Starting At Brownwood's Doorstep via Hate Radio

Mary A. Jacobs: 'That's not what Jesus meant' - and you know this how, exactly?

06:46 PM CST on Friday, January 7, 2005
By MARY A. JACOBS / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
As a regular contributor to the Religion section, I'm sometimes surprised at which stories generate letters from readers – as well as those that don't.
Often, I've noticed, the most vociferous letters relate to issues that essentially boil down to belief. Which strikes me as a problematic response to something that appears in the newspaper. Newspapers try to deal in verifiable facts, and beliefs, by definition, can't be proven.
A case in point: An article I once wrote quoted a man's interpretation of a particular a Scripture passage. He felt Jesus' words opened the possibility that God recognizes faiths other than Christianity. Quite a few letter writers would have none of that. They said, in so many words: "That's not what Jesus meant."
Frankly, as a Christian, I found these letters disappointing. The writers did nothing to support their argument. They didn't point out the biblical context, or cite some exegesis of the passage, or spin out its logical implications. They simply didn't like this man's interpretation, so they said, "That's not what Jesus meant," as if they'd called the good Lord on the phone to verify his original intent.
Their intentions may have been good, but such statements put one on a very slippery slope.
Ole Anthony is publisher of a Christian satire magazine and head of a Dallas watchdog group that keeps its eye on what it regards as greedy evangelists. He once told a group of Christian broadcasters – much to their shock, I'm sure – that he didn't think the commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain referred to the curse that typically comes to mind.
Instead, he said, the sin was using God's name for one's own purpose, like the guy on TV who says, "Send me $50 and you'll get a new car, thus sayeth the Lord."
Ole was being funny, but his interpretation makes sense to me. Because speaking for God is a way of putting oneself before God, like an idol. It's a way of clinging to what we'd like to think God is saying, and closing ourselves off to the possibility that he's really saying something else – something that will confront and challenge us.
"One's own purposes" could include the desire to be right. Not the desire to pursue truth – a humble and humbling endeavor – but the desire to show that others are wrong, and to gloat comfortably in one's own righteousness.
This attitude, I think, is at the heart of many of Hollywood's unfair stereotypes of Christians. As a Christian, the stereotypes annoy me, but I also know they have some basis in reality. A belief can be logically supported and rationally argued, but if it were absolutely provable, it wouldn't be a belief – it would be scientific fact. Beliefs are choices made on faith, and faith, according to Hebrews, "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
At some point we have to respect the choices of others, even if we disagree, and admit that those choices may well spring from a sincere spirit of faith. To try to win with the debate by digging in and shouting more loudly than the other guy doesn't work.
A view of Christianity that excludes all other views can be logically supported but should be advanced only with fear and trembling. Because to feel a need to be right – or, like the Church Lady, just a little bit superior – is to commit a grievous error.
If Jesus is just a metaphor, or one of many paths to God, then speaking for him is treacherous enough. But those Christians who flatly reject that notion ought to set for themselves an even higher standard of caution.
Because if Jesus really is the one and only true Son of God, then who would dare presume to speak for him?
Mary A. Jacobs, a Dallas freelance writer, can be reached at maryjacobs44@yahoo.com.

source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/opinion/stories/010805dnrelguestcol.49768.html