South Park and Religious Tolerance

A friend on FB recently lamented the contrast between the reactions of Christians to irreverent references to Jesus Christ and to irreverent references to the prophet Muhammad. In the former, he stated you will most likely be prayed for, and in the latter (if your audience is big enough) you may very well be killed. My friend referenced this story about the creators of South Park finally going after the last sacred cow (sorry for bringing in yet another reference to a world religion) of modern culture.

I found my friend's observation insightful, and I expand on it here. (Standby for the random Star Wars analogy at the end.)

First off, it is a great tragedy that people are not reverent to name of Jesus Christ (though all will be some day--see Philippians 2:10-11).

However, it says something about Christians themselves that they tend to tolerate (in the fullest sense of this word) such irreverence. In contrast, many followers of Islam will not tolerate such irreverence to Muhammad (though even this intolerance is improperly placed, as the prohibitions against depictions of Muhammad are meant to deter worship of him). You see, in this instance, the creators and producers of South Park are not avoiding reference to Muhammad out of respect to Islamic tradition and law, but rather out of a fear for their own well-being and for those who work with the show. Literally, their lives are at stake.

I'm about to draw a strange parallel, as a similar lesson was not lost on C-3PO:

Chewbacca: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh!
C-3PO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it can't help you.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2; let the Wookiee win.

I'm okay if Christians are the droids and Muslims are the Wookies. True Christian tolerance is a good thing.

Ghandi and Missiongathering

So an ad on the side of Facebook caught my eye this evening. The ad was for the self-professed "Emerging" San Diego church, "Missiongathering," whose pastor, Rich McCullen, is an open and practicing homosexual. Anyway, that's not directly where this post is headed, but it does give you a sense of Missiongathering's theology. My interest is really directed right now at the ad campaign they have for Easter. Basically, it consists of a quote by Ghandi, "Your Christians are so unlike your Christ," with the added tagline, "Missiongathering is changing this."

I don't think that Missiongathering gets the irony in their slogan (nor do I think Ghandi really understood what he was saying). I will deal with Ghandi's quote first. Ghandi intended his statement as a criticism of Christianity. Basically, how good can Christianity be if Christians aren't able to emulate their founder's life? However, the unintended point that Ghandi makes is actually one about Christ, not Christians. From the Christian perspective, it is not surprising that professed Christians would fall short of Christ's example. Christ was, is, and always will be God. Imperfect man will always be infinitely less than the perfect Christ, so from a certain point of view, Christians will always be "unlike" Christ. Christians don't claim to be perfect; instead, they claim that Jesus was perfect. Ghandi's statement can be seen as making the same point about Christ's deity. Yes, Christians are to be like Christ. However, true Christian doctrine doesn't see this process (sanctification) as an ever-increasing improvement on the same old sinner, but rather a process where "Christ in us" is more and more visible while we become less.

The irony of Missiongathering's statement is that they too are making a point that they did not intend. Missiongathering intended to imply that they are really making Christians ("people") more like Christ. Knowing a little something about their doctrine, what they are (sadly) doing is "making" Christ more like the "people" (i.e. they are portraying a false version of Christ that fits their own notions of socially-liberal post-modernism). So in a way, they are indeed making "Christians like Christ," not by bringing Christians up to Christ's standard, but by lowering Christ to reflect current society.

All of this would be comical if it weren't so grievously sad.

The Ficus of Life?

Evidently Darwin's "Tree of Life" just ain't cutting it anymore. Efforts to reconstruct a linear descent history with neat, distinct branches are being pushed aside by (*gasp*) "negative evidence." Evidently, expected results from studying the relatedness of bacteria and other simple organisms using RNA contradicts the "closest relative" that DNA would suggest, creating intertwining trees. I do not mean to suggest that this in any way proves that evolution is wrong, but, in true "Lakatosian" fashion (cf. Imre Lakatos) it adds yet another "ad hoc" fix to save the theory. Perhaps Darwin just didn't adequately distinguish the type of tree he meant? Here's to Darwin's "Ficus of Life."

See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html