THE DEPLORABLES, HATE SPEECH, AND PC CULTURE

Emotions are high. Some have called for assassination. Madonna confessed she had been thinking to “blow up” the White House. What has de-legitimized this election and this nation?

I think that we can place part of the blame on the alienation and marginalization caused by our PC culture. Adam Tucker laments that:

·       According to Campus Pride, “safe zones” are needed because LGBT students need to know who on campus is safe and supportive.” Wesleyan University in Connecticut has a building called Open House to serve as “a safe space… [for] generating interest in a celebration of queer life from the social to the political to the academic.” (Christian Research Journal, Vol. 39, #06, 60)

Well, what’s the matter with this? Should not the vulnerable be protected against offensive ideas?

There is much the matter with this, especially at the university where diversity of opinion should be the stock and trade of higher education. For one thing, preference for one set of ideas over others or one set of students over others represents a rejection of equality and justice. This amounts to favoring some over others, disenfranchising one group of students in order to favor another.

Favoritism separates and breeds suspicion; equality and justice provide trust and common ground where we can all stand together, sharing the same freedoms of thought and expression.

For years, PC has slammed those who have expressed un-PC thoughts, sometimes banishing the un-PCs from university, business, and employment. They became the “deplorables,” a description which they gladly accepted. Why? Because this is what they had been experiencing for years. The term simply brought to light and made tangible what they had been thinking all along.  An angry backlash was inevitable, and it ushered into the presidency a highly improbable candidate.

Meanwhile, the PC media will not accept responsibility for the alienation, polarization, and the widening divisions within our nation. Instead, they continue to rally around the PC idea that they are merely crusading against “hate speech.”

What is “hate speech?” Even the Bible has been accused of “hate speech” by the PC culture. Why? Hate speech is offensive speech, and people have a right to not be offended, right? Certainly, needlessly offending others is not acceptable. However, charges of “hate speech” are also offensive “hate speech.” It’s like the person who charges, “You have no right to judge me,” while they too are judging. This is nothing short of hypocrisy.

However, this hypocrisy has become a hallmark of PC culture. The university student is no longer allowed to express their opinions against same-sex marriage, abortion, or transgenderism. Why not? Because it offends! However, the “deplorables” are offended by this unjust oppression. Why is this offense not taken into consideration?

We need to find a way for all of us to live under the same roof. Favoritism only alienates and embitters. We need to return to the democratic principles that had once made this nation great – justice and the freedoms of speech and religion.

Atheists, Billboards and “Hate Speech”

The American Atheists (AA) just erected billboard in Times Square reading, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” with an “X” through “Christ.” While I defend their right to be offensive, I can still take issue with their message.

Even though the West is quickly abandoning their former secular roots and the freedom of speech in favor of repressing what is now deemed “hate speech,” we are on a dangerous trajectory, granting government additional power to suppress speech deemed “offensive.”

Nevertheless, I think that the AA message is needlessly offensive and even hypocritical. It is needlessly offensive because it offends without providing any off-setting content. It represents nothing more than mindless sloganeering. It contributes no substance, edification, inspiration, or illumination, just crass intolerance towards the Christian faith. It offers nothing but offense!

It is also offensive because of what it represents – an attempt to eliminate Christianity! I have dialogued with many militant atheists, and they have made no secret of the fact that they think that the world will be a better place without Christianity, and for this they labor! It is worthy of note that they are little different from their infamous forebears:

• Karl Marx: "In simple truth, I harbour hate 'gainst all the Gods."

• Nikolai Lenin: "Every religious idea, every idea of god, even every flirtation with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness."

• Nikita Khrushchev: "We, Communists ... are atheists ... Public education, the dissemination of scientific knowledge, and the study of the laws of nature, leave no place for belief in God ... We consider that belief in God contradicts our Communist outlook." "We remain the atheists that we have always been; we are doing all we can to liberate those people who are still under the spell of this religious opiate."

These atheistic luminaries were not content to merely speak against the Christian faith. They strenuously  sought to eliminate it along with those who practiced it. Do we have cause to be offended by this modern crop of militant atheists? Without a doubt!

