Comments on: The Wedge

By: Without Strong Convictions, We’ll Be Lost | The A-Team Blog

Without Strong Convictions, We’ll Be Lost | The A-Team Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 01:15:55 +0000

[…] comments took an unexpected turn, and we discussed the need for strong convictions in the church here and here. In this postmodern culture, it is thought that we can never know reality as it truly is […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:44:00 +0000

Tyler, don't worry–I know you don't agree with that view! I'm trying to clarify the issue for everyone reading this because we have to be very specific when we talk about this issue to others who *are* relativists if we want to avoid misunderstanding. Your first statement, “When one group believes that they are entirely and unquestionably right and all who disagree are horribly wrong, history has shown that bad things occur,” does sound like you're advocating that view because it's not specific enough. I'm just trying to draw out all aspects of this statement so we can clarify together for ourselves and for everyone who's reading this. We need to be clear about what the problem is and how to solve it if we're going to be able to communicate that solution and work towards it in our society.
“Of course, this is greatly due to the fact that his beliefs held that all people are made in God's image and that he had a sound and biblical philosophy of response to injustice.”
Exactly! That's exactly the point. Atheistic societies do not have these beliefs, and that is the root of the trouble.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:36:00 +0000

Christ's convictions were accountable to God. John 5 is a good exposition on this point. Verses 19 and 30 stand out.
Jn 5.19: “Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”
Jn 5.30: “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:24:00 +0000

To borrow from Micah, we may be in heated agreement. I unabashedly affirm the strong convictions of the Early Church, the abolitionists in previous centuries, the civil rights workers in the last century. More than that, I affirm the content of their convictions. These groups by and large avoided the mistakes of other groups we have discussed. Martin Luther King, Jr. never demonized his dissenters and never called them less than human. Of course, this is greatly due to the fact that his beliefs held that all people are made in God's image and that he had a sound and biblical philosophy of response to injustice.
Face, I understand your point: “The problem is that today's society has defined *any* strong conviction as 'exclusion of the other'–whether or not those people are willing to interact with others.” Please hear that I am not arguing for such a view.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:14:00 +0000

Tyler, a strong conviction is necessary, but not sufficient for atrocities. In other words, strong convictions do not necessarily lead to atrocities. The same strong conviction that led Stalin to murder millions is the conviction that has led to martyrs' deaths in the service of others for centuries. Conviction in and of itself is not inherently bad. On the contrary, strong convictions have led to incredible good in the face of opposition. What matters is what you are convinced of–particularly, whether or not you believe it is right to murder those who threaten your power or believe differently than you.
The problem is that today's society has defined *any* strong conviction as “exclusion of the other”–whether or not those people are willing to interact with others. Merely saying that what you believe is true and what others believe is false is considered exclusion. This logically follows for a society that believes there is no right and wrong and all ideas are equal, so you can see how this developed.
I think you are against the same thing I am–that is, people killing other people merely because they believe something different. I just think we need to be very specific that this is what we are against, and not conviction in itself. This claim is different from the relativistic claim of this society that conviction itself is bad. If we aren't clear about the distinction, people won't understand what we mean, and we will further weaken our society from taking stands for the good.
As for the Nazis, they may have used God's name as propaganda sometimes, but I don't know of any writings of theirs that base their views on God; but I do know that the bedrock of Hitler's views was Darwinism and the idea of genetics and natural selection.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:03:00 +0000

Paul said the circumcisers should castrate themselves, and Jesus said very few nice things about the sons of Hell who were the Pharisees. I don't think either of them can be fit into an alternative dispute resolution mold. Jesus was open to being asked questions, but he had answers for them and never once seemed to say, “Hmm, good point. Let me ponder that and get back to you.” Who would Christ's convictions be accountable to? (though to be sure we are not Christ, nor Paul, and so I agree we need a spirit of humility, while retaining strong convictions, as indicated by Tyler's many modifers to the word “fundamentalism”).
There are radically “other” philosophies. They have radical consequences. A point that hasn't been made is that even the sins of Christianity (and I don't think the Crusades count for much here, but that's another issue) are in contradiction to the theology and philosophy of our faith. The sins of atheism are entirely consistent with the philosophical foundations that they rest upon.
What needs remembering is that those holding these philosophies are still made in God's image, whether they realize it or not. They can't be “other” in a radical sense. I take it that is one truth Tyler is getting at that I'm sure we all think needs to be kept in mind.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:12:00 +0000

