Not just Jell-o

I've grown weary of always seeming defensive. Why should I have to apologize for being everything the media and "open-minded, free-thinkers" find offensive? I believe what I believe, because I believe it is the correct way, just as others who hold to their own opinions believe theirs is. I don't recall having told any of them to "stop watching CNN and think for yourself." I may have attempted to engage them in rational, logical debate; however, there is nothing wrong with that. Since when is discussion wrong? If you can run a commercial about saving the environment, then I should be able to run a commercial about saving the fetuses. Right? No?
Being a Lutheran, apparently, is also wrong. Despite his kindesses about our singing, a certain Minnesota author doesn't really like us. By the way, since the invention of the "praise band" even Lutherans are losing their ability to sing--it has nothing to do with harmonies printed in a certain hymnal published in 1982.
We Lutherans are not all about guilt and stubbornness and coffee and Jell-o. It is not a mindset to be escaped--released from its prison-like constraints. It is a doctrine to be grasped. I know, I know--we're not the only ones going to heaven. We do, however, speak of our doctrine as a correct exposition of scripture. That's the point. We believe what we do because we believe it is the correct exposition of scripture. Why be that which one thinks is otherwise? Luther wrote 95 points about how the church of his time missed the mark; our forbears left their homeland because they disagreed with having a sterile, empty faith thrust upon them by a government wanting everybody to "just get along". This is why we tend to be vociferous when it comes to doctrine. A little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump.
Certain strains of Lutheran have gotten watered down over the years, and have fallen into the "just get along" mindset, going so far as to agree to disagree with Rome over that whole Reformation thing--one CTSFW professor referred to it as "The Augsburg Concession".
When it comes right down to it, what we believe is simple: We are sinners, Christ died in our place and rose so that we may be heirs of heaven. It's not that we did anything to help it. Maybe that's why Lutheranism is so hard in catching on. It's too simple. To much confession and absolution and not enough work on our part. Maybe I'm being defensive again.

In Old News. . .

Via the "I Wish I Had Said That Files" comes my take on the over-commented, over-played, over-blogged case of Carrie Prejean. I've come to the conclusion that Perez Hilton has become a byword. (According to my 10th edition of Mirram Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a byword is "one that personifies a type.") In this case, he--or at least his actions--personifies the type of person who is zealous towards his cause, and will defend anyone who contradicts that for which he stands. There are many people as such. The reason he has become a byword, however, is that he embodies the contradictions of postmodernism. The Life Sherpa said it best:

"[Miss California] promptly got stomped on by the Politically Correct Liberal
Action Tem. The team motto: 'We respect your right to express an
opinion--as long as that opinion is the same as ours.' "

I have a feeling we're going to see more Perez Hilton questions in the future regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and all those things of which Christians are opposed. I guess we shouldn't expect to win any beauty pagents any time soon.
By the way, anybody know who DID win?

Tolerance

I am rather weary of the word “tolerate” and its other related word “tolerance.” I remember these words cropping up like weeds in high school. Despite growing up in a “conservative” area, the ideology of my public high school was very secular humanist. Even then, however, I was wary of the words. I always defined “tolerate” as something one really didn’t like, but lived with because there was no choice—like lima beans for dinner. The one eating must tolerate the lima beans in order to get to the dessert. (Let me say for the record: I actually like lima beans. Maybe I should say celery instead, as I loathe celery.)
Today “tolerate” and “tolerance” carry the implied definition of “one of the majority must deal with any minority-influenced ideology or lifestyle or habit or action one disagrees with and must not say anything lest one be branded a closed-minded bigot.” Okay, maybe that’s over the top, but can people fully disagree when they hear it used in such a manner in media soundbites?
Tolerance is the natural outgrowth of postmodernism, it seems. There is no right and wrong, only what works for the individual. There are no universals left. Since we can’t agree on things because we have no foundation for what is true, good, right, and decent, the only available option is to agree to disagree. Such agreement becomes tolerance because we are both immovable.
The problem is that whether one recognizes truth or not, it is still there. There are still issues that cannot be “tolerated”. If it were truly so, the police would have to tolerate speeders, murderers, and those driving while intoxicated. Rapists must be tolerated for their lifestyle choice, as would child and spouse abusers. They have every right to live the way they wish. Yes, this is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. There seems to be a point where common society cannot tolerate certain ideologies.
I would agree with the man who stated that tolerance is not love and suggested one tells their spouse, “I tolerate you,” instead of, “I love you.” It’s awfully cold to be sleeping in the doghouse these days. We should love people and not tolerate them. We should not tolerate their behavior but help them change. I will fully recognize gray areas here. In a perfect world this would work perfectly. Of course, in a perfect world this would not be an issue. A teacher cannot tolerate her students hitting each other on the playground. The behavior would be addressed, and the students would work towards correcting the behavior. The teacher would still love the students. To do otherwise, the teacher would not be diligent in her vocation. How can it be any different with us and our neighbor?