Blog

#culture

#post-modernism

Yet many well-meaning Christians have failed to grasp how the postmodern ethos has infected (to the point of destruction) their own understanding of Christ’s command to “Love your neighbor.” In our hyper-subjective age, this command is emptied of all objective content. The result is that some cannot even conceive of a situation in which a Christian could fulfill this command in such a way that a neighbor who is loved according to God’s standards might not feel loved according to his own.

We’re Commanded to Love Our Neighbors, Not to Make Them Feel Loved

A warning I give to so many Christians is to mind definitions. We say one thing and say it from the foundational truths of Scripture— and thus the foundational truths of all Creation— and the world says the same exact thing but means something in complete contradiction. If you haven’t seen the effects yet, give it another year or two.

Words must have meaning. If God sets the definition, that is the definition.

All who think this way have fallen for the poisonous lie that hurt feelings, per se, are sufficient proof that you have failed to love your neighbor. Yet if that is so, we make Christ himself out to be a sinner! […] Indeed, Jesus was not murdered because he was too nice but because he did and said things that caused some to despise him—yet in all this he was “without sin” (Heb. 4:15 ; cf. 1 Pet. 2:22 ; 1 John 3:5).

[…]

Even so, the idea that we are commanded to make our neighbor “feel loved” is ultimately a form of relativism in Christian drag, a kind of sentimentality that holds to the form of godliness—“love your neighbor!”—while denying its true power.

[…]

If feelings are the standard, then there is no standard. There also are no constraining limits. For if making someone “feel loved” is the requirement for being loving, there is no end to what darkened hearts may demand in order to feel sufficiently loved. This is, of course, precisely what is happening everywhere in the West.

If I do not feel loved, you are not loving your neighbor. Let’s put this differently, if you don’t use my pronouns, you are being hateful and bigoted. If you don’t support marriage between these two people, it’s because you hate them. If you don’t let me teach your kids about sex and gender, you hate me.

These are lies to manipulate Christians that are not ready for the bait and switch on the word “love”. It’s a powerful play, really.

They have turned Christ’s command to love our neighbors—along with the many biblical commands to be compassionate and kind—into a blank check for the world to cash.

Christian, you say you love your neighbor? Well to love me you must do jumping jacks for three hours straight. Anything else is abject hatred. It’s one thing when the request is that we work out, but when they ask you to lie or bear false witness? To worship their idols instead of Christ? Love is not theirs to define.

Am I seeking the approval of my neighbor or of God? For if I were still trying to please my neighbor, I would not be a servant of Christ (cf. Gal. 1:10).

The audio above is from a 1959 interview with the revered Ayn Rand. In her words:

You love only those who deserve it. Man has free will. If a man wants love, he must correct his flaws and he may deserve it. But he cannot expect the unearned.

As you’ll see in the video, her philosophy on love alone, not to mention her broader philosophies, is in direct contradiction with what Christ espoused. In fact, the interviewer mentions Jesus and loving all, being our brother’s keeper.

As America shifts into a multi-plural, post-modern society, many are finding it hard to deal with and understand those that aren’t shifting. There is a push for everyone to be more “tolerant,” but the definition of that term has shifted to mean something else. What’s worse is that the new definition doesn’t work with the biggest two religions of the world.

Tolerance

“showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”

This is the definition of “tolerance” according to The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. There is a key difference between it and what the media and many Americans believe it to mean. The definition espoused by them is:

“showing willingness to accept opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”

You see the difference? We have gone from the expectation that people will allow the existence of differing opinions to the expectation that people will accept differing opinions. And not just opinions: philosophies, “truths,” religions, and more. This is post-modernism in a nutshell, actually. That each person defines their own truth, their own right and wrong.

So how does this new definition not work with the biggest religions of the world? The two biggest religions are Christianity and Islam. These two represent half of the world’s population. Christianity believes in the Ten Commandments, the first of which is “you shall have no other gods before Me.” Christianity adds, beyond that, that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. Islam says this in the Shahada creed, “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

The expectation is that we not just allow the existence of, but accept other religions as equal — and equally true — to our own. But that doesn’t work with Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Jesus says that if you’re not with me, you’re against me. This is not inclusive, but divisive and exclusionary. Christianity is very clear: we are all sinners, the wages of sin is death and after death comes Hell. If we embrace Christ, take up our cross and follow Him, we will be saved by the sacrifice He alone provided. The only way to Heaven is Jesus.

The new definition of “tolerance” stands in the face of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and calls them bigots, a term that is tied directly to “tolerance” meaning “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.” You change the definition of “tolerance” and the definition of “bigot” changes too.

According to Patheos, the Crow people are taught to “respect all religions,” which is why it might be strange to some outsiders that Crow Nation have chosen to identify Jesus as the sole messiah. — The Inquisitr

Ignorance is why “it might be strange” that a people that claim to “respect all religions” chose to “identify Jesus as the sole messiah.” One cannot be a Christian without believing Jesus to be their only salvation from the death that is due them by their sin. But one can also respect and tolerate all religions while embracing Jesus, because of the acceptance that we are all sinners, that even we were once without Christ. Disrespecting those that don’t know Jesus isn’t what Christ taught. But He did teach us to go and make disciples of the nations, to spread the Gospel, to rebuke those that spread false Gospels, and to fight the philosophies of our day.

If you believe that all religions are equally true, you must believe that Christianity is equally true to your own belief. And Christianity says that all other gods are false gods and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. A Muslim cannot believe this and their own faith. The two cannot be equal. Because 1 does not equal 0. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. Unless you are tolerant of all views. But if you were, you wouldn’t have a problem with Christians believing their own view to be the only true truth.