Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Questions for Our Culture



The culture in America seems to grow more dramatically corrupted by the hour. Just in the past few weeks, as a country, we have celebrated our trading the rule of law for the rule of man. We have sacrificed government by the people in exchange for government by the few. We have traded a commitment to truth in exchange for temporal and carnal emotion. America has forsaken actual civil rights for the sake of fiction. She is losing grip of a reliable moral compass by forsaking the Creator. As a result, she and her people have also traded actual thoughts and sound reason for tweets and sound bites. She has succumbed to government education that exists not to truly educate except to defend and expand centralized government. As a result, a primary catalyst for our nation's dysfunction is the rampant inability of her people to think critically. To illustrate this I would like to pose a series of questions that address a wide range of hot and pressing issues that are driving us into an immoral abyss these days. As you read these questions, try to answer each one without prejudice or emotion. After you have finished, reconsider if what you have been advocating for on each of today's issues is intellectually worthy of your advocacy. Here are just a few of the questions that I believe should be fairly simple to answer yet largely convicting:

  • If love equals not disagreeing with someone’s nature or choices, then why are those preaching such values (accusers) disagreeing with Christians about their nature and choices?
  • If tolerance means acceptance, then why are Christians not accepted by their accusers?
  • If calling immoral behaviors “sin” is hatred and/or bigotry, aren’t hatred and bigotry also immoral? Therefore, aren’t such accusers guilty of what they accuse of Christians?
  • Isn’t calling someone hateful or bigoted a hateful and bigoted thing to do, especially when the charges are intentionally false?
  • If it is wrong to accuse someone of sin that you don’t believe is sin, isn’t it also wrong to accuse Christians of fictitious hatred and bigotry?
  • If dissent equals hatred, then if someone dissents against Christians aren’t they hating Christians by their own definitions?
  • If a Christian is not entitled to personal conscience without punishment, why are accusers entitled to it?
  • If disagreement is a form of fear or phobia, then are accusers Christianphobic?
  • If love requires someone to agree with everything the other person believes, by that same measure do accusers love Christians or do they hate them?
  • If compassion requires someone to compromise their convictions, then do accusers lack compassion for Christians?
  • If freedom of religion does not apply to Christians, then how can it apply to accusers? How can it apply to anyone if not equally so?
  • How is it that a right that is not expressly stated in the Constitution is a civil right, but a right that is first in the Bill of Rights is not?
  • If a Christian must change his Bible-based, long and deeply-held beliefs, upon what authority must he or she do so? 
  • Why shouldn’t accusers change their deeply-held beliefs against Christians?
  • If the “right to marry” is a civil right, then why is not the right to exist a civil right? 
  • Should the unborn not receive equal protection under the law?
  • If equal protection does not apply to the unborn, how is it equal?
  • If it is wrong or hatred to boycott a gay wedding, then isn't it wrong or hatred to boycott a Christian-owned business?
  • If someone is not a racist, isn’t it racist to call them a racist?
  • Isn’t construing a non-racial act into a false accusation of racism, in fact an act of racism? Isn't that hateful?
  • If racism does not hinge on intent, then why are members of a certain political stripe exonerated of vile acts of racism simply in favor of benefit of the doubt?
  • If benefit of the doubt applies to some, then shouldn’t it apply equally to all?
  • If justice is blind, then why is injustice insisted upon based upon a photograph of the accused? Isn’t that also racism? How is that due process of law? How is that "innocent until proven guilty"?
  • We all agree that lynch mobs are evil. Then, why are we promoting the proverbial lynching of potential innocents to appease mobs?
  • If white males are held to a harder standard because they are white males, then isn’t that very similar to the worst form of racism? 
  • If someone is born black or even homosexual as a basis of civil rights, aren't white males born white and male?
  • Isn’t unequal motives and laws against white males still inequality?
  • Isn’t holding white males to a harder standard, by definition a double standard?
  • Isn’t a double standard admission of unequal protection under the law?
  • If we insist upon unequal standards for white males versus others, aren’t we practicing racism and inequality? How is this not hate by accusers' definitions? How is this love by accusers' definitions?
  • If we advocate for Christians being held to a harder standard of free speech, aren’t we advocating for the same brand of inequality accusers claim to oppose?
  • Are there forms of speaking conscience that we don’t think should be free? If so, isn't that part of the problem?
  • Applying accusers' definitions of love and hate, do you love Christians or do you hate them?
If your answers to these questions reveal different/unequal standards for different groups of people, then you are probably guilty of the behaviors you claim to oppose. If however, your answers are consistently aligned with God, you are probably a person truly guilty of love. And, the love of God is actually the only true definition of love. All other definitions are lacking to large degrees. In fact, the definitions twisted by our culture are the most lacking of all. 

With all of our culture's efforts to redefine words into twisted distortions and lies, the most disturbing redefinition has to be the word "love". Love is certainly not what our culture is saying it is. But, one thing we agree on is that love does win, but not for the reasons our culture celebrates. Rather, love wins because God is love, and God always wins. And, with regards to God being the only true definition of love, 1 John 4:7-12 says, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.”

In conclusion, “God is love.” Therefore, there is no love unless it both begins and ends in God. True love never opposes God. Rather, to oppose God is to hate, not love, because God is love. The culture can try its hardest to change words and double-think. But, in the end, God has the final say. And, He never disagrees with himself - a hallmark of integrity. On the other hand, our culture's hallmark is exactly the opposite - hypocrisy.

You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.