In addition to the offense, the AA billboard also represents hypocrisy. Their website announces their purpose:

• American Atheists, Inc., is organized

·         to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;

·         to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;

Although the AAs claim that their purpose is “to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry,” their billboard is designed to accomplish the very opposite thing - to silence and discredit any real thought or discussion. This parallels my own experience with the militants. I have challenged them to public debates on numerous occasions, but they have always declined.

They also claim that they want “to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people.” However, instead of fostering “mutual sympathy,” their billboard fosters blatant intolerance and an utter lack of “sympathy.” Instead of wanting to work along with us to improve society, the AA clearly wants to eliminate us. What else could “Christ” with an “X” through Him connote!

Meanwhile, the militants have hypocritically accused me of intolerance, when I have simply referenced surveys and studies that have demonstrated the ill effects of the gay lifestyle. They have labeled my “homophobe,” “bigot,” “hate-monger” and even “sexist” – nothing to promote their goal of “freedom of thought and inquiry.”

The AA’s claim that they are trying to work for a “humane ethical system,” while they are exhibiting the height of “Christophobia!” While they bash us for our alleged intolerance, they model the very behavior they claim to reject! However, they are known by the fruits that they bear.

Hate Speech: What in the World is it?

Most recently, Chick-Fil-A (CFA) has been accused of “hate speech.” Why? Because CFA have been open about their Biblical belief in exclusively heterosexual marriage. According to many championing the gay agenda, this automatically means that CFA hates gays! Somehow, non-agreement has been magically translated as “hate.”

Do these “champions” actually see things this way or is this just propaganda? After all, in order to be consistent, they should also call President Obama’s words “hate speech.” Why? Because he wants to raise taxes on the rich and not others! Does this mean that he hates the rich? I wouldn’t say so. It seems that he too has become pretty wealthy.

Meanwhile, the Republicans want to limit government. Does this mean that they hate government workers? Of course not!

Interestingly, there are gays who are becoming quite troubled by these “hate speech” charges. One gay writes:

• My name is Matt. I'm approaching 20 years old. I am a liberal and a supporter of Barack Obama in 2012. What's more is that I am gay and I support Chick-Fil-A… those running the corporations (like Dan Cathy CEO of Chick-Fil-A) have a right to express their beliefs. It has always been an area that causes me to respect Chick-Fil-A when they close on Sundays for the only purpose of retaining personal convictions over profit motives. Mr. Cathy has been unfairly attacked for his statement that he doesn't support same-sex marriage. As a gay man I say let him not support gays. When the gay community and gay activist groups push on anti-gay people and organizations to change their minds and opinions via bullying or forced involvement I fear it would make whatever accomplishments taste cheap like a greasy coin. Ultimately the acceptance of the gay community and the right of gays to marry will not be achieved through violent means, physical and verbal, but through peaceful and honest negotiations…How would you feel if Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, a well known Republican and Christian, told all gay business owners and workers that they could not get a job in the state because their beliefs did not match the beliefs of the state? We would call it unfair and a violation of our civil rights. Why then is it okay for a mayor to tell a company they cannot open business in the city simply because our beliefs differ?

Sadly, Matt makes far more sense than our media and universities – and these should have a vested interest in the free exchange of ideas - that have jumped on the “hate speech” bandwagon.

Christians have no Right to Speak

My Response to a Respondent Critical of the Christian Message Regarding Homosexuality:

I am glad that we can agree that it is wrong to prevent others from seeking help for their unwanted behaviors or desires. However, I think that you have characterized Christians in a needlessly negative and pejorative way. Personally, I can’t blame you. Western secularism surrounds us with the message that Christians are “bigoted,” “homophobic” and just generally intolerant. (Perhaps instead, it is the prevailing secular culture which is intolerant of Christians!) It’s hard to escape these characterizations. Even many of those raised in the church are now turning away or at least attempting to radically change the church into a form that might be more acceptable to society.

I also feel that pressure. However, as a Christian, my first calling is faithfulness to God and His revelation, even if it means loosing friends and social approval. Primarily, this means that I feel the responsibility to make a defense for the now widely despised faith, and to challenge those ideas that are now competing for the hearts and minds of our youth.

