The Logical Inconsistencies of the Reaction to Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

I wanted to vent my frustrations with the logical incongruities that I keep hearing.

The basic argument goes, "Your business cannot deny service to another based on your personal convictions." The underlying concept is that the business is the purview of the public sphere and the personal convictions are just that -- personal. There are a few problems with this type of thinking. Chief among them is thinking that personal convictions can (and should?) be separated from public life. Ironically, it is a personal conviction that there should be a separation between personal and public life, so from whence does the moral high-ground come? It is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction, a law of logic that states "two opposing arguments cannot both be true." Its a fun one to remember for sure.

Secondly, the idea that those who oppose the law generally (and this is a broad stroke here) adhere to is that all points of view are equally valid. This of course is clearly under-cut because the point of view of the supporters of the law is not deemed as valid. Again, the Law of Non-Contradiction rears it's ugly head. Basically, we can sum it all up in saying those who preach tolerance have no tolerance for the intolerant. Everyone is right except for the person that says someone is wrong. Politically speaking, the easiest solution is that everyone has the right to say "no" to anyone they wish in any regard, especially when it comes to their conscience.

The response of some of my fellow Christians has been equally irksome. I have read a few posts and articles lambasting the florists and bakers for being conscientious objectors as being essentially "un-christian." The most common argument is that Jesus hung out with sinners, hookers, and tax-collectors, he drank and partied, and all those fuddy-duddies just don't understand the "real" Jesus. Never mind the fact that this come from a sub-culture of christianity that has a strong contrarian streak, this is a wrong-headed approach. The more conservative majority of christians might have a problem with tattoos and cite biblical laws that would rebuke the choice to adorn one's body with ink. But, as with all things, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and righteousness, so how can they say, "No tattoos" and you say "Bake the cakes"? What if this is a deeply held conviction or vow that this person has made before God? What if this stand has as much meaning as that piercing or tattoo that you have? You can probably see where I am going with this -- that silly Law of Non-Contradiction again. If I may be a bit reductionist (and sarcastic), the argument seems to go like this:

"Thats not how Jesus engaged His culture! You must open your arms wide and lovingly serve!"

"Jesus didn't have tattoos. That's not how He engaged his culture either."

"Don't tell me how to live!"

But really, the bigger issue here is that sometimes we try to play the role of the Holy Spirit. It is He that convicts of sin and righteousness. You maybe correct in your assessment of the Indiana Law's motivation or in questioning the application of some segments of the church's faith to their daily lives and habits, but that only means God has shown you something that, maybe, just maybe, they have not realized yet. We so often forget that the journey of faith is progressive and messy and none of us really have it down just yet. I love the story of Apollos. The dude was strong-willed and initially had wrong convictions, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him speaking, they lovingly and quietly met with him and taught him. They spared his dignity and protected his honor. If you must correct a fellow member of the Bride, at least have the decency to do it that way.

Scroggins


P.S. Since I am minimally self-aware, by my count, my logical fallacies were Generalization, Straw-man, and Appeal to Authority.

Jesus: The Way and The Guide

In the fifth chapter of the book of Matthew and then echoed in Luke chapter six and eleven, we find the beginning of the longest continuous section of Christ speaking in the New Testament. He opens with the Beatitudes, outlining characteristics that he feels are important, and goes on to speak on topics that are detrimental. His is a moral code that has high standards, and at times seems ridiculously over reaching. However, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount is a blueprint of how man was intended to live. The ideas of the sermon are written into the fabric of our society and our characters. Paradise can be achieved if we stick to these universal truths.

Jesus opens the sermon with the Beatitudes, a list of nine “Blessed are…” statements. Each reveals a character trait that man was intended to and should have. The first is “Blessed are the poor in spirit…” (Matt 5:3). E. Stanley Jones, a preacher who lived in India states in his book, Christ on the Mount, that the word Luke uses in his account of the Sermon on the Mount for “poor” indicates a man that is poor by choice, or one who is renounced in spirit. He points out the similarities of this attitude with that of Buddhism’s teachings on freedom of desire. The poor in spirit are those that seek not after things for themselves. They are renounced from this world and all its vices and pitfalls. This idea, if taken too far leads you to become ascetic or to found a hermitage, so Christ places the second beatitude behind to balance it; those who mourn.

Those who mourn, not only mourn for themselves, but also for the world around them. This is the ethic of the humanist. They are the ones that feel the pain of the hurting ones around them. The Salvation Army in its heyday took this to heart. Their pledge was, “With our hearts to God, we pledge our hands to man.” They saw the hurt and needs of others around them and literally went to the ends of the earth to heal the hurting and meet the needs. This idea can lead you to humanism, which is a stark contrast from humanitarianism, which William Booth and the Salvation Army were. The difference between the two is entirely based on their motive for action. The outward actions remain the same, but the humanist sees man as the standard and the hope. Every man is good and deserves to be happy. The humanitarian believes that Christ is the standard. Man is created in His image and therefore afforded a certain amount of dignity. The humanitarian motive is Christ’s commands, not the rights of man.

