THE APPETIZER


I recently posted this link on Facebook discussing the potential court martial of people who share their faith in the military... which is shocking I know, because I NEVER post links to Facebook.  Some of you, no doubt, have seen it.

As is often the case, a conversation ensued, following my request that those who don’t like it sign the petition available to express disagreement, because, as we all know, the world’s problems are solved with electronic signatures, Facebook profile pictures, and Twitter avatars.
 

I was then asked… “Constitutionally speaking, do you feel like religion should be a part of our military in any form?”

My retort was… “’Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...’"

Then I was prompted with this… “Maybe if everyone was respectable about it, I could potentially agree with your point of view. But since that's not always the case, I can't help but think it's just better to keep them separated.”

That is a level-headed and respectable response… which elicited the following thoughts which I can’t  easily contain in a “comment” box on Facebook.  So I wrote this, because, as we all know, for the few world crises that the aforementioned things can’t solve, a blog will finish the job.
 

THE ENTREE


I understand the frustration with the respectable part, but the constitution makes no mention of censoring speech to what is “respectable,” otherwise we’d be able say nearly nothing especially in “Generation Politically Correct.”  Additionally, I agree; I wish people, in general, were more respectable about the whole thing.  In fact, I would submit that it might be altogether more effective and well-received in many cases.
 

However, I do understand the mindset of a man who sees someone who is (as best he can tell) about to be hit by a car.  This bystander isn't afforded with an opportunity to be both delicate in the delivery of his message AND effective.  He doesn't have the luxury of lengthy contemplation based on the potential fear of offending the man, by making it seem like he (the bystander) thought the man to be foolish enough to put himself in harm’s way.  The most loving and respectable thing that bystander can do is act with fullness of conviction at risk to himself and yes, even the other man's opinion of him.

Coincidentally enough, the same holds true even if the bystander has a history of playing in the road.  Just as his own poor decisions in the past are no reason for him to hold his tongue; nor would it serve this bystander well to consider that his well-intentioned gesture of “heroism” will then afford him some special immunity from being struck by a car should he decide to return to play in the road afterward. 

Furthermore, it would behoove the man in presumed immediate danger to thoroughly take measures to ensure his own safety rather than standing stubbornly, angry at being warned by a known road player.  I might even go so far as to say… should the man in assumed danger not immediately find himself in danger by his estimation, that he should be:   

a. grateful that a man sought his well being (even IF wrong)
AND
b. continually mindful of his state seeking to make sure he doesn’t wander into oncoming traffic, even if he doesn’t see any coming at the moment.                     


I am reminded of this story of Charles Peace a thief and murderer sentenced to death....                                 

He was taken on the death-walk. Before him went the prison chaplain, routinely and sleepily reading some Bible verses. The criminal touched the preacher and asked what he was reading. “The Consolations of Religion,” was the reply.

Charlie Peace was shocked at the way he professionally read about hell. Could a man be so unmoved under the very shadow of the scaffold as to lead a fellow-human there and yet, dry-eyed, read of a pit that has no bottom into which this fellow must fall?

Could this preacher believe the words that there is an eternal fire that never consumes its victims, and yet slide over the phrase without a tremor? Is a man human at all who can say with no tears, “You will be eternally dying and yet never know the relief that death brings”?

All this was too much for Charlie Peace. “Sir”, he addressed the preacher, I do not share your faith.  But if I did – if I believed what you say you believed – then although England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would crawl the length and breadth of it on hand and knee and think the pain worthwhile, just to save a single soul from this eternal hell of which you speak.”

                                                                                         -Ravenhill


We live in a world that is, increasingly ever-ready to look for the good intentions of others and good hearts of others to excuse “misdeeds.”  The exception, seemingly, may often occur in the case of a Christian who, though they may be so torn with the same passion for a soul, as described by Mr. Peace, that he/she would share what they fundamentally and wholeheartedly believe to be the most vital piece of news someone could ever receive, yet might fail to do so in an attractive, tactful, or politically correct way. 

The Christian should by all means seek to make our words salt, but we also know what we are to expect.  In most cases, NO ONE likes being wrong,  being told their wrong, or even the thought that they might be wrong  especially when it comes to major life issues(and if you prove me wrong on that statement… I won’t like it).  

I admit that there are certainly those among us who fly the “Christian” banner, yet are not what any of us could accurately call a good ambassador for Christ.  At times, we can even find ourselves being that person if we’re objective.  As Christians, we are sometimes too timid or, at other times, it is our pride that fuels our insistence that someone (or some lifestyle) is a path to Hell rather than genuine concern for a soul.

Certainly, from a Christian perspective, I much prefer that we make a consistent habit of coming from a heart of love and being “tactful” where possible.  However, at the same time there is an inherent sense of urgency within the basic framework of Christianity that we must address if we profess, as the story about Mr. Peace so poignantly alludes.

We (PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY) don't always do the best job of discerning how to be in situations.  It’s one of the main things we share.  Some people(regardless of religious affiliation) are too thin-skinned about being told that someone else firmly believes their viewpoint is wrong.  Perhaps this is because of a stigma created by many people falling too much to the harsh side of the spectrum, but what seems more evident is this: 

We have created, as it appears, a generation or 2 (at least) that are nearly filled to the rafters with people that are either defensive or afraid that they will offend a defensive person… or worse… both.

We are indeed in a vicious cycle as nation on both sides, and we must admit that nearly all of us have had a part in it.  With this vicious cycle in place, it’s no mystery why one would feel a tendency for separation and avoidance.  However, we must not run from the conflict at hand.  Rather, we’d be better served learning how to face it in a healthy way as individuals and as a society.  We mustn’t run, because we fear offending or being offended, but rather be a people actively working toward a genuine dialogue that deals with the fact that we don't agree.  If we are to succeed, we must certainly seek to achieve this in non-evasive ways, even in the face of the natural friction that comes with disagreement.   This piece of "legislation" is merely another step of avoidance for our nation that feeds both a victim mentality and murders open discourse of ideas and faiths.

It is awfully telling that statements of opinion and belief have been classified, seemingly automatically, as hate.  Our society begs and pleads for “tolerance” of differences, all-the-while not tolerating a key difference, and now we try to wash the difference under the rug.  “Go to your room.”  “Don’t talk about that here,” because heaven forbid someone might get offended.

Are we 12 years old?

This is a fairly clear slap in the face of the Christian and the non-Christian alike.  It says that we are so unable to handle things in a healthy way that we NEED our government to censor the dialogue which strikes at the heart of the first amendment both religiously and in terms of free speech.  We are adults.  We are not children (unless you're literally a child).  We may act like it sometimes, but children won’t likely mature if they’re always treated like children.  We must be allowed to stumble.  We must be allowed to fall and have strife.  Otherwise there is no “freedom,” and isn’t that what our soldiers are supposedly fighting for anyway?