Faithful or rigid?

It was in a logic class in college that I first learned about an everyday fact of language which I had until then overlooked. There are words that describe a personal quality which are always positive in meaning, like courageous or decisive. There are other words that describe pretty much the same kind of quality, but always from a negative view; words like foolhardy or hasty.

And, indeed, most qualities of the mind or behavior can have more than one dimension. But the interesting thing is that people will tend to use only the positive orientation in regard to themselves, while employing the negative connotation of a very similar attribute in respect to others. A couple of examples: "I have convictions, you're a fanatic!"; "I speak my mind, you're harsh and judgmental!"; "I'm an individual, you're wierd."

In the religious realm, this same contrast is often used by those who want to criticize a person of a different philosophy or position; and it comes from all over the spectrum of beliefs. Conservatives may deride those of a more liberal orientation, calling them things like "heretic", "modernist" or "worldly". Liberals, meanwhile, might put down conservatives as "doctrinaire", "rigid" or "dogmatic". No one ever tries to slam his theological adversary by calling him "faithful" or "thoughtful". Instead, a critic would use terms like "reactionary" or "wishy-washy" to put the intended spin in the desired direction.

All this makes it very difficult to carry on any kind of reasoned discussion of ideas where there is more than one perspective to take, or where different but complementary ideas need to be held in proper balance. The question of traditional vs. contemporary in worship is one such area, and how to relate the unchanging truth of the Gospel to a constantly changing culture is another. Demonizing the opposite viewpoint is not helpful in resolving differences, nor is describing someone who disagrees as an "obstructionist" useful in loving one's neighbor.

But the most common kind of semantic juggling, as it affects evangelical believers these days, is the casting of those who believe in the authority of God's Word in negative terms like "exclusive", "intolerant" (which is almost like calling someone "un-American"), or even "hateful" because they dare call some lifestyles morally unacceptable. Those who still regard the Bible as fully authoritative and inerrant are derided with the kind of language one would use for the Flat-earth Society.

Yes, there are such things as "legalism", "Phariseeism", or "fanaticism". But that kind of thing only happens when human emotion or tradition replace a balanced and careful exposition of the Bible. If we let the Bible speak its own message to our hearts, we see that love is not unrestricted permissiveness, and righteousness is not unfeeling criticism and judgmentalism.

To adhere to "Thus says the Lord" instead of following the latest poll numbers or trendy cultural turn is not just a matter of doctrinal convictions; it's just common sense to stick with something so well attested by time and millions of changed lives. If that's being "stuck in the past", O.K, but at least I'm "prepared for the future".