Although you probably genuinely believe what you’ve written, please understand that I have to challenge your characterizations:

• “Yet the fact remains that Christians (or a certain species of Christian) seems overly interested in the sexuality and sex lives of others and often spread slander and malice – in addition to a good deal of self-righteousness – condemning homosexual people.”

I don’t know of any true Christians “condemning homosexual people.” We are all sinners whose only hope is in the mercy of God. Consequently, we realize that we are in no position to look down on others. Therefore, our mandate to love includes all people, despite their sexual orientation or behavior.

In fact, the Christian faith does more to dignify the marginalized than does any other religion, even secularism. We acknowledge that the gay person is beloved of God and created in His image. In our view, he is, before all else, a precious human being and not someone to be defined by his sexual behavior or SSA.

In contrast to the image that materialistic secular humanism has carefully promoted for itself, it lacks any basis for valuing others beyond the material. The material world has no other basis for evaluation but the superficial and material – a person’s physical appearance, productivity, viability, and contributions to society.

Also, in the physical world, there is only inequality. There are the stronger and the weaker, the smarter and the duller, the educated and the uneducated, the upstanding and the criminal. Consequently, the secular plea for equality and human rights is both insupportable and hypocritical. While they base their claims on human rights, they really have no basis to believe in them. In the secular world, everything is alienable and changeable – merely a matter of molecules-in-motion.

You claim that “Christians seems overly interested in the sexuality and sex lives of others.” This is a charge commonly made against Christians. Instead, of dealing with the issues – and these never seem to find their way into the secular media – secularists find it more convenient, however illegitimately, to attack the person rather than the ideas. (I think that this is a poignant reflection of where secular morality is taking us.)

On another level, shouldn’t we defend ourselves against such charges? When we are called “hate-mongers” and the Bible is called “hate-speech,” shouldn’t we reply? And if we fail to do so, wouldn’t this silence be interpreted as agreement? Wouldn’t our youth then conclude that we have no answers?

When we see Christians loosing their jobs and being expelled from universities because of their beliefs, shouldn’t we speak up on their behalf and also about the truths that govern our lives? However, when we try to do this, we are accused with being “preoccupied with sex!”

You claim that Christians have failed to speak out against the corporate thieves. I think that you are greatly mistaken about this. However, if these thieves or adulterers began to demand an “Adulterer Pride Month,” and required the schools to carry texts and teachings on the “Virtues of Adultery,” I think that Christian protest would be more apparent.

You conclude with these words:

• “I think it is time for Christians to leave the subject of homosexuality for the time being and put their own house in order, before thinking they have either the right or ability to direct the morality of others.”

I hope you are saying the same thing to the media, to the universities, the public schools and, of course, to our government officials – all of whom are speaking forcefully in favor of homosexuality. I would imagine you have no problem with their talking on this subject. Why then the disparity? Why can’t we also talk on this subject?

I think that this reflects the growing intolerance of society. Only certain people – those who agree with me – are allowed to voice their opinions.

Contending for the Faith vs. Turning the Cheek

This is a command:

·        Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude 3-4)

Contending for the faith involves both challenging the sin and its philosophical justifications. Jesus contended for the faith during His entire ministry. He never ceased judging and correcting His own Apostles. They tended to be very class- and ethnicity-conscious. He judged their attitudes and never complimented their faith – only that of two, who His disciples had discounted because they were both Gentiles (Matthew 8, 15). He pointed out that it was the children who were the most Kingdom-like, not themselves or the esteemed learned ones (Matthew 18). Even when Peter had taken up the sword in His defense, Jesus corrected his theology:

·        Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" (Matthew 26:53-54)

The faith is simply too valuable to allow others to twist it to suite their own tastes. Jesus also defended the faith against the unbelievers. When He was accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan, He would not allow this interpretation to stand. Against it He reasoned that it was unthinkable that Satan would cast out Satan, lest his kingdom would collapse (Matthew 12).

