Christmas approaches slowly but surely. I'm not quite as excited as I should be, or used to be. Isn't it sad how in one's childhood, Christmas is such a big thing, but now, it's not so big? I guess I've grown up a bit from the presents-hype thing, and also now I've become more interested in the theological side of it, Easter is really the bigger event in terms of Christianity.
Just to completely change the subject, I've been getting into the letters to the editor page in the newspaper lately. I find it quite interesting. It must be genes cos my Dad is slightly obsessive about reading the letters and getting all frustrated and sending off thousands of his own. And I've been noticing a trend in letters that I don't think is very good. Lately there has been a lot of letters debating the Civil Unions Bill in New Zealand, which has recently been passed by parliament and allows homosexuals to form civil unions, and this trend has been apparent in these letters. Here are my thoughts:
a) People try to speak for others' beliefs, but twist them to look bad. For example - 'the illogical ravings of those who think God creates us all but only loves and recognises the rights of some to be happy'. None of the Christians writing in said they believed anything of the sort, and it is very doubtful that they do. However, people wilfully misunderstand them.
b) People start using the word 'so-called'. For example, a Christian who thinks it's okay to be gay (hey, that rhymes) will call Christians who don't agree with him/her 'so-called Christians'. And it goes the other way too. I mean, really. As if an issue like this is decisive of salvation. It's as if people think that because a person has this certain view of one issue, therefore, as a whole, they cannot be Christians. It's making personal attacks on people as a whole regarding a tiny part of their personality/morals.
c) Whenever a particular teaching of the church is coming under attack, and 'reform' is being attempted by parliament or church government or whatever, people start referring to the beliefs of the church as 'archaic' or 'puritannical'. What great words! They attach at once this stigma to the belief, and aim at making people ashamed to still keep their beliefs. C. S. Lewis mentions this in his book The Screwtape Letters - the older demon says to the younger demon something about attaching the word 'puritannical' to any beliefs or traditions of his 'patient' that may seem slightly outdated. However, these words really mean NOTHING. It just means that these beliefs have been held for a long time. Which some people make take to mean that they are trustworthy over time. I mean, for goodness' sake, the Puritans believed you shouldn't murder others or steal, and no one's labelling that 'puritannical'!
d) Non-Christians start talking about what Jesus would have done. They say that he advocated tolerance and love above all. Did he, in the sense they mean? They start quoting parts of the Bible, like the part in John where Jesus is asked what to do with an adulterous, sinful woman who is to be stoned and he says "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone". But they forget that after the men have gone away, he says to the woman, "Go now and leave your life of sin." If Jesus was so tolerant, why would he see the need to come and die for the sins of humanity? Wouldn't he just 'tolerantly' let people into heaven no matter what they had done? No, because a part of his personality as God is his perfection, and with that, his perfect justice, which he cannot override. He tells us not to judge others while we sin ourselves, yes. But he doesn't tell us to blind ourselves to what is wrong, nor to take part in it ourselves.
Sorry about that little sermon. Sometimes I just need to get these things out. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment