Everyone loves a hero.

Don't we? The one who fights against all odds. The rescuer, in spite of grave danger. The person willing to stand up on behalf of the decent citizens. Good prevailing over evil. The triumph of a well earned victory by the mighty one who can stand up tall, head held high and know he/she did what is right. Those people stir something in us. We want to cheer for them. When we think of those heroes, present day and throughout history, we ascribe certain attributes to them. Honor, strength, courage, integrity, perseverance, altruism, deep commitment to the cause. Would we ever say ambivalence is an admirable trait? Wow....David, Sampson, Joshua, Ulysses S. Grant, General Patton, Superman, Spiderman....they sure were ambivalent guys??
Then, my question is, in our culture at this time, why does ambivalence seem to be so revered?
If a person takes a stand, picks a side, chooses a God, they are often called narrow minded, intolerant, and generally viewed as less intelligent than those who do not. The one who holds the view that all gods are equal, none better or more powerful than another, none to be discounted, all equally acknowledged and respected, is often viewed as highly intelligent, tolerant, open minded, which is great right? That is of course, with the great big IF there is a God at all, because among the most open minded there is always a possibility that no God exists.

Why has personal conviction taken such a bad wrap? Why is it less "evolved" to chose a side? To love your God, whole heartedly, with every fiber of your being, to pursue a relationship with the Divine Creator and surrender your life to Him, which requires making a stand.
Those heroes we love, they are sold out, and we admire that. When a hero is needed, boy are we glad to have them! What a relief. Yet, day to day that same type of personal conviction is often looked down upon. We may even chose our favorite sporting teams with more commitment than our God. Wouldn't it be ridiculous for a sports fan to say "I esteem all sporting teams equally. I will not chose one because that would be narrow-minded and intolerant against the others." Crazy. Instead, we stand up and cheer with vigor and enthusiasm for our favorite team, passionately.
It seems to me that ambivalence doesn't really accomplish much. Could that ambivalence simply be the luxury of the comfortable? When a parent has a child dieing of cancer, when a person is in combat, daily facing the possibility of loss of life, when a devastating accident occurs, when our country encounters a terrorist attack, when one is nearing the end of his or her life, when we have our deepest moments of sorrow and despair, don't we all want to know a God then? When we need Him, don't we want Him to be there, waiting for us? Don't we desire an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful God to be our Hero? Our Rescuer? Our Eternity? Our Hope? Our Deliverer? Our Refuge? When we need a savior, don't we long for a God who is mighty to save? When reduced to life and death situations, at the end of the line, when there is no where else to turn, wouldn't most of us cry out to Him? Even those of us who were reluctant to chose a side? Yet, in daily life, when we are comfortable and quiet, when death is not immanent, it is noble to hold an open opinion toward God....or the lack thereof. I really don't get it.
Revelation 3:15-16 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.