http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/10/nyt.kristof/index.html
Giving God a Break
Nicholas D. Kristof
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Posted: 7:14 AM EDT (1114 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God must be feeling dizzy, listening to American evangelicals pray for help in converting Muslims from their vile faith while Muslims appeal for assistance in stomping out bloodthirsty Christian infidel invaders.
So maybe God, along with all of us, will find relief following a milestone last month: some leading evangelicals called on their own prophets of pugnacity to zip it. We can, er, pray, that responsible Muslim leaders will follow that wise example and similarly rein in their own extremists.
The "loving rebuke" by conservative Christians of their fire-breathing brethren came at a Washington conference. This helped move us back from the clash of civilizations that hard-liners in both Islam and Christianity are pushing us all toward.
Franklin Graham, Billy's son, has led the call to arms with blasts like his description of Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion." In addition, Pat Robertson dismissed Muhammad as "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic, a robber and brigand," and Jerry Vines, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, labeled Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile."
Mr. Graham is not a nut. His Samaritan's Purse organization is an exceptionally well-managed charity that provides $150 million annually in food and medical care in some of the grimmest corners of the third world.
Still, he clearly subscribes to that essential human conceit that God is on the pew beside us, a member of our own sect. As Spinoza noted, "If a triangle could speak, it would say . . . that God is eminently triangular."
The repudiation of the radical comments on Islam reflects the way the evangelical movement has grown increasingly tolerant over the years. Now even the most conservative adherents no longer give the impression that they are gathering piles of rocks to deal with gays or single mothers. Vituperations about Islam are a throwback, not the trend.
The National Association of Evangelicals "has gone through periods of time when our differentiating value was the things we were against," says Ted Haggard, the new president of the organization. "One of the reasons the board selected me is that I am a strong advocate of the things we are for."
"I am for people being born again," he added. "I am for people reading the Bible; I am for people receiving the benefits that Jesus has to offer and looking to Jesus as a model for life and godliness. These ideas are so positive that if we can communicate that, we don't need to spend so much time articulating the things we are against."
That message of evangelizing for one's own beliefs rather than against heretics is one that Muslim extremists should absorb.
To be sure, Mr. Haggard and other evangelical leaders don't seem to disagree fundamentally with the loudmouths; they just think that insults make bad public relations and put missionaries at risk.
"It's really a concern about safety," not doctrine, said Clive Calver, president of World Relief, an evangelical aid group, and he adds about Christian aid workers: "These people are in danger. I don't want to see them killed."
The demonization of Islam by the Christian right always seemed opportunistic. Cal Thomas, the evangelical commentator, notes that both left and right need enemies to galvanize fund-raising, and he adds: "The right has been looking for an enemy to replace communism since 1990. And maybe Islam is it."
Nonetheless, even if it's about P.R. more than substance, the step toward civility is important. My conversations with Muslims around the world have left me convinced that nobody has done more harm to America's image in the Islamic world than Franklin Graham and those like him. So let's all hope that Mr. Graham keeps his mouth zipped and focuses on what he does superbly: aid work.
President Bush, the world's No. 1 evangelical, can help. Mr. Bush's own trajectory reflects the softening of the religious right. In 1994 in Texas, Mr. Bush endorsed sodomy laws aimed at homosexuals; in contrast, as president Mr. Bush has appointed an openly gay man to be an ambassador.
Mr. Bush displayed real moral leadership after 9/11 when he praised Islam as a "religion of peace" and made it clear that his administration would not demonize it. He should now join the evangelical leadership in repudiating remarks by religious zealots who preach contempt for other religions — and then we should demand that Saudi and Yemeni leaders repudiate their own zealots.
Nicholas D. Kristof is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.
Giving God a Break
Giving God a Break
Not all those who wander are lost. J.R.R Tolkien
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
While I applaud the attempt to tone down the rhetoric (and agree that Bush's immediate post-9/11 rhetoric was impressively muted in this area), inevitably not everyone will get the offered clue, as evidenced by the below.
(DISCLAIMER: As the "web guy" at my office, I often end up getting all kinds of strange e-mail dumped on me because no one knows where else to send it (and I have mastered the arcane art of archive folders). Recently, I started getting forwarded all mail addressed to someone who is, er, "pursuing other business opportunities." This guy never met a mailing list he didn't like, and I get everything from nasty porn ads to, well, this.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that I don't get Jerry Falwell's newsletter by choice, it just sort of shows up in my inbox. It's always a hoot to read, though.)
----------------------------------
Falwell Confidential
Date: May 23, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell
THE 'LOVING REBUKE'
Earlier this month, a group of religious figures gathered in Washington, D.C., in order to publicly condemn recent remarks on Islam and Mohammed by evangelical leaders, including me.
These leaders from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) stated that they wished to "lovingly rebuke" those who have made controversial statements regarding Islam. In addition to me - while none of us were officially named - those targeted included evangelist Franklin Graham, CBN President Pat Robertson, Prison Fellowship Founder Chuck Colson and Dr. Jerry Vines, a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and current pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville.