When we are passive in the face of such charges against the faith, our silence is interpreted as agreement. In contrast, Paul promoted a more proactive spiritual engagement:

·        We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)

Jesus demolished “arguments” and took “captive every thought to make it obedient” to His Gospel. However, we have been silenced and rendered passive by the accusation that we have violated Jesus’ words:

·        "Do not judge, or you too will be judged…You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

We have been intimidated into believing that when we raise our voice in defense of the faith, we are judging – something that Jesus had soundly forbidden. However, upon close examination, Jesus didn’t forbid judging – just judging when the judge refuses to judge himself! We first must contend with our own sin before we contend with the sins of others. Until we do this, we remain with a blinding plank in our own eye.

Even many churches preach a Christian passivity that precludes contending for the faith. In support of this errant position, they quote from Paul:

·        Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head" [Proverbs 25]. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:19-21)

Some argue that these verses counsel only love and not verbal confrontation. Indeed, we mustn’t allow the evil of revenge to overcome us. Instead, we must “overcome evil with good” and leave revenge and “wrath” to God. However, this doesn’t mean that we are limited to addressing the evil of lies and bad theology with only good deeds. Consequently, they think that they shouldn’t do anything further about evil and that they shouldn’t even bring charges against the rapist or burglar.

Such a stance is not of wisdom and will only bring disrepute upon the church, if we allow evil to go unchallenged. Once the burglar or rapist strikes again, the community will rightly blame the church.

Instead, Paul counseled “It is mine to avenge” and that we should allow God’s “wrath” to bring this revenge. This “wrath” is not limited to the final judgment. God expresses His wrath through the justice system, which He has ordained. Paul continues:

·        The authorities that exist have been established by God….For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of WRATH to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Romans (13:1-4)

Clearly, God exercises His wrath through the criminal justice system. Justice is holy, and therefore, we have a responsibility to see that He will exercise His wrath through this system. It is this system that frees us to love our enemies without the need to take justice into our own hands. Although we don’t personally avenge ourselves, we must see that justice is done through this system, not through vigilantes. Loving and pursuing justice are not incompatible! Likewise, loving our enemies doesn’t disqualify us from contending for the faith, even when they are offended by what we say.

The Christian life is not simply about hugging and feeding the hungry. It’s also a display of God’s entire body of wisdom. Israel’s light to the nations had been a matter of showing forth His wisdom as they followed all of God’s laws:

·        Observe them [My laws] carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people”…And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (Deut. 4:6-8)

This entailed a living demonstration of the entire counsel of God – not just justice and not just love. Both are essential! Passivity alone will not win hearts. During my brief stay as a substitute teacher in a public school, I too thought that Jesus had been teaching passivity – to turn the other cheek at the misbehavior of the students. This only won me the deserved contempt of the teachers. They didn’t find anything virtuous in passivity but rather, a clear display of folly. Instead of bringing glory to my Lord, I had briefly demonstrated that the teachings of Jesus (wrongly understood) had no place in the real world.

   

The health of the church depends on contending for the faith. An elder had to be able to contend:

·        He [the elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:9-11)

We are built up by the faith, and we are ruined by those things that undermine the faith. If we fail to contend for the faith, “whole households” will be ruined. If we contend for anything, it must be for the faith! Love requires it!

I write this because many young Christians are being ruined because attacks against the faith aren’t being adequately addressed. We are failing to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” and we are not taking “captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

We are continually accused of “hate speech,” “hate-mongering,” and “bigotry” by the surrounding culture. For example, Mrs.Clinton blames Christianity and other religions for denying homosexuals their deserved rights:

·        In a speech [December 8, 2011]designed to convince the world that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said religious objections to homosexuality should not stand in the way of vigorous United Nations action to promote the homosexual rights agenda. On Tuesday, Clinton said promoting the global acceptance of “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people” is “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time,” likening the effort to ending racial, sexual, or religious discrimination. She noted that perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

   

Clinton wrongly likens our stance against same-sex marriage to “honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.” However, she is not alone in making such unfair comparisons. Many indict the Bible and the church as “homophobic.” Many of a more moderate voice are claiming that we are depriving the gays of justice, and our youth are all-ears, if the polls are any indication.

