I’m continuing to read Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s story of her life and transition from Muslim girl to atheist woman. Very compelling. After becoming a citizen of Holland and entering the political scene, she began to battle injustices and lack of freedom within the Islamic communities in Europe. She describes the reaction from native Dutch who found her abject criticisms of Islam to be offensive. When she spoke out against the government support of Koranic based schools because they limited critical thinking and continued oppressive views of women, the liberal Dutch thought she was giving unnecessary fodder to the hard right or anti-immigrant politicians. Here’s what she said about switching political parties:
Moreover, I felt disappointed by the Labor Party. I had joined them originally because, in my mind, social democrats stood for reform. They sought to improve people’s lives; they cared about suffering, which I thought should have meant they would care about the suffering of Muslim women. But in reality, the Labor party in Holland appeared blinded by multiculturalism, overwhelmed by the imperative to be sensitive and respectful of immigrant culture, defending the moral relativists. When I said the position of Muslim women had to change–to change now–people were always telling me to wait, or calling me right wing. Was that what they told the mine workers in the nineteenth century when they fought for workers’ rights? (p. 294).
What I find interesting is that this Muslim-turned-atheist sees the glaring hole in moral relativism. If you allow all things then you have to allow things that you really don’t think you should allow. How does one say its okay to be sexually liberal but not okay for a sub-group to be sexually restrictive and even sexually violent. The community decides and another community cannot tell a different one how to live. However, Ali doesn’t see that the very society that allows her to come and voice her opinions and to live on government dollars as a refugee (at first) is also built on that moral same relativism. Sounds like she wants freedoms but needs a system to determine which freedoms are acceptable and which are not. To build that system, you need an Ultimate Judge…

That is the same problem the emergent church is having…
Ryan, maybe. You want to say a bit more? I suspect you mean that some in the emergent church have the problem of feeling they have no business telling others what to believe. I think others who would subscribe to the title would feel quite strongly in evangelism but that more evangelism happens when we start conversations than when we use older methods…
Hrm, yes. I guess my statement regarding the emergent church was more in line with the majority thought of absolute truth being a byproduct of modernism. The quote “If you allow all things then you have to allow things that you really don’t think you should allow.” highlights the problem individuals like Bell and McClaren began having as they advanced a postmodern view on absolute truth where truth became relative. If there is no big T then all truth is just little T’s then whoever has the most power has the ability to say what the majority truth should be.
Thanks for the clarification. While I do think the postmodern critique of modernism is useful, we haven’t done such a great job distinguishing between the problem of arrogant proofs of truth (that even theologians used) and humbly admitting the necessity of the leap of faith in arguing for Christianity. There are indeed local truths and by faith we argue for the big T truth all the while knowing that we cannot prove the big T truth apart from the Spirit. This doesn’t make it less true, just makes us more willing to acknowledge our starting points. Those who have no confidence in the Spirits guidance do have little to say to others about truth. And you are right, whoever holds the power holds the right to say what truth is (at least that is how we function).