| |
Letters
October 20, 2006
|
|
Dear Editor:
I read with great interest and rising astonishment the Bias-free guidelines issued by Presbyterian Women. It is an amazing document, and would be laughable were it not for the fact that it will be taken seriously by Presbyterian women and others.
First of all, I'm one of those imperialistic Christians who happen to believe in the "Great Commission." We are to go forth into all nations, baptizing them, and teaching all of Christ's commandments. I also happen to believe that it is more than coincidence that the Christian nations of the western world have measurably the highest standard of living of any other part of the planet, the greatest freedom, and the most tolerant societies. By the way, I'm also a "triumphalist," because I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ will crush all adversaries under His feet at the Last Day, and "He shall reign forever and ever." While other religions may have parts of the truth, Christianity is the one true religion.
Christianity definitely offers something better than other religions. Through Christ Jesus, the only Mediator between God and man, men and women can gain eternal life. Other religions can make no such guarantee. In fact, I even take that position which used to be part of Presbyterian orthodoxy that those who do not profess faith in Christ are likely to spend eternity in a state we hardly hear mentioned today called hell! They will be forever separated from God.
I noticed that the bias-free guidelines also had something to say about how we are to address the disabled. As a blind man myself – though they say I'm not supposed to express my condition that way – let me say that their "correct" means of talking about disability are silly. They act as though there is nothing particularly negative about a disability. Is it not better to see than to be blind? to hear than to be deaf? to be able to walk rather than be in a wheel chair? If someone has a disability, they do, in a sense, suffer. (After all, do we not hear commercials aimed at those who are "suffering" from baldness?
I once heard a blind woman say that she didn't refer to herself as "blind," because the word had negative connotations! Oh, really? Of course it has "negative connotations." Being blind means you can't see! Do these people take us all for children?
I note that many of their references seem quite scholarly and objective; but if you look a little more closely, you can clearly see that some of them have their own political agenda. So let me take this opportunity to declare that I am an adult. I do not need bias-free guidelines to tell me how to write or speak about others. I will use my own good judgment, tempered by Christian love and respect for the individual, but will not be intimidated by political correctness or mindless Soviet-style group conformity. I will continue to use terms such as AD and BC to denote the passage of years, and will not be intimidated into using terms such as BCE or CE, such is the often the case in secular literature and even in material produced for the Presbyterian Women.
Call me a contrarian and a crusty old minister if you like. I prefer to think of myself as someone who is simply proud to be an American, thankful for the gifts of western civilization, and grateful to Almighty God for making me one of His own before the foundation of the world, and bringing me to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who bought my redemption 2000 years ago on the cross at Calvary and who will – dare I say it – prevail against all rivals to His glory! Amen.
Rev. Daniel Berry
Jackson, Alabama |
| |
|