Mustn’t we speak up earnestly against these accusations? Will they not stick if we don’t? If we are denying the gays their rights, then we are also denying the adulterer, the polygamist, the father who wants to marry his daughter, or the aged billionaire who can afford to marry 50 10-year-olds. However, the university and the media would also deny these people their “rights.” Wouldn’t this similarly make them “unjust?” Why then are they calling us “unjust,” when they too are “unjust” in depriving others of their “rights,” according to their own definition?

These charges and double-standards – this blatant but unacknowledged hypocrisy – should be exposed (Eph. 5:11).  This is not an enviable task. However, when we fail to contend for our faith, no one else will, and the charges will stand.

At times, this seems like an endless and wearisome battle, but Jude assures us that it isn’t. He continues:

·        Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies…(Jude 1:5-8)

It is the Lord who will avenge. This frees us up to tend to the wounds of our detractors as we speak truth in love.

The Prophetic Ministry: The Denunciation of Evil

Should we denounce evil? Recently, a local pastor defended his decision to not protest New York City’s unjust ruling, barring the churches from renting space in the NYC schools:

• Unfortunately, one cannot rejoice at persecution while fighting for one’s rights in persecution. The two cannot go together…

Granted, we should be rejoicing, even in the midst of persecution, but does this prevent us from denouncing evil? Certainly not! However, this is just one of many reasons why Christians are reluctant to speak out against injustice. Others will defend a hands-off stance by invoking their belief that Jesus is soon returning, and therefore, our focus should be the “great commission” - evangelism. Similarly, the evangelical columnist, Cal Thomas, warned against speaking forth on the national platform:

• Real power doesn’t reside in Washington. Real power is Christ within you. Surely the Gospel is a more effective tool than the Republican or the Democratic Party. Just one example: More babies are being saved through pregnancy help centers than through anything Washington has done.

Thomas might be correct, but does this preclude raising our voices against the shameful infant holocaust? Doesn’t our calling require many forms of engagement? Shouldn’t we be raising our voices to demand justice and protection for the vulnerable? Isn’t this what the Hebrew Prophets were directed to do?

On the other side of the spectrum are the social-gospel folk – the liberals and emergent-churchers – who conflate the Gospel with social activism, reducing the Gospel to a set of actions. They forget that, instead, the Gospel is our launching pad – our joy, peace, confidence and love in the Lord – that energizes and directs everything else. It produces the fruit, which honors the tree.

If we love Jesus, we will keep His commands (John 14:21-24; 15:7-14; 1 John 5:3). Consequently, we will not only love one another (John 17:21; 13:34-35), but we will also, if need be, speak out to expose the hypocrisy that threatens them (Matthew 23; Eph. 5:11). Isaiah had called upon the people to,

• Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:16-17)

I think that the majority of evangelical churches recognize that we have a calling to care for the downtrodden. But we have largely forgotten that we also have a responsibility to “rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.”

Mercifully, our God is concerned about exposing and punishing evil. He consequently ordained a criminal justice system to address His concerns:

• Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Romans 13:1-4)

Consequently, we too have a responsibility to expose, denounce and restrain evil:

• Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Ephes. 5:11)

This kind of talk usually invites the charge, “Well, you’re legislating morality! You Christians are always imposing your views on others!”

Not to mention the fact that denouncing evil is part of the common law which God wires our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), this is also a vital part of the democratic experience. Aren’t we all supposed to have a say, as do others? Besides, isn’t every law an exercise in legislating morality, even if law doesn’t change hearts? Martin Luther King addressed this issue poignantly:

• “It may be true that a law can’t make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

God also thinks that this is “pretty important!” However, many evangelicals warn against this kind of thing. Michael Spencer believes that the church’s prophetic ministry detracts from its first ministry:

• “Evangelicals have linked their beliefs with political conservatism and the culture war, which non-Christian leaders perceive as bad for society…We have done so at the detriment of our faith. Christians have been so wrapped up in the political process and especially over the last couple of years…that we have ignored our number one mission, which is to tell the world about a loving and merciful God.”

