Advent Logos

There are clear ideological differences between Christianity and the world. Many doctrines teach opposing view points, creating large divides. More often than not, we Christians find ourselves on the receiving end of mockery, slander, and belittlement. We are warned in 2 Timothy 3:12 that all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. This should not be to scare us away from living good and fruitful lives, but as a gut check as to the life we are living. We have been warned, so therefore we should expect. Expectation energizes preparation. Preparation, in the biblical sense, germinates spiritual growth.

So you’re on your spiritual journey and everything’s going great. God has blessed your life with many of his wonderful gifts. You share this love and blessing with everyone around you. Then someone comes along and publicly mocks your belief in God. Suddenly you may feel many different emotions rise up and begin to replace the peace you had with anger, fear, embarrassment, self consciousness, stupidity, or maybe even doubt. Later that evening your mind races back and forth analyzing the nuances of the interaction. What could you have done differently? In your restless mind you know that the encounter is over, but persecution will happen again. You return to God and lay this burden at his feet.

For the world, this situation is different. They don’t have a god to cast away these burdens. These encounters sit and stew for hours, days, weeks, and sometimes lifetimes. When an unchristian person is on the receiving end of persecution from the church we have to understand their position. Nobody enjoys being told they are a sinner or that they will burn in the fires of hell. Honestly, when confronted by a person using these mechanisms as a means to intimidate into conformance, most of us would rather to be in the opposite place of wherever they are.

You see, these types of exchanges go both ways. We are all human beings. We have to understand that these types of interaction are going to happen. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. What I want to do is give everyone a tool to assist in more civil communication, even if common ground cannot be found.

First, I’d like to break things down to their most basic levels.

These disagreements between ideologies is as a sociological dilemma. A sociological dilemma is simply defined as a problem or disagreement on the structure and functioning of human society.

This sociological dilemma can be boiled down even further… Tolerance.

To continue this discussion we must define what kind of culture we are living in? This is the bedrock for ALL communication. There are 3 cultures in relation to absolutes.

1. Theonomous- (Greek: Theo=God, Nomos=Law, God’s Law)- the law of God is imbedded into our hearts and we all think within the same categories and by the same moral code.
   • Example: Church, Bible Studies, Religious Groups, Utopia
2. Heteronomous- (Greek: Hetero=Other, Nomos=Law, Other Law)- Mainstream of the culture is dictated to by the leadership at the top. The few (rulers) dictate for the many. Impose upon another.
   • Example: Marxism, Islam, Communism, Company/Business, Parent/Child relationship
3. Autonomous- (Greek: Autonomy=Self, Nomos=Law, Self Law)- Each individual dictates their own moral prerogatives
   • Example: the individual, case by case basis, individuality, the self

We all fall under at least one of these. Knowing the culture you are in is paramount to understanding the outcome of an interaction. Most people would agree that we do not live in a theonomous culture. Everyone follows different gods, laws, and codes. Most would find it unsatisfactory at the minimum to live under a heteronomous culture were the few dictate to the many. The only logical conclusion then is that we live in an autonomous culture where everyone is free to choose their own moral values and structure of their own lives.

Once you understand the cultures and both parties agree on autonomy, this becomes an easy test mechanism for all interactions.

When discussing faith, religion, politics, social issues, etc: If we agree that we are an autonomous culture and I answer your questions, are you going to give me the privilege of my autonomy? Or as soon as you disagree with my answer, will you switch to heteronomous mode and dictate for me what I must believe as well?

This forces the realization that:

• the autonomy of the individual is either respected or…
• the other person misrepresented their views about autonomy and wishes to impose his/her sociological world view onto you heteronomously upon disagreement.

Things become very easy at this point. Any aggression, condemnation, mockery, or belittlement from the other party means that they only respect their own autonomy.

This can easily be seen in political discourse. Both sides are constantly undermining one another. There is a loss of respect for autonomous culture. Where/how the two parties find common ground is a topic for another time. What society has lost is a sense of tolerance. Not tolerance in the sense where one individual is mandated to forfeit morals in order for another individual to feel legitimized, but a tolerance for diversity were we understand that we are individuals with different moral prerogatives.

The world view that Christians hate the LGBT community comes from a non understanding of this topic. Christians practice a theonomous culture at their homes and church. This theonomous culture has a core set of values mandated by God, not man. As the worlds views continue to change in their heteronomous and autonomous cultures, sometimes the steadfast unchangeability of the theonomous culture and its autonomous members can be interpreted as judgmental or hateful. The autonomous members of the theonomous culture have willingly adapted their funtion to align with Gods mandates and instructions. The progressive nature of the world view, such as homosexuality, has weaponized tolerance against the church. The world view demands to be seen autonomously, but requires submission, acceptance, and legitimacy heteronomously.

Keep this framework in mind during this weeks conversations. If a disagreement of world views comes up, first agree on what culture we live in. Once autonomous culture is inevitably selected, recognize if the other person is consistent in their belief in autonomy or if they’re heteronomously dictatorial with their views during disagreement. You’ll be shocked at how many instances this framework can be implemented.

God Bless

AL