Thursday, June 15, 2006

The Enemy Within

Apparently, evangelism itself is beginning to come under attack by the institutions of our country.

These two recent news items are appalling...are we really moving toward a state where outreach to prisoners is prohibited, and Christian movies are rated PG because of references to Jesus? The opportunity to hear of Christ is no longer appropriate for prisoners and movie-going families?

1 comment:

  1. The jurisdiction of Christ and Caesar has always been a hard question. This is of course extremism and is hardly in line with the original intent. There has been some complaint about Islamiscists preaching in prisons, and the state may be looking for an excuse to forbid it. However that seems improbable. The fact is the state right now is like the movie "Cain mutiny" or "Crimson Tide" where command is unclear, and efficiency is reduced. That is an exagerration-there is no mutiny going on. But it seems likly that some jaded political technicians made a "compromise" which has no value other then making people angry-but dampens the problem for the present. Sort of like a political asprin. Probably the opposing faction is closer to the halls of power and more obnoxious-rule of theater so to speak(Thespocracy?) I doubt that it is an act of malice-but it does sound a little like laziness or cowardice.
    Also there is a growing feeling among many that evangelism("proselyting) constitutes a form of "persecution" because it implies a claim that you are right and someone else is wrong. As open debate is one of the most important parts of our civilization, and being able to endure dissaggreement is one of the marks of a gentleman, it really is a sign of decay. Besides no one seems to get the point that if they don't like "proselytizing" they can wear earplugs. I have several times seen people from other groups "proselytizing" and never found it offensive as long as they were polite.
    I have spoken harshly and even contemptuously. Perhaps without proper charity toward others. I found it offensive not just as a Christian but as an American and as someone who desires to be "civilized".
    Partly it is for personal reasons. In my teans I read stories of Horatio Hornblower entertaining captured French captains, or Rebels and Yankees trading tobacco for coffee. That always struck me as the way opponents should behave, which is why I am often shocked, not by dissaggreement but by hatred. Rivalry should not mean hate. And I long thought that if that can be done in war surely it can be done in faction. Thus I never thought witnessing to others was an insult and never felt insulted when the shoe was on the other foot. All this I suppose simply says that I was raised better and should not dispise others-especially as I can get angry myself sometimes. I may sound like I am boasting which is not my intent. I am saying why I find this sort of thing offensive.
    Also, I have noticed a number of times that secularists can be remarkably fanatical about their creed-which-is-not-supposed-to-be-a-creed. When they appear on the Net they are often extremely rude. Not always. One of them even took the trouble to explain roughly that, "that's how we argue in our country, I meant no offense"-a satisfactory enough answer. Maybe I am just feeling a little disillusion. But many secularists do come across as fanatical on the web. And undoubtably many are. It scares "political technicians".

    Sir Jason the Longwinded; the knight who is disappointed that the rest of the world didn't learn chivalry by reading Hornblower.