toliveischrist.info

“Thou shalt not disagree”

Sunday, October 16th, 2005

The latest EU slogan that we are hearing bandied about is ‘Unity in diversity’, a testament to the values of tolerance and acceptance that the EU is proud to espouse. The general idea is that although we all may come from different backgrounds and have different ideas on various issues, we believe that it is more important that we are united rather than opposed to one another. Therefore, we have made a commitment to celebrate those differences rather than use them as weapons against one another. We are completely inclusive and tolerant of people and ideas that are divergent and contrary to our own. In fact, the only view that is unacceptable is the view that another view is unacceptable. Of course, this is postmodernism (see next entry to come for more on PM) at its finest; with the foundations being laid for the past decade or so in society, it has now come to full maturity in this vision statement of the European Union.

You can probably sense it coming… Surely I’m not going to attack this too, you may be thinking… Oh yes I am ☺ Once again, we have a really great idea – encompassing great values such as inclusivity, equality and tolerance – and once again we have an example of something that I could not disagree with more heartily. Is it that I don’t believe in these values? By no means. Let’s break down this statement a bit more to see what it really means…

I have already laid out the basic premiss of ‘unity in diversity’; basically, unity is achieved through celebrating our differences and making sure that everyone’s voice is heard, no matter how outrageous, new or different that view is. The only heresy is somehow to suggest that someone may be wrong – the unity would then be broken. The golden rule is that someone’s right to be different (diversity) must never be violated and must always be accommodated (result=unity). Whilst engaging in an intellectual debate with someone who has embraced this philosophy, you are very likely to be greeted with a retort that looks something like:

“I may disagree with your view, but I will defend to the death your right to voice it.”

…which, loosely translated, basically means – ‘I think you’re wrong and probably think less of you for holding those views but that’s ok because I have managed to convey exactly that without offending anyone or violating your right to be different.’ This person has somehow contrived to celebrate your diversity and maintain unity with you whilst managing never actually to engage with your argument. He has both soundly rejected and incorporated your views into his worldview. You feel affirmed. Unity in diversity has been achieved.

Ok, so it sounds a bit superficial, you may say – people don’t say anymore what they really think -, but surely it’s a good thing if people are getting on more and more and falling out less and less…? Is it, though? As a free-thinking human being, surely my most basic right (which can never be taken away from me) is the right to come to my own conclusions. I am free to choose what I think and believe and obviously a good education and an abundance of information is important in this process but ultimately it is a path which I must be allowed to trace myself and any infringement that amounts to a dictation of terms in this area would constitute nothing other than slavery or indoctrination. I cannot be told what to think. It is not only through my own personal research, education and reading, however, that I shape my views, but also through discussion and debate with other well-informed people. So… with that in mind, just picture any scenario in which two people who are both well-read and well informed about the subject they are talking about, but with very different views, attempt to have a discussion. With a UiD approach, every time they come to a contentious point, they simply retreat into their respective corners having traded no intellectual blows. They may have heard what the other person believes but because it is their a priori intention to accommodate the other person’s view, they have neither challenged it, nor received a challenge to their own view. So, rather than having gained anything from the discussion, they leave even more smug in the correctness of their own view and (quite possibly) disgusted at the closed-mindedness of the other person but affirmed in having maintained the peace. If they had engaged, however, they may have found a few surprises; had some of their own preconceptions about the other person’s view overturned or corrected; and their own understanding, whether their view changed or not, would ultimately have been furthered. This approach is actually fostering more ‘closed-mindedness’ than free-thinking. I will find that I can not say what I actually think on various issues because if my view is absolute I would be implying that the other person is wrong. At the very least I tone down my view. My intellectual integrity is whittled away and my understanding is cuccooned by tolerance and obscured by a haze of political correctness and ‘progressive values’.

