We get funny ideas about ideology. We forget that we work holistically, and not compartmentally. That is why it can be so easy to be offended by the suggestion that working to convince someone in a religion sense is ‘not good’ while working to change someones ideas about how they should be governed might be ‘good’. But it is all working with one’s core ideologies.

Or as Christians like to call it, “the heart”. We applaud the use of this in our open dialogs and our use of public medias…. and then turn around and frown at the idea that someone is messing with another’s religious convictions.

But shouldn’t it be up to the individual to decide whether there is merit in the argument? Whether it is religion or politics?

Does suppression of the forum of ideas serve freedom of choice?

Political correctness, or cultural etiquette, or fanatical dogma, they all produce the same thing when allowed out of the cage of personal decision making. When persuasion becomes oppressive force and manipulation. The illustrations of that are all too many in history.

But that doesn’t make all persuasion in changing ideology and conviction all bad. It just creates a balance of perspective of how far we may go and what tools we may use to influence our fellow man.

Evangelism is perfectly good and useful. We use it all the time in some form or another. Ideas and man’s hearts are in constant flux. To pretend that we aren’t changed in our ideas every day is folly. We are either strengthened or weakened in the what’s and why’s of our beliefs.

The question is not whether we should influence one another in our convictions, but the how and the why and the benefits or problems in the outcome.

We daily ( nowadays) expect that moderate Muslims will influence their compatriots to moderate their means of persuasion. And terrorism is simply an unacceptable, immoral means of persuasion; it is meant to institute change in peoples ideas and how they live out their lives. What they obey.

But where does the acceptance of terrorism as a means come from? It comes from a core ideology. Somewhere along the line it is accepted within the core beliefs.

So that is where the change must come, no matter what sort of fanatic one is dealing with. That is where debate, discussion, diplomacy, education finally aims, isn’t it? The heart. The heart of each individual within listening distance, which eventually will become the group, which will become the driving force of society’s direction.

There is an idea of good in man, all mankind operates intuitively on the concept that there is good…. the ideologies simply are the expression of what we think that is.

The realities are what we see the ideology produces. If it produces terrorism it should change. The gut of every man will tell him that at some point. It is up to the mind of a man to interpret that intellectually and act volitionally.

You can see I am totally unrepentant of the idea that we should share the gospel: give good news to our fellow man that will free him.

And freedom is good, is it not?

2 thoughts on “Ideology”

  1. One can never win an argument by claiming they are right. They must present the truth and leave it at that. Once a person is confronted with the truth, they will realize it and only have two choices. The first is to accept it; something that is very difficult and rarely done. The other is to choose to ignore it and deny it; this eventually leads to one deceiving themself.

    And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matt. 10:14, Acts 13:50,51

  2. “One can never win an argument by claiming they are right. They must present the truth and leave it at that. ”

    While I agree with the first statement, I have to say that experience shows me the second is often false.

    Because there is so much deception and confusion, the truth must sometimes be persuasively argued. A conviction that one is right will be an added impetus to one’s argument; it serves mostly to give one the determination sometimes needed to withstand the opposition to truth.

    But one must always test oneself to see if they are actually standing within the truth…in truth, and not simply believing themselves to be. Make sense?

    Our confidence is in the power of truth itself, which is what I think you meant in your second statement. Truth does not move, but we must often move to stay within its stream.

    A subject worthy of more than the comments box allows. Truth and Man.

Comments are closed.