Although I don’t see how the prophetic ministry is in opposition to the Gospel ministry, I think that Spencer’s point should sensitize us regarding the causes we espouse and the way we espouse them. However, it is important to note that God associates denunciation and awareness of sin and moral failure with receptivity to the Gospel (Romans 3:19-20). The “bad news” has to precede the “good news.”

Jesus and Paul certainly exposed people to their “bad news,” not to belittle them, but to show them their need for repentance and forgiveness:

• At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" (Acts 23:2-3)

As a surgeon has to open and expose the wound in order to correct it, so too must the spiritual doctor. Stephen exposed the festering wound of Israel, even as he cried out to God to forgive them (Acts 6-7). Jesus denounced the Pharisees but then cried over them (Mat. 23:37).

However, aren’t we alienating the very world we are trying to bring to the light by such involvement? Indeed, many express great contempt for us and misrepresent us. In Why the Religious Right is Wrong, Robin Meyers writes:

• Religious fanatics who run the country…are close to realizing their vision of a heaven on earth: an American theocracy.

Likewise, in Religion Gone Bad, ex-evangelical speechwriter Mel White writes:

• We must resist before fundamentalists do what they have promised and turn the world’s oldest democracy into a theocracy ruled entirely by “righteous men.”

Although we might have brought some of the contempt upon ourselves, we can’t forget the fact that the world crucified Jesus – the model of love and perfection. He warned us that we have to take the contempt in stride:

• "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:18-20)

We are going to be hated, especially if we are the light in a dark, self-justifying world. We therefore can’t use the response of the world as a measure of whether or not we are doing the right thing. The measure has to be our Lord Himself, as the Apostles affirmed, after the court forbade them to speak of Jesus:

• But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)… Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! (5:29)

Ironically, the world has censured the church for speaking out, but has also censured us for not speaking. An article in a militant atheistic journal put it this way:

• European Christianity failed to prevent the mass slaughter between the faithful in the Great War and actually contributed to World War II, insofar as conservative churches supported fascism. The failure of the churches to provide sound moral guidance may help to explain the [European] Continent’s postwar lack of enthusiasm of religion.(“The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved,” Free Inquiry, Jan. 2009, 29)

Although the church was the only body that resisted Hitler and although it can be argued that the German churches had lost their Biblical rudder after years of radical criticism of the Bible, this article is certainly correct for censuring us for not resisting more proactively. To those who would retort: “Well, the politics of this world don’t involve the church,” I would simply refer them to James’ words:

• Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

If this world is God’s world, it is also ours, and we are responsible for its people. We are our brother’s keeper, as God made plain to Ezekiel:

• “But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.” (Ezekiel 33:6)

Mustn’t we blow the trumpet when we see the sword approaching? Mustn’t we warn about the murder of the unborn or about our pornography and decadent movies that are perverting the rest of the world? Even now, the radical Muslims gain credibility by pointing to the porn and violence coming out of the “Christian” West!

Sadly, many pastors are not being prophetic; they are not speaking out against those sins which are now popular in Western culture. However, we are culpable when we fail to do this. The Apostle Paul had “boasted”:

• “Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.”  (Acts 20:26-27)

Few of us can make a similar boast. Some pastors justify their silence by arguing that they don’t want to turn away any of their parishioners from sitting under the Gospel. However, I think that we wrongly assume that healing can take place apart from identifying the disease.

Instead, we can’t separate the two. Diagnosis and cure go together. The false prophets of Israel never taught against the Mosaic Law. However, they often preached that there was “peace” – that everything was okay – when there wasn’t peace (Ezek. 13:8-10; Jer. 8:11-12). However, Israel’s God was deeply grieved by this, because it failed to uncover the festering disease, and therefore this comforting message obscured the hope of a cure:

• The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The oracles they gave you were false and misleading. (Lament. 2:14)

We tend to be myopic in our pragmatic preoccupations, and therefore need the lens of Scripture to see telescopically, even microscopically. We wrongly think that our passivity will better shield the church from the secular onslaught. However, even now, many are clamoring for the State to impose the same hiring standards upon the church. Others are indicting the Bible as “hate speech.” In Europe, Christian schools are increasingly required to teach on subjects ranging from evolution to same-sex marriage. The sword is now upon us!