Now, what I am not trying to do here is to pick holes in the postmodern process. While I have highlighted a few problems in the postmodern approach, (or at least those captured by the ‘unity in diversity’ philosophical statement), I’m am sure at the same time that it IS actually quite possible to have a robust intellectual interaction with someone who follows this philosophy [it sounds like I’m adding the same disclaimer here myself now, doesn’t it... ]. It would be unfaithful to this process but it would be possible. What I am trying to show, really, is that the unity that ‘unity in diversity’ creates is a false unity. It is a unity that is held together by a lie. I don’t ‘actually’ agree with the other person but I will dress up my disdain/disagreement with a ‘celebration’ of his right to say what he thinks and all for the purpose of keeping the peace and making me appear to be a jolly good fellow for being so tolerant and inclusive. I’m not ‘actually’ being tolerant and inclusive because I probably think he’s a idiot for thinking in the way he does, but I must needs give the impression that I am not rubbishing his ideas because unity is an absolute value. But hold on, there are no absolute values… er, well, never mind about that. Unity is good, yeah!

Ok, so I’ve started to mock… but it really is no laughing matter. When this unity collapses (and it will, especially if all that is holding it together is disagreement), it will expose all the resentment and ill-will that it currently is concealing. So, as we can see, this great manifesto statement that captures the ethical worldview of today’s Europe, is actually not so great. ‘Progress’ has never been so deceitful.

But let’s look at an idea of unity that does work… and it’s a simple matter of switching two words around. How about if our statement changed from ‘unity in diversity’ to ‘Diversity in unity’? What if the unity we so desperately sought after already existed and our task was simply to work out how to deal with the differences in a responsible and mature way, bringing them out into the open rather than concealing them? Can you see how diametrically opposed such an idea would be to the whole concept of ‘unity in diversity’ that we have explored above…? In UiD, the onus is on us to try to ‘create’ unity (which ultimately proves to be false and inherently unstable), whereas in DiU, the unity already exists. In UiD, we conceal our differences with a facade of tolerance but in DiU, we confront the differences directly with a view to dealing with them, not accommodating them. So how on earth would I go about trying to gain such a unity? If it doesn’t originate in us (in that it is created by an outside agent) then surely it is beyond our grasp and purely a conceptual dream??

Well, alongside the promise of forgiveness and eternal life that Jesus, the Christ and Son of God, offers us, he also offers us this unity. You see, when someone puts their trust in Jesus for salvation and life in both now and the hereafter, Jesus has already promised to unite all such people in a manner that is not only perfect but supremely powerful – with his own presence. When someone becomes a Christian – a decision not to be taken lightly (no life and death decision is) – Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, the fullness of God himself, to live in us and with us. All Christians are ‘united in Christ’. They are members of one body. A body does not fight against itself, it will only attack a foreign body; a body has many parts which are all different (diverse!) but they all belong to one body (united). They are also inherently ‘already’ united – they cannot exist apart from the body. The physical body is the best example of ‘Diversity in unity’. The Christian fellowship of believers (the holy catholic church in the Creed – not to be confused with ‘Roman Catholic’) are described in the Bible as the Body of Christ and they are all those followers of Christ worldwide – regardless of denomination – who believe and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, sanctification and redemption (three words that are [v.important] Christian ‘jargon’ but you can look them up for their meaning and the theological weight attached to them if you are interested in exploring further – no time to explain them here).

Do you see the significance of this unity? No work at all needs to be done to achieve it since it is created by the Holy Spirit – God himself – and no pretence needs to be adopted since we cannot do anything to earn or create it; we simply come as we are and receive it, just as we receive the promise of life in Jesus’ name (indeed, we receive both at the same time). No Christian can ever subscribe to ‘unity in diversity’ because it goes against everything that they stand for. Hence I am making a stand now, trying to expose UiD for the fraud that it is (even when applied in a Christian context – maybe especially so) and hoping to point you in the direction of the only place where true unity can ever exist: in a relationship with the Creator of the universe and Maker of each and every one of us, Jesus Christ.

[He also died and rose again, by the way, so that anyone who puts their trust in him can be reconciled with their Maker and spend eternity with him. Oh, and I do find it horrendous that I am including the main gospel message here simply as a ‘postscript’ but the main point of the piece does not discuss it so, in the interest of remaining faithful to the main point of the entry I have alluded to it only but, make no mistake, while not directly coming into the argument, it is the key to everything I have just said! ☺]

So, to conclude: Which unity do you prefer? The false peace of ‘unity in diversity’ or the iron-clad stability found in a relationship with Christ, through his sacrifice then and Lordship now, resulting in ‘DIVERSITY (many members of every tribe, tongue and race) IN UNITY (the body of Christ)’…?

Tags: Politics, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off