This so-called Baptist (if he is still so-called) is
one whom I ran across in the past who vociferously denied basic truths of the Bible.
I had not heard anything from him in years, until someone called attention to
his blog posts. Such an one thinks fundamentalism and fundamentalists are evil.
To him anyone who believes that the Bible is a real, rational, and reliable
document is a fundamentalist. Further, the literal interpretation of
Fundamentalism is caricatured as something silly rather than an
historical-grammatical approach to understanding the writings of the Bible.[ii] He
is the real villain. I’m not joshing. Woe unto them that call evil good, and
good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter
for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
Despite his railings against fundamentalism, his
straw-men arguments, and his use of Truett
Cathy as a foil for his rant, Villines is at least honest about his
view of tolerance – something many tolerance and diversity advocates try to
hide in the shadows.[iii] He writes, “As a social
liberal, I have never argued that tolerance is, in and of itself, a positive
value.” This is the true underbelly of the so-called tolerance movement. He
further states, “Not all beliefs are equally valid or deserve equal
‘tolerance’.”[iv] Immediately following
this, though, he makes another strawman gaffe, “Just because someone believes
something does not mean it should be exempt from critical analysis or logical
inquiry.” It is he who wants to “exempt” certain views from critical analysis
or logical inquiry – to place them directly on the scrapheap of failed ideas
without analysis or inquiry because they are presumptively deemed “rooted in
ignorance, superstition, or bigotry.” He and I can agree, “not all ideas are
equally valid.” However, he wants to determine some things are not “equally
valid” based on his preconceptions without analysis or inquiry.[v] He
plainly states, “Fundamentalism…deserves a place at the same table where all
irrational and destructive behaviors are consigned, but it does not deserve a
place at the table with healthy, mature approaches to faith.” Freedom of speech
advocates personally hold certain preconceptions as well at tolerantists like
Villines. Nevertheless, freedom of speech exceeds so-called tolerance, giving
all ideas a place at the table with the exhortation “May the best idea win.” You
see, tolerantists are not satisfied to hold personal beliefs that some ideas
are not equally valid – they want to bring down the long arm of government on their side without critical analysis or logical inquiry. Squash!
Truth should never be afraid to battle
face-to-face with falsehood; neither should it shield itself from inquiry
hiding behind governmental coattails!
Psalm 119:151 Thou art near, O Lord; and all thy
commandments are truth.
John 8:32, 36 and ye shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall
be free indeed.
[i] According to enOxfordDictionaries,
fundamentalism is a “form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant
Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of
scripture.” I am OK with that basic definition. Villines’ blog rant makes it
clear that (1) he is talking about Christian fundamentalism, and (2) he does
not understand the concept of “literal interpretation of scripture.” In its
simplest form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of
faith (as clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference, in the face of the
rise of modernism and liberalism): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the
Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ;
(4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the
physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. These elements were being
denied then, and are usually denied by professors like Joshua Villines now. I
hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred
self-descriptor. I am a Baptist. Many Fundamentalist are adrift on the sea of
bad ecclesiology.
[ii]
This type of literal interpretation easily and “literally” accepts figures of
speech as figures of speech, symbols as symbols, etc., no matter how silly some
silly person wants to make them look while pretending fundamentalists do not know
how to do this. Thomas Ice described the problem this way:
[iv] According
to Dictionary.com,
“tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose
opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one’s
own; freedom from bigotry.” The practical societal application of tolerance
usually implies someone is superior and in a position to tolerate an inferior –
and that the “superior” will decide whether the “inferior” will be “tolerated.”
Those who most vociferously preach tolerance often do not have much tolerance
for those who do not see things their way. Stefano
Gabbana said of singer Elton John, “You preach understanding. You
preach tolerance. And then you put the knife in? All because someone else
doesn’t see things your way?” John proposed a boycott of Dolce & Gabbana fashions
because he disliked and disagreed with comments they made about in vitro fertilization and homosexual’s
adopting.
[v] Notice that Villines view must
be correct and others must “earn” a place: “If an idea can be substantiated
with logical consistency, then it has earned the opportunity for tolerance.”
Such a view as his might try to hide, but must be exposed as setting itself up
as the standard by which other views “earn” the right to be tolerated. The fact
is – his is the real view of tolerantists, despite how often they falsely assert such platitudes as “everyone should feel welcome.”
No comments:
Post a Comment