Posted by
cornpone on Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58:27 AM
I have recently been called on the carpet by two Christians for things I had written
in response to various Town Hall columnists. One criticism I totally
agreed with (and apologized for) was a harsh remark that was sharply
critical of two evangelical Christians.
I have deleted the offending remarks from my blog.
The second incident I am less peninent about because I believe
the offending remark was benign in and of itself-let alone when compared
to current standards prevailing among politically engaged Christian writers
and pundits.
Since I have twice now been called on the carpet for rhetoric or hyperbole
unbecoming to a Christian, I thought perhaps now is a good time to raise the question:
does involvement in politics, and having strong political beliefs
unduly tempt Christians to get down in the mud and
verbally wrestle with the ungodly in an undignified and carnal
manner which reduces us to operating on their often sinful level?
Is this living life on a lower level than we are called by God to live on?
I will attempt to address some of my spontaneous reactions to this in a
response to a fellow Christian, who most recently called me on
the carpet for labeling Mr. Dennis Prager an "arrogant windbag".
Here are some of my thoughts:
Dear Christian friend,
I really do understand how you feel. And I agree
Christians should never, ridicule or attempt to belitle or humiliate
those with whom they disagree.
In the book of proverbs it even goes so far as to
say: "cast out the *scorner* and strife will cease."
Honestly, however, and I know you disagree, I think my comment
about Dennis Prager was fairly tame- especially given how
Dennis Prager and much more regrettablly how so many high
profile professing *Christians* such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh,
Ann Coulter, Ann Malkin, and others too numerous to catalog here,
often mercilessly belittle and ridicule those who disagree with them.
Indeed, Mrs Malkin and Ms Coulter occasionally have used sexually
vulgar slang words and sexual double entendres to ridicule their
most despised "liberals". I'll never forget some of their graphic language
and sexual punds used when discussing the disgraceful Clinton-Lewinsky tryst.
Does an immoral act call for a vulgar rebuke?
I must also say I was disappointed by the Wall Street Journal'
unnecessarily graphic, and sexually explicit editorial on the same sordid
subject. I was partucularly disappointed in Mr John Fund and especially
Mr Paul Gigot who is normally the model of decorum and civility.
Sadly, vicious and ugly rhetoric is especially typical of talk show
hosts when they are confronted with vigorously dissenting or
vehement and argumentative callers.
But, of course that doesn't excuse my words if they are indeed unkind.
The fact that "everybody does it" is never an excuse for wrong
actions. And I agree calling someone an *arrogant windbag" really
isn't very nice. Moreover, it is also lazy writing.
But, still in my humble opinion, its extremely tame when compared
with the rhetoric common in the politically active Christian community.
I remember the late Dr. Jerry Falwell also routinely ridiculed "liberals" as
does Rush Limbaugh who claims to be a Christian-though thankfully,
he downplays that on the air.
You may disagree, but it seems to me that a rather common and besetting
sin among *politically active* Christians who have strong political beliefs
is the tendency to mock, ridicule, and viciously question even the motives or
honorable intentions of those (and particularly and most conspicuously Mrs Clinton) with
whom most of us more often than not have a visceral distrust-and with whom
we often disagree on public policy.
Funny many if us have a disrust for the very slickly managed Mitt Romney. But the difference is Mitt has apparently flip flopped back to our side- which makes his flip flops and perceived "slickness" and insincerity imminently more forgivable.
A few specific examples of Christian writers gone wild are probably are in order:
Item: For example, a towhhall columnist recently called
Mrs Clinton "pro abortion" rather than "pro choice"-on a Town Hall thread recently.
Come now, If she were truly "pro abortion, I doubt seriously Mrs Clinton would have
carried her daughter to term.
No. I rather choose to believe, that like Mr Guiliani and former First lady,
Barbara Bush, Mrs Clinton simply thinks it is acceptable policy to legally permit
women to make that "choice"- a choice they will answer for before God,
and a choice which you and I of course agree is the wrong choice.
But being "pro choice", as wrong headed as that political position may be,
is very different from being actually "pro abortion".
Being "pro abortion implies that a person actually likes to see abortions
performed-which is shocking to the conscience.
|
It is akin to calling the person morally perverse-a much worse insult than
calling him/her a "windbag"-which I frankly wouldn't get too upset about.
Item: Ms Coulter calls pacifists such as Cindy Sheehan and Noam Chomsky
"traitors". She also routinely accuses people who oppose the Iraq war
of "hating America".
With respect, and in all honesty, how can Ann Coulter (or anyone else for that matter)
possibly *know* that war opponents actually "hate" their own country? Is
she gifted with clairvoiyance, or mindreading skills and omniscience
that most would ascribe only to Almighty God?
Note: Ms Coulter never called Pat Buchanan, who is a Catholic
Christian, but who also opposes the war a "traitor".
But, perhaps that is because Buchanan doesn't oppose most of the
other wars previous administrations elected to enter overseas-only this particular one.
Now that (calling someone a traitor or a hater of their country)
is much more like what I would call actually "judging"a person
To me, "judging" is not pointing out bad behavior or wrong actions.
No, Judging is attributing or imputing bad motives to people whose
hearts and minds The Lord alone can truly read-as opposed
to ascribing to them merely bad judgment or unwise public policy.
Or calling somebody a "wind bag" or "blowhard".
I think anytime we evangelical Christians get too emotionally involved
with politics, we tend to take back control of our speech and behavior
from the Holy Sprit because it is so very difficult to
"be angry and (yet) sin not".
That passage in Ephesians reminds me a lot of one of the
words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:" how difficult it is for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
I think it is because the lust for money and the lust for control or
power (read: politics) is so powerful among those of us who
frequent political message boards and who are active in political
dialogue and other political activities, it often drowns out the still
small voice of the Holy Spirit. We do this tothe detriment of our
personal testimony and ability to witness as we are called to do
in Matthew 28:19-20.
You probably remember Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world."
So maybe our hearts and emotions should also not be too involved
in the things of this world.
"Love not the world or the things that are
OF the world. For he that loveth the things of this world, the Love of
the Father is not in him." (1st John 2:15.)
Simon, since you are a Christian voice for civility, I am just curious what
you think of the "Clinton Chronicles" -if you have ever read them.
I have never read anything more unchrist-like, or more filled with
hateful calumnies and deliberate misstatements of fact than this book which
Dr. Falwell helped to promote and disseminate.
Frankly, some of the writings in the American Spectator are not far behind.
But back to your original point. To me the word "windbag" is akin to calling
someone a "fuddy duddy" a "blowhard" or a big "fathead". It is more like the benign
things we used to say to each other in the fifth grade back in the 1950's.
Yes its certainly childish, but it is hardly malevolent.
I welcome contrary opinions of course.
Blessings,
Cornpone Harry
PPS: Note that ironically in this article, I express grudging admiration
for Ms. Coulter for having the frankness (rare in the Christian right political movement)
to declare unashamedly the "one way" to salvation doctrine of John 14:6; Acts 4:12;
and John 3:36.