Anglican asked me why I cared what Al Mohler said. Decent question. SOF and I talked about Mohler and Russell Moore's comments and asked each other the same question. Why do we care?
I think Natalie's post hit it. I am aware enough to make sense of their statements. Natalie is equipped to put her relative's comments in context. But what about those young girls who believe that those words come from God? So many Christians are very quick to cite God, as in, "God believes this," or "God says that." I shudder to think of those young girls hearing that if they end up unmarried or childless that they are going against the will of God. Or young men. Marriage and sex are complicated enough without the idiocy of Russell Moore and Al Mohler.
4 comments:
Streak
Here's my take on the "Why I care" what is said publicly by Mohler or Falwell or any other person with the ear of the world press. I fully acknowledge the possibility that despite what I write here I probably "shouldn't" care what they say. For now, I do care and here's my take on why. History and the world in general categorize these people as Christians. They don't distinguish Mohler as a neocalvinist Southern Baptist or Falwell as an independent (SBC affiliation aside) Baptist. They embrace giving a "Christian" opinion to whomever may ask including CNN and FoxNews which puts them into the greater public record and beams them around the world. Any of us who would identify ourselves with the Christian adjective are, whether we like it or not, lumped in with these guys. They are our international spokespersons in this soundbite of history. Do you know to which sect of Islam your Muslim neighbor belongs? Is she Sunni? Shiite? Is she Wahabi? Sufi? Do you recall if Mahatma Gandhi practiced Vaishnavism, Saivism, or Shaktism? Or, like me, do you see him as a Hindu? Is the Buddhist temple going up in your city from the Mahayana or Theravada schools? What's the point? The point is that while I may claim to be a different flavor of Christian than Mohler or Falwell, the distinction I make is irrelevant in non-Christian circles. The distinctions between the aforementioned religious sects are largely unnoticed by the Christian community, but they hold the same relevance to their practitioners as a Catholic-Protestant distinction- sometimes even more. For Americans, we often forget that to the world at large we are viewed as a Christian country. Public statements from these Falwellians carries foreign policy and perception implications about which I hear very little discussed. If you don't think this is true test me out. The next time Falwell calls another religion's prophets or followers something nasty, jump on a plane and visit a Muslim village in Indonesia. Identify yourself as an American and a Christian and see if these statements don't carry impact beyond a brief appearance on Hannity and Colmes. I'm not saying this is right or justified or rational. More importantly, consider the impact these "spokesmen" can have on Christians living in tenuous circumstances around the world. The sad part is that these "Christian Spokesmen" are aware of this impact and continue to shoot their mouths off. I realize the discussion originated with statements about gender, but I feel that the principle is consistent. People who have been granted the role of spokesperson for a group of people, regardless of how they get the status or whether or not they actually represent anyone in reality, have an extra measure of responsibility and accountability. There are many people who will be impacted by these words, many of whom are not in control of their own destinies and cannot avoid this impact. So, that's why I care what is said.
These are all extremely good points, Streak and BB. And I essentially share them. If I didn't I wouldn't read these blogs or keep my own, or be willing and able to stand up for the Gospel message when it is being perverted.
But sometimes--many times, actually--I feel that the Fallwells and Robertsons of the world are so far removed from my own understanding of Christianity that they might as well be another religion. And this is the point of my question, "Why do we care?"
The message that fundamentalists preach is not the Good News that I know and have found peace through. Why should I focus my time and energy--at sometimes significant psychological cost, no less--arguing points so radically different when we aren't even speaking the same theological language? Let me offer an extreme example in the hopes of making a gentler point: Fundamentalist Islam, especially as foisted on Saudi Arabia via Wahhabism or Afghanistan via the Taliban, is morally reprehensible in the way it treats women. I know this. But I don't spend time and intellectual energy arguing with the bin Ladens of the world. They aren't going to hear me at all. We're talking about two different "Islams."
Now back to Christianity. I believe the fundamentalist attempt to reassert Law and Works as a measure of salvation completely undermines the Good News of Christ. Think how often Christ says, "You have heard it said . . ., but I say . . ."! In the Epistles it appears to me that Paul is continually dealing with this among the early churches who say, just for example, "Okay, we accept the grace of Christ but oh, by the way, you still better be circumcised or else."
I guess what spurred my "Why do you care?" question was the realization that the Fallwells and Robertsons don't get it, aren't listening to us, and probably never will.
But even more than that: What is it that makes us, in this blog world, focus on them and their version of Christianity and not, say, fundamentalism in Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism, or any other variety of the Christian experience? Is it just because most of us have a personal past or connection with this world and are still escaping it? If that's the answer, and this is part of the "escape" process and it helps, then run with it.
I guess I just realized that I have escaped. I don't feel the need to argue my way out of that world anymore. What I can do is to live the Gospel message as best I can and know that God can work through that in ways I can't understand. This is just me and where I am with this, however, and I fully realize that everyone may not be at that point.
Just questions. That's all.
I agree with anewanglican very much in the day-in-day-out approach to living life is to try and not give the Falwells and Robertsons the power to upset my life. On the other hand, due to circumstances beyond my control, they are given a forum for expression that fudamentalism in other Christian sects don't receive. My personal experience in damage control related to this subject has been mainly with Robertson, Falwell, and a couple SBC spokespersons who for some reason get quoted extensively across the globe. Unfortunately they are seen as not giving just personal opinion but a more broad American Christian stand.
Agreed with both of you. Anglican's initial question was apt and response is also good. I think we all agree.
But a point of distinction. I have no illusion that Falwell is listening. His Jabbaesque babbling is all he really likes to hear. But there are people who will listen. And there are young people who will be hurt to hear that God is unhappy with their single-ness or inability to procreate or gayness, or whatever. I can be part of that voice (as both of you are and so many reading this blog) to say: "hey, God doesn't hate. Period." I can do my part and speak out when I can--always remembering that I have no control over Falwell or Mohler and no control over how their words hurt.
If that makes any sense.
Post a Comment