritual" means "The people who are Marxists only smarter than the Marxists because we know that God exists, and we wish to implement Her glorious socialist state on Earth."
Yes and he also received Christ and his debts are paid in full.
Colson has spent over 3 decades since then promoting the Gospel. Are you willing to be judged by your worst decision, to the point that nothing else you do matters? That's how you're judging Colson.
"real" tolerance is great. Liberal tolerance disgusting.
_______
Liberals have made "tolerance" a buzz word to attack conservatives. It seems to be working, even in this forum.
At best.
No Ping List ping {!}
13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Isaiah 29: 13-14
BRAAD is a take-off on GLAAD. It is intended to poke fun at the entire diversity culture. The point was the same point you were making - the tolerant would have to be tolerant of the intolerant or they aren't tolerant. And if someone wants to define their own morality to make homosexuality acceptable, we can define our own morality to make bigotry acceptable.
Sorry you missed the humor. I should have made it clearer.
Shalom.
By that definition it means "emotional." Unless you accept the spiritual realm as an actual realm as real as the physical, that's all that's left.
Shalom.
Campolo is, at best, a fool.
Yes, but you have to argue (as Ann Coulter does) that liberalism itself is a religion. Abortion is one of its holiest sacraments.
No, that's crap. It's not that the libs have advanced a bad idea called "tolerance" and made conservatives buy into it, it's that liberals have taken their bad ideas and slapped the name for a good idea (tolerance) on them.
To be quite frank, your posts in theis thread are awfully crotchety. Chill out.
I agree. Far too many Americans only practice spirituality on an emotional level, and it is, as you said, what makes them feel good.
Nice graphic.
Skylab is an admitted atheist. IOW, he/she is just here to get some jabs in at Christians.
When I used the phrase "The liberal Christian Church is today's Laodecia" I was referring to the liberal Christian Church; not liberals in general. There are liberal Christians and Conservative Christians. I was referring to the former group.
As Revelations 2 states they are neither hot nor cold but lukewarm. They profess Christianity but do not consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. That to me is lukewarm.
Even a fool who believes there is no God should be smart enough to see that a criminal can reform, and that three decades of public service outweighs a few years of skullduggery.
"not liberals in general"
Yeah, I know. I was refering to liberal "Christians" also. I would not consider them to be part of the Church because most of them don't even believe the basic facts of Christianity - including "christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures..."
True. But he was tried, convicted, imprisoned, saw the error of his ways, confessed, repented, and embarked on a new life, now living no longer for himself, but for the Lord.
I admire Colson --- very much --- as I admire anyone who has cast his sins down and trampled them underfoot. I hope we would all have the grace to do the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.