This doesn’t mean that we should all be judging and denouncing sin. It is reserved for only those who have first judged their own sins, confessing them to our Savior:

• "Do not judge, or you too will be judged…You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

We first have to confront our own blindness, rationalizations and denials before we can have the clarity to confront others. Without first judging ourselves, we become hypocrites when we attempt to judge others. But judge, we must!

Totalitarianism, Hate Speech and Social Disintegration

In totalitarian Stalinist USSR, criticism of the regime was not tolerated. It represented a threat to the communist revolution and would be addressed with violence or a permanent stay the Gulag. In a sense, criticism of the regime was regarded as “hate speech.”

Remarkably, our re-definition of “hate speech” has a strong totalitarian fragrance. According to Wikipedia:

• In law, hate speech [now] is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, disability, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic.

Stalin might have gladly used this definition to justify his prohibition of free speech. After all, criticism – “hate speech” - threatened the welfare of all the citizens of the USSR and certainly would “incite violence.”

Interestingly, absent from Wikipedia’s modern re-definition are the elements that we had previously associated with hate. Here’s how Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “hate”:

• “An intense hostility or aversion usually derived from fear…extreme dislike or antipathy…loathing…”

The Wikipedia understanding means that if you express your legitimate concerns - loving concerns - about an action of a “protected individual or group,” you can find yourself in hot legal water if they claim that you had offended them. It doesn’t matter at all if you had been motivated by love for the “protected individual.” It might not even matter it you in fact offended the “protected individual.” If they simply say you offended them, you can be charged with a “hate crime.” Even if you make an innocent off-color joke, you can find your job threatened.

Consequently, joking with a “protected individual” can land you a lawsuit. Even an inquiry can create offense – “any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display [which may] incite violence.”

The law is now being construed to protect the ones who least need it – the ones most prone to act-out with violence. The lesson: demonstrate that you are willing to act outrageously and the law will now coddle you and enable you to be rewarded for anti-social, violent behavior!

Clearly, this will not create a better society. Instead, it creates imbalance, social disparities, and alienation and concentrates power in the hands of the “protected individual or group” – any bully who wants to claim that he has been offended.

This is not to say that certain forms of discrimination shouldn’t be proscribed. For instance, we shouldn’t tolerate racial discrimination in hiring or housing. Such “intolerance” doesn’t come with a high price tag – a sacrifice of needful individual liberties. Instead, we, as a society, have everything to gain by legislating against racial intolerance.

However, passing laws against “any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display [which may] incite violence” is an entirely different matter. Instead of protecting human beings, these laws are designed to protect behaviors and lifestyles, and their cost is astronomical – a significant move towards totalitarianism and the institution of secularly- favored behaviors and speech, in effect, a State-supported religion, promoting certain values and speech and forbidding others. While the law should criminalize racial intolerance, it shouldn’t allow the “protected individual” to throw loud and disruptive parties every night, such that anyone who protests against them is charged with “hate speech” and “inciting violence.” Race and behavior should not be equated!

There is little difference between what is happening here and the blasphemy laws in Muslim nations, where no criticism of Islam is tolerated. Islam is the “protected group.” Islam therefore controls the media, the universities, influential jobs and the government.

Oddly, some of these same nations hope to meld a common national identity – a common glue - among their citizens. The moderate Islamic nation of Malaysia is one of them. However, some years ago, a study conducted by the University of Malaysia found that Muslims, Christians and Hindus students hardly associated.

Ironically, they were surprised by their finding. Clearly, the favored status of Islam had created deep divisions, penetrating into the core of interpersonal relationships. After all, who wants to risk a friendship with someone who has a favored status and has the power to accuse you of “blasphemy” and have you thrown into jail. And what “protected individual” will condescend to associate with one beneath his social status? Besides, ones legally-assigned social position largely determines ones worldview and a greatly attenuates the possible areas of common understanding. Such disparities can only lead to social disintegration.

Western “blasphemy laws” do the same by conferring greater power and privileges on certain “protected individuals or groups.” The creation of inequality bodes poorly for our future.