Attacking Christian beliefs not helpful

By MIKE TERRAL

Special to The Eagle

The Eagle ran a column by Ben Starnes (Eagle, Jan. 23) shortly after Martin Luther King Day. It dealt with the possibility that society in America might not be as enamored of King today because of the wording in his most famous speech. In that rhetoric, King indicated he felt that character should be a leading factor in assessing the worth of a person.

Starnes' point seemed to be that the definition of character is fluid and has no absolutes so King had no right to define it. Initially I was amused that we have strayed so far from King's valuable teachings such that we would actually spend one minute discussing the absolutes of character as opposed to the tenets he espoused. This would seem especially true during the season set aside to honor the wisdom of these ideals. I suspect he would not be very enamored of us, as well.

Sue Gower (Eagle, Jan. 25) wrote back saying that she felt that character was not as fluid as one might think. Her position was that God and God through Jesus was the author of those criteria, and that they did not change to meet the whims of society, no matter how much society seemed to suggest that they do.

Objective truth does not seem to care whether you believe it or not. I applaud Gower for her testimony and the courage to share it with us. I say courage because once you say God, and especially Jesus, you will invariably open yourself up to some form of ridicule from those with a differing opinion. (As an aside I have always found it curious that scientists dogmatically proclaim the absolutes of science but do not give any credence to the idea that the same God who created those absolutes might very well have considered it important that we have absolutes for how we define things such as character and righteousness, as well.)

Well, we did not have to wait long.

In the following days, two letters of opinion appeared, one challenging Gower's premise and the next supporting that challenge, quickly degenerating into a comparison of heaven with an amusement park. This is where I have a problem.

I am constantly dismayed to hear people discuss Christianity who apparently have little or no working knowledge of the subject. Admittedly I have a minimal knowledge of medicine, judicial law or physics, but at least I am not so bold as to offer my opinion publicly. I prefer to keep my ignorance on the subjects to myself.

Yet it does not seem to deter non-Christians. That is if you can describe a comparison of heaven and amusement parks as a scholarly discourse of the tenets of Christianity. What it really does is demean a glorious time in the life of a believer.

Also, believing that the understanding of some scientific mystery in the afterlife is as important as coming face to face with the author of that mystery -- well it seems a little short-sighted. If one wanted to really be taken seriously in a religious discussion, time would be better spent on grace. "Why we need it and how God so generously provides it" might be a good place to start.

Instead, we get amusement parks. Comparisons such as these show a profound lack of understanding of the faith, and a lack of courtesy towards anyone who disagrees. It is hardly worth the mental effort.

I wish we could do better. These types of comments add nothing to an intelligent discourse of the subject. Usually snide comparisons and comments are only designed to show the foolishness of the believer and the superior thinking skills of the critic.

It may amuse the scorners, but it does make me wonder if there is some validity to the comment of Jerry Fallwell many years ago on the Phil Donahue Show. Donohue took that same tone as he admonished Rev. Fallwell with, "Surely you cannot believe there is some God who would punish us with an eternal separation from Him?" You could hear the ridicule and condescension dripping from his voice just as you can hear it in the letters that followed Gower's.

I loved the reverend's response. He leaned in to Phil and without a trace of a smile said, "Phil, on the day of your judgment, I do not believe you will find this discussion nearly as humorous as you find it today."

Here is what I am trying to say: Believe whatever you choose, but I cannot think of one code of dignity or respect in which it is OK to ridicule or demean another person for what they genuinely believe. And it would seem particularly so if you are operating without any real knowledge of the subject yourself.

The letter writers may have great knowledge of Christianity, however they certainly did not demonstrate it with their remarks.

As always, genuine human respect and decency is always better than condescension and scorn.

May God bless us all.

* Mike Terral is a semi-retired teacher and coach for the College Station schools.