Astronomy and Politics Through the Lens of Epistemology
How do We Know What We Know?
What is Our Method of Evaluating Truth?

Lu 9:49 John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."

Lu 9:50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

 

Yet the average Evangelical might still ask, just how stark a difference in theology would Christ have tolerated, when he said, “he who is not against you is for you”?  This question is essentially addressed by the apostle Paul when he reached out to a group of outright polytheistic pagans on Mars hill.  Paul broke through the religious barrier to respectively address the Pagans right where they were at, spiritually speaking. 

 

“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: (Acts 17:22-23 - New King James Version).

 

Rather than convincing them to renounce their entire polytheistic system, in Acts 17:23 he picks one of their gods, the unknown God, and builds his case for the true God on a premise they already accepted.  Furthermore, he delays approaching the core of pagan beliefs, and brings it up later in his address, in a more subtitle and less confrontational way.

 

 Ac 17:29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.

 Ac 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

 

Again, if the Apostle Paul could break the ice with a foreign culture of poly-theistic pagans by viewing reality through their own eyes, beliefs and world view, why can we not dialog with each other in the same way?  If Paul did not compromise his faith or beliefs in any way by doing this, why would we fear doing the same?  Could such a direct, yet respective,  dialog help us to defend each other under a growing secular threat?

 

Christians are never admonished to be “tolerant”, but to be loving and that was exactly what Paul’s Mars Hill example reflects.  Just being tolerant suggests holding one’s nose, rolling one’s eyes, and putting up with something one might disagree with.  The example of Paul at Mars Hill goes far beyond that kind of tolerance.  Yet this kind of love/tolerance cannot force any of us to compromise our views, just so we can “get along”.  I will have to deal with that subject subsequently.

 

The bottom line here is that if we are going to cooperate in any joint efforts to protect our religious freedoms, we will need to follow Paul’s example here. 

 

But if this lesson is that simple and has been in scripture since the beginning, why have Christians not employed more in the past?