Over on the Evangel blog, Kevin DeYoung has one of the most offensive posts I’ve ever read:
Offendedness is just about the last shared moral currency in our country. And, I’m sorry, but it’s really annoying. We don’t discuss ideas or debate arguments, we try to figure out who is most offended. Buddhists are offended by Brit Hume. Christians are offended that critics disparage Brit Hume. Republicans are offended by Harry Reid’s comments about President Obama. If the shoe were on the other partisan foot, you can bet Democrats would be offended for President Obama (who can legitimately be offended by Reid’s remarks). Whenever someone makes a public gaffe, whether real or perceived, critics storm the microphones to let the world know how offended they are. Why is everyone in such a hurry to be hurt?
For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?
January 15th, 2010 | 11:37 am
I’m offended that this yahoo thinks I shouldn’t be able to take offense whenever I want to.
January 15th, 2010 | 1:14 pm
I tried several time posting this comment on the Evangel blog, but for some reason it wouldn’t take:
The act of being offended is the means of applying shame upon the person/group perceived in need of behavioral/societal adjustment. This is from a FirstThings blog entry by Ralph Hancock, August 19, 2009:
the harsh regime that not long ago excluded unwed mothers from respectable society has now been softened considerably, as was no doubt necessary. But now (even in very conservative religious circles) we are so “understanding” and “forgiving,” concerned to continue to fellowship the offender, that all natural shame is removed, and a pregnant teenager might expect to continue socializing with the good girls as if nothing were the matter.
Very kind and compassionate, no doubt — but is it really, in the long run, a service to the community to remove the stigma from selfish and irresponsible acts.
The deeper problem: how do the obligations of Christian charity stand in relation to the claims of natural justice and shame? Or, what happens when we try to make the exception (forgiveness) the rule (justice)? Are not both perverted?
Is it possible to apply the burden of shame by some other means? Furthermore, without the public demonstration of being offended, would the offender(s) still understand the reason for their punishment?
January 15th, 2010 | 2:34 pm
The implication is that the offended party, by expressing its indignance, is indicating that they consider themselves justifiably loosed from the normal restraints and obligations of moral and social contracts. If they were called to back up their position in some way, they’d be largely impotent, and they’re helped in this by the quasi-respect given to what is basically an arrogant and cowardly attitude.
In a different form, however, it’s an ancient tactic of tribes and nations; for instance, the Chinese and Israeli governments practice it all the time, though while it’s the same as the above in selfishness, it’s different in its emphasis on indicating that they consider themselves justifiably loosed from restraints on aggression. It may be real or a bluff.
The opposite tactic for tribes and nations, but employed to the same ends is, for instance, in China, what’s well-termed as inscrutability, and in Israel, a cool exterior implying a cold potential for violence. (True heros, however, say nothing and indicate nothing; they only act. That is to say that true heroes are almost never found from among nations, rather from among individuals.)
The West, especially the UK and the USA tend to hew to the 19thC British Empire style of comportment among their fellow nations: lots of noise about good intentions but doing whatever the they wanted, usually the opposite of good intentions.
In the USA, perhaps more than anywhere else, the ethos of the public is reflected in that of the government and vice versa; the behavior is highly contagious and little or no measures are taken against it, especially as it promises the benefits mentioned in the very first sentence. We shouldn’t be surprised that TV characters act as we do, and we as they do, that Congress act as we do, and they as we.
Individuals won’t submit to any burden of shame if a society imposes none, and once the bands are off, little chance of getting them on again in the normal course of things. Nations will submit to a burden of shame by the conscience of a critical mass of their citizens, the conscience of a powerful leader, utter defeat, or some combination of these, but it’s not guaranteed.
It usually takes a crisis for an individual to reform, too, but, also, they might not. Most refuse to fix the flickering border between the conscience and the will on one side, and the compulsive ego on the other, and let themselves fall on the side that beckons noisily rather than step to the side that bids with wisdom.
Mankind’s problems are too much for him.
January 15th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
You either believe the same as Brit Hume – that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light and that no one comes to the Father but through Him…and Tiger needs to ask forgiveness for his sins to receive Christ’s forgiveness and love – or you believe there are other ways to do this. Forget whether or not Hume should’ve shared the advice at that time, on that program, or in his role. You either believe what he said is correct or wrong. Read more about it in “Politics and Religion: Knowing Little But Never Being Wrong” – http://richardtgarner.blogspot.com/2010/01/politics-and-religion-knowing-little.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact