A Christian Answers: A Rant for a Rant

I read this entry-plea in the blog, a boy and his computer. I thought about commenting until I saw 57 entries were already posted. I knew two things at that point: most of those comments would be crap and I would probably end up angry, which would mess up something I wanted to say in sincerity to what I perceived to be a sincere post.

And so, here I am, making something of it on my own blog.

What response did this post evoke from me? You are welcome to read on:

The Story

Ryland starts out:
“This is a message for the Christians out there. Not the fundamentalists or the evangelicals or the “God hates fags” people; I mean the nice ones, the ones that actually listen to what Jesus said and take it heart, “

It isn’t hard to see we are in trouble here. After the fundamentalists and evangelicals are subtracted you don’t get a vast majority of people who still adhere to Christian beliefs. Not because of the labels, but because you will have a number of others who hold to similar beliefs, but aren’t named. So I am not sure which Christians are really being called upon here ….until the term:

“nice ones”

Nice ones? As in compliant and mealy mouthed ones …no, that isn’t what is meant, because it is the ones who actually listen to Jesus and take His words to heart.

Ok. I can live with that context. I wouldn’t call those the nice ones, but I would call them the real ones. No names, no labels, no markings of import, but some real-life sincere desire to be disciples of Jesus, actually following in His steps.

But does Ryland know what that looks like? I have to wonder based on his request:

“Seriously, how can you let these guys speak for you? The wackos are giving you a bad name. We non-Christians protest and argue, but they obviously aren’t going to listen to us. We aren’t Christian, and so we are less than nothing to them. I’m asking you to take some responsibility for your co-religionists. You are your brother’s keeper”

What is it to “take responsibility for ones co-religionists”? Stuff a sock in their mouths, I suppose. But you know, real gagging doesn’t look like that. It looks oppressive, it looks discriminating and cruel. It looks ugly.

And very like the thing which is wished to be shut up. Very much like …just on the other side.

And that is the problem with the worlds solutions for what one does with religionists or politicos of another color, or those who ignite our wrath, however they manage to do that. Crush the scum. Nuke ’em…and we will be on with our version of the perfect world.

But that doesn’t sound like taking Jesus to heart. Not really.

So let’s look at what might be said behind the frustration. First, I wouldn’t lump George Bush and Fred Phelps together. President Bush is an elected official with authority to lead the country. Every president is chosen by God in that sense.

The opinion would be whether that was a blessing or curse, but no one rises to leadership of a country without somehow fulfilling the will of God. Not that we understand all the purposes.

And yet the frustration that Christians are not listening… that should be changed.

Christians should listen to those like Ryland. And dialog, and allow their views to not only be presented, but examined. Let’s dialog!

…. let’s divide the questions and the answers and try to understand the reasoning and the meaning.

And yes, we are our brother’s keeper. It is our responsibility speak against the evil and uphold the good. Let’s figure out what that is. And for those who are not Christians, don’t be surprised if you then start hearing something of what Jesus teaches on that.

You could find yourself surprised.

9 thoughts on “A Christian Answers: A Rant for a Rant”

  1. I would be interested to see if Ryland is truely keen on discussing these things or if he was merely venting his frustrations.

  2. It’s both, Clint. I was expressing my frustrations, and I am also keen on discussing it. If I didn’t want to discuss it, I wouldn’t have posted it, and I wouldn’t allow people to post comments.

    The point I was trying to make (not as well as I’d hoped, obviously) was that what used to be the fringe elements of Christianity have now managed to make their voices loud enough to drown out the silent majority of Christians who don’t want to hurt anybody or infringe on anyone’s rights. I just think it’s time for the silent majority to stop being so silent. I’d like to see more Christians step up and saying, “These nutballs don’t speak for me.”

  3. Thanks for checking in, Ryland. I have to question whether you have a firm hold on the idea of just who “fringe elements” are and how that is divided up. I personally would agree with you on Phelps, although I prefer not to name names. Outlining characteristics is more pertinent in my opinion.

    Would you like to further express some of your ideas on your blog? …Or I could just post my own thoughts for you to comment and critique. But I am glad you want to discuss this.

  4. Ilona – your post here exemplfies the positive aspects of living a Christian life. It’s important to hold to one’s beliefs, but it is also important to wish to discuss the beliefs of others.

    I don’t have a complaint with people who live in this manner – it’s the “rabid” Christians (and Muslims and whatever other religion wants to bash everyone over the head with their message) out there who get my bloodpressure up.

    The gist of all religions is to live an honorable, peaceful life. To do that, one must be able to accept that others may not agree with one’s concept of divinity. I do not agree with all aspects of the religion you have chosen to follow, but I will not castigate you because of it. That’s all I ask from others.

    Peace and goodwill to you…


  5. Take a look at my latest post about Christian masculinity and comment? I was kind of shocked by the article and need Christian opinions on it.

  6. Vash- would love to….

    RedRaven- I appreciate your gracious comments, I do have to say that there will be times when ideals and beliefs will knock up against one another. At least the dialog helps us to understand the how and why of it, and make our own decisions of where we must stand – and allow us to further see the test of our beliefs in the crucible of life.

  7. Ilona, are you familiar with theodicy? You’ll find discussion at Wikipedia and a brief outline at http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/theodicyintro.htm. At its basic level, theodicy involves three propositions:

    – God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
    – God is omnibenevolent (all good)
    – Evil exists

    The catch is that all three can’t simultaneously be true. (Unless you fudge with the terms, that is.) For example, a good and powerful God would not allow evil to exist. Or, if God is good yet evil exists, God can not be omnipotent.

    You claim Bush’s presidency must be God’s will, which is as good as saying you believe God is omnipotent. Later, you affirm the existence of evil. Can we conclude, then, that you doubt God’s goodness?

Comments are closed.