I wouldn't say that the Nazis were focused on participating in the actual work of God as discussed in the Bible, but I would say that they did think that they were doing God's work. Let us remember what I said: “it is the distorted, unaccountable, and unquestioning fundamentalism (used in a very pejorative sense) that leads to such atrocities.” So I do affirm your point that the content of one's beliefs will determine their actions. However, I assume that it takes a strong conviction in these distorted beliefs in order to kill someone or to kill yourself. (Stanley Milgram showed that there are other factors involved, so forgive my reduction.)
I certainly affirm Christ's and Paul's confidence, but their convictions remained rather pure, accountable, and open to questions. I am not arguing for relativism, but for a stance that does not exclude the other (to borrow from Miroslav Volf). Jesus and Paul showed a great willingness to interact with those with whom they disagreed. The radical exclusion of the other — whether the ethnic other, the religious other, or the philosophical other — has been a significant source to the sins we are discussing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:36:00 +0000

Thanks for these comments, Tyler–they make for an interesting discussion!
The Nazis had strange religious views, but I wouldn't say they were focused on doing God's work. They certainly didn't like Christians.
I think Koukl focused on the other regimes because the numbers of people killed by these were far, far above the Nazi's numbers, and they were openly atheistic. Even if you put the Nazis on the side of the theists (and I would argue their beliefs were more pagan), the atheists have still killed far and away more people than any religion has.
I have to disagree strongly with your statement that it's fundamentalism in itself (as defined here by you as a belief that you are right and others are wrong) that is the true root cause of atrocities. This is a very postmodern idea that I think is wrong (don't worry, I won't kill you). ; ) It's not the strength of the belief that causes a person to commit atrocities, it's the content of that belief. Our beliefs determine our actions, and when our beliefs are false, our actions will be sinful and harmful to others.
For example, Jesus believed he was entirely right, as did Paul. Nowhere do they advocate killing people who disagree. Why? Because this does not have a place in their worldview–it is not a part of the total sum of all Christian beliefs about God, humans, the world, and our responsibilities. If a person were to understand and believe Christianity as perfectly as Jesus, and if he knew himself to be 100% right and another man 100% wrong, can you honestly say that that person would be as likely to mass kill people as a materialist Communist?
You can see that this is absurd. There are certain ideas inherent in materialism that make mass killing likely, and there are ideas inherent in Christianity that make mass killing unlikely–regardless of how much a person believes he is right. This illustrates that it's not believing your ideas to be true that necessarily leads to death and destruction, but it's believing false ideas to be true that causes disasters.
I think this is an important point because postmodernists have decided (based on their view of “fundamentalism”) that the way to combat this sin of atrocities is to try to get people to not have strong convictions. I think this is false and dangerous because it leaves the root cause (false ideas) unaddressed (in our current culture, all ideas are equally valid, so we shouldn't argue against any of them anyway) and because it discourages Christians from standing up for true, right, and good beliefs.
Ultimately, the true way to combat atrocities is to combat the false ideas behind those atrocities, and that's exactly what we should do as Christians, according to 2 Corinthians 10.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:48:00 +0000

Tyler, interesting points. Our representative democracy was influenced by a belief in human value because of God's existence, as the document said. In this country, it was the foundation of all our rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence. This foundational idea of valuing people eventually led to democracies in the West.
I think this quote is only commenting on the basis of Western civilization, so it leaves open the possibility that other countries developed democracies without this basis. But even those ancient democracies you mentioned, though not Christian, had a concept of goodness and justice existing outside of themselves. They were not materialistic. A materialistic culture is, by nature (when the ideas are lived out), relativistic. There is no standard outside of our own preferences. Our lives are ultimately meaningless so we should grab all we can while we can. If we have to hurt a few people on the way, so what? There's nothing so special about people, and there's certainly no one to hold us accountable for what we do to them. And since we don't all have intrinsic value from God, we have to determine relative value based on characteristics. Smarter, more talented people are more valuable than the others. Developmentally disabled people and the elderly don't last long in societies like these.
You can see how a materialistic culture can't provide the basis for human rights. So there may certainly be democracies that aren't Christian, but you won't find a democracy that developed out of materialism. The concern now is that as we shift (especially Europe) towards a materialistic culture, the basis for human rights will be eroded, and more atrocities will occur.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:44:00 +0000

I also just finished the Stand to Reason piece on genocide that you linked to. It's illuminating and makes some good points, but also leaves out a lot of information. For example, the Nazis are never mentioned. How does one discuss genocide without bringing in the Nazis whose warped system of beliefs held that they were doing God's work? The crimes of Pol Pot, the Soviet leaders, and the Peoples Republic of China leaders are real and should not be dismissed. Koukl makes some strong points on these crimes. I would hold that it is not so much atheism or Christianity or any ethos that is entirely responsible for mass murders — unless that ethos endorses and requires the killing of others. Instead, it is the distorted, unaccountable, and unquestioning fundamentalism (used in a very pejorative sense) that leads to such atrocities. When one group believes that they are entirely and unquestionably right and all who disagree are horribly wrong, history has shown that bad things occur. I would argue that it was such fundamentalism that led the Christians to the Crusades, the Soviets' fundamentalistic Marxist approach led to the pogroms, and the fundamentalist Islamic views of al Qaeda that led to September 11.