The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the NAE and pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said at the meeting, "Since we are in a global community, no doubt about it, we must temper our speech and we must communicate primarily through actions."
The paradox is that none of the Christian leaders I mentioned were in attendance at this organized rebuke, which was titled, Consultation on Evangelical Christian-Muslim Relations. With the exception of Franklin Graham, who is a member of the NAE, none of us were even invited. In fact, I learned of the meeting only after being contacted by reporters from the Washington Post and the New York Times who were doing stories on the event.
I later learned that Rev. Haggard, who was only recently elected to his position, was not fully aware of the serious charges that would be made. Having talked with him since the meeting, I am convinced of his sincerity when he declares the event was not intended to be a personal rebuke of anyone. In fact, Rev. Haggard advised Mark DeMoss, publicist for Franklin Graham, in writing that he personally agreed with Franklin's critical comments about Islam.
However, other NAE executives - perhaps craving a bit of the national spotlight - had scheduled the meeting before Rev. Haggard was recently elected president.
No one believes these other officials were naïve when they painstakingly invited the major media to such a meeting. Clearly, their intent was to slam everyone who has criticized Islam and pat themselves on the back for taking their own designation of the high road.
Thankfully, NAE officials also reiterated their commitment to witnessing in the Muslim world and criticized the "naïve" approach of the World Council of Churches, which has attempted to blur theological lines in its efforts of inclusion.
Nevertheless, this meeting clearly violated Scripture, particularly Matthew 18.
In an E-mail to Rev. Haggard, Dr. Vines - referring to the biblical policy of rebuke set forth in Matthew - said he was confused by the manner of the so-called "rebuke."
"I must say I am really amazed at a 'loving rebuke' being issued to a brother none of you know, and in the public secular media, at that," Dr. Vines wrote.
He continued, "'Rebuke' is a pretty strong word. As I understand it, personal sin must be involved before a rebuke is issued. I would like for you to point out to me what my sin was for which you issued me a 'loving rebuke.'"
The Bottom Line
The fact is that we, as Christian leaders, do have a biblically-ordained responsibility to reach out with the Gospel of Christ to all people, including Muslims. This is not a popular concept with many on the left. But our responsibility is to Christ, and not our earthly critics, as we strive to do His will.
At the same time, there exists a fine line between evangelism and candidness. While we reach out with the Gospel, we must also retain our right to disapprove of the scores of violent occurrences that take place - frequently at the cost of Christian lives - at the hands of militant Muslims worldwide.
The politically-correct notion is to pretend these actions do not exist so that the lives of American missionaries and fellow believers in Muslim nations will not be placed at risk.
As Wesley Pruden, editor in chief of the Washington Times, said, the translation is, "We've got to say how peaceful they are, or they'll kill us."
Robert Spencer, adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, recently said it is important that evangelical leaders not downplay the truth that "Christians continue to be persecuted all over the Muslim world."
He said if evangelical leaders are going to be challenged in their interpretations of Islam, then those who are intent on promoting it as a peaceful religion need to confront the "unpleasant facts" about Islam too.
This is not a dilemma that will soon go away. Like any problem, we must address it wisely and prayerfully. I have committed to being more sensitive in my personal remarks about the followers of Islam.
In the meantime, we must commit, as never before, to convey the Gospel of Christ - the only solution to the world's problems - to all people.
(DISCLAIMER: As the "web guy" at my office, I often end up getting all kinds of strange e-mail dumped on me because no one knows where else to send it (and I have mastered the arcane art of archive folders). Recently, I started getting forwarded all mail addressed to someone who is, er, "pursuing other business opportunities." This guy never met a mailing list he didn't like, and I get everything from nasty porn ads to, well, this.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that I don't get Jerry Falwell's newsletter by choice, it just sort of shows up in my inbox. It's always a hoot to read, though.)
----------------------------------
Falwell Confidential
Date: May 23, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell
THE 'LOVING REBUKE'
Earlier this month, a group of religious figures gathered in Washington, D.C., in order to publicly condemn recent remarks on Islam and Mohammed by evangelical leaders, including me.
These leaders from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) stated that they wished to "lovingly rebuke" those who have made controversial statements regarding Islam. In addition to me - while none of us were officially named - those targeted included evangelist Franklin Graham, CBN President Pat Robertson, Prison Fellowship Founder Chuck Colson and Dr. Jerry Vines, a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and current pastor of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville.
The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the NAE and pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said at the meeting, "Since we are in a global community, no doubt about it, we must temper our speech and we must communicate primarily through actions."
The paradox is that none of the Christian leaders I mentioned were in attendance at this organized rebuke, which was titled, Consultation on Evangelical Christian-Muslim Relations. With the exception of Franklin Graham, who is a member of the NAE, none of us were even invited. In fact, I learned of the meeting only after being contacted by reporters from the Washington Post and the New York Times who were doing stories on the event.