The third Beatitude is a combination of them both. It is about the meek. The meek are the synthesis of the two previous thoughts. Hegel spoke of the process of a thought being thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We see the concept in play here. The poor in spirit renouncing all that they are, choosing to have, seek, and be affected by nothing, opposed to those who mourn, who feel the hurts and groaning of the world around them, blend and coalesce into something greater: the meek. Andrew Murray states in his book Humility, that it is the virtue from which all other virtues flow. We find in the meek a people who care not for the things that they can gain, but care deeply for the things that others can gain. The all of society was set-up to thrive on this. J.M. Roberts, in his book History of the World theorizes that society would not have been possible if a willingness to work together had not been there i.e. to place the needs of others on par with or above your own. The proletariat that Marx was searching for are the meek. Those that would rather have others do well than themselves. If society were full of people of this caliber what would the world look like?

In the next set of three we see the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis of judgment, mercy, and justice. Those that desire righteousness can be hard and cold like the Pharisees that Christ condemned. The church sometimes in its past is guilty of this attitude, concerned so much with being pure and righteous that they become legalistic. Then there are the merciful. They can be taken to the extreme of having no backbone or being a push over. Think of a world where no one is held accountable for their actions; where there is no responsibility whatsoever. This ethic, applied to life and unbalanced, would produce a society of brats and fools, and the character of society would be reprehensible and offensive. The syntheses of the two are the pure in heart. The Pure in Heart seek to see justice done. Whether that be mercy for some and judgment for others, they want it to be done. Justice is the virtue that is valued by all peoples; it was the chief aim of most Roman thought. It was said that when a new emperor was crowned in Rome, they would bless him by saying, “May you be as successful as Augustus and as just as Trajan.” Justice is a trait that is valued across every cultural line.
The next set of three stray from this pattern and present to us a progression of what happens to those that love and stand up for peace. First you are reviled, and then you are persecuted. Over and over again, we see this pattern through history. One example is during the Terror of the French Revolution, the ones that spoke out for peace and understanding between the Jacobins, Royalists, and the others were invariably the first to be put under the guillotine. The term “unpatriotic” was hung around their neck and they were lead to slaughter. Madness always seeks to silence the voice of reason first.

After Christ reveals character traits that are to be admired, he then shows us how such character is displayed. The heart of this is in Luke 6:31 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Here we find the contra-positive of conventional thinking. Usually one would not do unto others as they would not want them do unto themselves, yet Christ tells us to take the proactive step and initiate. By giving our tunic also and going the extra mile we cease hostilities. Peace is brought into the situation by the sheer force of love. He explains that it is really something if we love those that have wronged us. And not love like a Meg Ryan movie, but love that is a choice; love that wills nothing but the best for its object. Lactantius, an early father of the church who lived in the 4th century said this, “What else is the preservation of humanity than to love a man because he is a man and the same as ourselves?....If it is contrary to nature to injure a man, it must be in accordance with nature to benefit a man. And he who does not do this deprives himself of the titles of a man”.

The word that the authors of the Bible use to express this idea is a Greek word agape. In the King James Version in some places it is rendered as “charity.” This connotes a choice of the will and not an emotional experience; although the emotions can certainly be involved, the will is central in Christ’s idea of love. India and Gandhi put this into practice during their struggle for independence from the British Empire as did Martin Luther King during his struggle against segregation. The sheer power of agape overcame hatred, bigotry, and violence. In this idea we see the healing power of love mend the hurts and ills of societal breakdowns.

The teachings revealed in the Sermon on the Mount are the balanced interplay of many of the world’s philosophies and views, however only Jesus pieces them together in a manner that makes each idea enhance and strengthen the other. For a man to expound such truths is no new thing to the world. Many teachers have hit on bits and pieces, but only Christ gives us the whole. Not only did he give us the whole, but he also walked from the grave. When a man tells us how to live we may take that with a grain of salt, but when a man tells us how to live while wiping the dust form the tomb off of his radiant clothes, the only thing we may take is notice. Christ’s life and teachings reveal to us the way that man is supposed to be. E. Stanley Jones says this:

“He did not merely ask men to turn the other cheek when smitten on the one, to go the second mile when compelled to go one, to give the cloak also when sued at the law and the coat was taken away, to love our enemies and to bless them-He Himself did these very things. The servants struck him on one cheek, He turned the other and the soldiers struck Him on that; they compelled Him to go with them one mile --from Gethsemane to the judgment hall --He went with them two --even to Calvary. They took away His coat at the judgment hall and He gave them His seamless robe at the cross; and in the agony of the cruel torture of the cross He prayed for His enemies, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ 
He did not merely tell us that death need have no terror for us --He rose from the dead, and lo, the tomb now glows with light.
Many teachers of the world have tried to explain everything --they have changed little of nothing. Jesus explained little and changed everything.
Many teachers have tried to diagnose the disease of humanity --Jesus cures it….Many philosophers speculate on how evil entered the world --Jesus presents Himself as the way by which it shall leave”.

-Scroggins