February 02, 2006
Tyranny of Paranoia
Tyranny!
We are losing our freedom of speech. Rhetoric is not allowed in this politically correct society. Apparently, the New York Times thinks that most Americans, even Evangelical Americans, are so dotty and dull that if they merely imply that a statement is dangerously bombast that it will be thus judged by all. Apparently the New York Times is right.
Exhibit A: Bauder is being chastised for using the word ‘firebomb.’ Righteously vexed Christians are giving him verbal spankings. I have no problem with rebuke, public rebuke, and disagreement. But, come on brothers! Get perspective. Is context irrelevant? The context of his blog, the context of his life and ministry clearly give meaning to what he was saying. Is colorful language off limits? Paranoid Christians are huffing and puffing in holy ire over Kevin Bauder’s choice of words. Just as the New York Times and liberal America would hope.
So you don’t like his choice of words. So, it was wrong. Fine. Make a better choice of words next time, Brother Bauder. Now drop it, everybody. Why punish a man for colorful rhetoric so much that we literally paralyze with unmanly paranoia anybody with opinion? We are groveling before the great Lord PC and are humbly following his tyrannical rules and regulations about our speech. Our freedom of speech is a joke. Lord PC has limited us to dull and boring platitudes. Too many Christians today are pansies, spiritual sissies who look cautiously over their shoulders toward Lord PC before they say anything about the culture. These paranoid Christians want to have influence in the culture, but they want the culture, particularly Lord PC, to make the rules. Lord PC says in pompous tones, “I will grant to you as I do to all religions and opinions the holy grail of humanity: freedom of speech. (After all, we need that for our own agenda). You may say whatever you want to say as long as you commit yourself to being boring.” – “Uh, thanks Your Holiness,” mutters the pandering saint. So the saints commit to safety. They stay humbly boring. And boring, after all, does not get attention. Lord PC is pleased.
HELLOOOO! That’s not freedom, folks! It is not freedom to be told how we say what we say. How we say what we say conveys a lot about what we believe. Anybody with at least two brain cells could see that Bauder was passionate about his subject. Anybody, even a homosexual activist with an anti-Bauder agenda would know that Bauder was not calling for violence. Even the New York Times knows better. But the New York Times is banking on the spineless to continue what they began merely be insinuation. Lord PC has terrified us. We are so afraid of being misunderstood. When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee, people? The world wants to misunderstand us. Yet we say “if the culture says a rhetorical style is taboo for a minister speaking out against sin, let us by all means bow to the culture. Maybe they’ll like us enough to give our message a chance.” Ladies and gentlemen, it’s not their dislike for us that’s the problem. We are the most likeable generation of Christians this godless world has enjoyed yet. It’s our message that is unliked. And our message ought to be stated on our terms, in our language, and the rhetoric of our choice. Period.
We are giving up our arms. The use of sarcasm, hyperbole, and mockery is a valid weapon in the Christian arsenal and should not be yielded up to the cult of Nice. Zeal is a good thing. And zeal more often than not seems indelicate. Sadly, you would think Christians, of all people, would figure this out. Clearly, they don’t. Too many Christians are the emissaries of Lord PC.
It’s not hard to imagine Lord PC’s Christian emissaries if they existed in Bible times:
Phinehas is so tactless. He should know how serious the Midianites take their sex. He did not need to be so indelicate. He was a wee bit too flamboyant and has impaled a couple while they were making love. Horror of horrors! What will the Midianites think of the people of God now? Phinehas was running. Can you believe it? He should have walked. He shouldn’t appear to hasty to hurt somebody’s feelings. Goodness, anybody would be upset if their love making was so rudely interrupted. He didn’t stop to ask questions. He should have considered the volatile politics of his time. Sure, he was on the right side — can’t you hear them whining? — but don’t you think that he should have used a sword instead of a spear? And Moses, tut tut, throwing down the tablets… My, that is excessive. And Ezekiel, that frothing fundamentalist: he may claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit but he clearly has crossed the line by saying that Oholibah’s paramours’ male body parts are like those of donkeys and their issue like that of horses. Gasp! What an outrage against all donkeys and horses.
And shame, shame, on Jesus of Nazereth. He called Herod a fox. How indelicate. We all know that Herod isn’t really a fox. Why did Jesus do that when He clearly knows that someone is sure to point out that Herod is homo sapiens and not a four-legged, red-haired creature? What if the Pharisees read his remarks? They’ll have a heyday with this. They’ll say He is a rebel, a troublemaker, and dangerous. Or, worse, stupid. Jesus has opened Himself up to all kinds of criticism. Wring our hands! Jesus has hurt His ministry with careless rhetoric.
Come on, believers! Don’t be afraid of common speech. Sometimes we say things and mess up. Learn from the Scriptures.
Paul, in the intensity of emotion, having just been struck on the face, called the high priest a white-washed wall. When he was told of it, he apologized. But here is the point: The Scriptures memorialize his words because, though Paul would not have said them the way he did once he had hindsight, what he said was true and needed to be said. He did not take back his words. He merely said that he did not know that he was speaking to the high priest.
My point?
Instead of haranguing the speaker all the time, tell the listeners and readers to grow up. God’s messengers aren’t always delicate. Nor should they be.
Posted by Bob Bixby at February 2, 2006 03:36 PM | TrackBack | eMail this entry! | 1084 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: End of Spear Controversy
Bravo, Bob. Dead on.
Posted by: sligh at February 2, 2006 03:41 PMThank you.
Posted by: Melinda Clark at February 2, 2006 06:43 PMThank you. I appreciate reaction to everyone’s over-reactions.
Posted by: Matthew Morrell at February 2, 2006 07:43 PMThank you, Pastor Bixby.
Posted by: Lyn Marshall at February 2, 2006 07:57 PMWell said, Bob, I love your zeal and passion.
Posted by: Brandon Gott at February 3, 2006 02:41 AMBob, you need to work on your communication skills…it’s hard to tell what you really think here.
I guess I should apologize for using a literary device in that last sentence. It used to be that among thinking people these devices would emphasize a truth…now the point gets obfuscated in the hysteria over the use of an inflammatory (pun intended) word. Give me a break. If it weren’t for the hypocrisy it would almost be funny. The junior senator from New York can claim that the House of Representatives is run like a plantation (for the rhetorically challenged that’s a simile) and the NYT gives her a pass. Dr. Bauder uses an understatement to emphasize a point and he’s accused of endorsing the very thing that he was rejecting. For some the reaction may be a testament to their inability to think, but for the Old Gray Lady I believe it is something more sinister. They know what Dr. Bauder said and what he meant. But they also know that they have a lot of readers who can be duped into believing something different.
Well said Bob. We need more people like Dr. Bauder in Christianity. People that have something to say, and know how to say it well.
Posted by: Patrick at February 3, 2006 11:44 AM(HT Pyromaniac for linking to your blog!)
I wonder how many would be in shock at what Paul said in Gal. 5:12. Certainly got his point across…
Anyway, dug up an interesting post by Jolly Blogger that is pertinent:
Some thoughts on Godly disputation, or “How to Have a Christ-like Argument.”
Posted by: MarieP at February 3, 2006 12:30 PMHey Bob, it’s just me editing my earlier comment. First, I should have used an emoticon after the first sentence so that the readers would know that my tongue was planted in my cheek. And, I “probably” should have removed the “pun intended” remark when I used the word inflammatory instead of incendiary. My faux pas.
Posted by: Patrick at February 4, 2006 07:17 AM