I later learned that Rev. Haggard, who was only recently elected to his position, was not fully aware of the serious charges that would be made. Having talked with him since the meeting, I am convinced of his sincerity when he declares the event was not intended to be a personal rebuke of anyone. In fact, Rev. Haggard advised Mark DeMoss, publicist for Franklin Graham, in writing that he personally agreed with Franklin's critical comments about Islam.
However, other NAE executives - perhaps craving a bit of the national spotlight - had scheduled the meeting before Rev. Haggard was recently elected president.
No one believes these other officials were naïve when they painstakingly invited the major media to such a meeting. Clearly, their intent was to slam everyone who has criticized Islam and pat themselves on the back for taking their own designation of the high road.
Thankfully, NAE officials also reiterated their commitment to witnessing in the Muslim world and criticized the "naïve" approach of the World Council of Churches, which has attempted to blur theological lines in its efforts of inclusion.
Nevertheless, this meeting clearly violated Scripture, particularly Matthew 18.
In an E-mail to Rev. Haggard, Dr. Vines - referring to the biblical policy of rebuke set forth in Matthew - said he was confused by the manner of the so-called "rebuke."
"I must say I am really amazed at a 'loving rebuke' being issued to a brother none of you know, and in the public secular media, at that," Dr. Vines wrote.
He continued, "'Rebuke' is a pretty strong word. As I understand it, personal sin must be involved before a rebuke is issued. I would like for you to point out to me what my sin was for which you issued me a 'loving rebuke.'"
The Bottom Line
The fact is that we, as Christian leaders, do have a biblically-ordained responsibility to reach out with the Gospel of Christ to all people, including Muslims. This is not a popular concept with many on the left. But our responsibility is to Christ, and not our earthly critics, as we strive to do His will.
At the same time, there exists a fine line between evangelism and candidness. While we reach out with the Gospel, we must also retain our right to disapprove of the scores of violent occurrences that take place - frequently at the cost of Christian lives - at the hands of militant Muslims worldwide.
The politically-correct notion is to pretend these actions do not exist so that the lives of American missionaries and fellow believers in Muslim nations will not be placed at risk.
As Wesley Pruden, editor in chief of the Washington Times, said, the translation is, "We've got to say how peaceful they are, or they'll kill us."
Robert Spencer, adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, recently said it is important that evangelical leaders not downplay the truth that "Christians continue to be persecuted all over the Muslim world."
He said if evangelical leaders are going to be challenged in their interpretations of Islam, then those who are intent on promoting it as a peaceful religion need to confront the "unpleasant facts" about Islam too.
This is not a dilemma that will soon go away. Like any problem, we must address it wisely and prayerfully. I have committed to being more sensitive in my personal remarks about the followers of Islam.
In the meantime, we must commit, as never before, to convey the Gospel of Christ - the only solution to the world's problems - to all people.
Jerry Falwell and organized religion
lukpac wrote:I just have this to say:
"Jerry Falwell: Is That Guy A Dick Or What?"
Jerry Falwell is just one of those guys that I want to smack around whenever I hear him say something stupid, which is frequent.
I'm generally a pretty religious guy. I'm not fanatical, but I'm definitely not an atheist, or even agnostic. I feel I'm open minded enough to treat religion from an academic standpoint when necessary.
Jerry Falwell, and people like him, bother me, because they seem to have a "my way or the highway" attitude about Christianity. Not only do they want everyone to be Christian, but often it's a case of their brand of Christianity is the only right choice.
Here we have Falwell wanting to convert Muslims to Christianity, as if Christianity is better than Islam. I'm pretty sure these Muslims don't want to be converted. And as religious as I may be, I still have a problem with someone wanting to do this in a country where a person's religious freedom is guaranteed.
Jerry Falwell has the right to practice his brand of Christianity, and to talk about it, and to tell people about it. Luckily we also have the right to say he's a dick for doing it, and as Larry Flint proved, to say he fucked his mom.
Thanks. I think so too, but I'm not going to beat anybody over the head with it.
Religion should be about faith, hope, peace, justice, and truth.
Trying to ram your religion down somebody's throat doesn't seem to be any of those.
Missionary work can be a wonderful thing. I don't necessarily have a problem with a Christian going out and saying to people, "This guy Jesus died for you, so that you wouldn't have to. Do you want to learn more about Him?" But it's not always that nice and friendly, so sometimes they have to take "No, I'm not interested" for an answer.
Religion, as a whole, can do a lot of wonderful things. However, too many terrible things have been done in its name.
Religion should be about faith, hope, peace, justice, and truth.
Trying to ram your religion down somebody's throat doesn't seem to be any of those.
Missionary work can be a wonderful thing. I don't necessarily have a problem with a Christian going out and saying to people, "This guy Jesus died for you, so that you wouldn't have to. Do you want to learn more about Him?" But it's not always that nice and friendly, so sometimes they have to take "No, I'm not interested" for an answer.
Religion, as a whole, can do a lot of wonderful things. However, too many terrible things have been done in its name.
"It's great how you can control 60 musicians with one just stick-- I can't control these fuckers with two!" -- Ian Paice