... but CLEARLY condemns Pat Robertson.
I don't wander over into the Politics section at Blogcritics very often, but I had to respond to David Mark's post. The evangelical community has been very vocal in it's condemnation of Pat "How Can I Make Myself Look Stupid Today?" Robertson. Evidence:{quotes from the Christianity Today article I mentioned in my comment to David's post}
"This kind of statement, by this well known American Christian leader, is in complete contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ who evangelical Christians believe and seek to demonstrate," Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director of the World Evangelical Alliance, says in a press release. "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."
"Jesus called for nothing like this, and Pat Robertson sounded more like one of the radical imams," Os Guinness said on ABC's World News Tonight.
"The Southern Baptist Convention does not support or endorse public statements concerning assassinations of persons, even if they are despicable despots of foreign countries, and neither do I," Southern Baptist Convention president Bobby Welch says in a Baptist Press story. "Everyone is aware that the United Stares has a military and government agencies to deal with our foreign threats in a forceful combative way. The Christian's responsibility is to pray for our leaders as well as the extremists around the world. Jesus Christ can save these people and change their lives."
"He has brought embarrassment upon us all," Al Mohler, dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his blog, "With so much at stake, Pat Robertson bears responsibility to retract, rethink, repent, and restate his position on this issue. Otherwise, what could have been a temporary lapse of judgment can become an enduring obstacle to the Gospel."
You can read the rest here. My favorite quote is from Ted Haggard of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals). "Pat doesn't speak for evangelicals any more than Dr. Phil speaks for mental health professionals."
So yes, you can focus on the organizations that have made no comment — to their shame, I might add. But to say that none of the evangelical community were speaking against them is flat out wrong — anyone interested in checking beyond the New York Times coverage would be able to see that quite easilly.
Article comments
1 - Warren
Just noticed an error in the CT story I quoted -- Mohler is President of Southern, not a dean.
Going to bed now -- I'll deal with the ensuing flame-fest on the morrow.
2 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I believe Mr. Mark was referring to the Religious Right, not the evangelical community, in his article entitled, White House, Religious Right Fail To "Condemn" Robertson's Fatwa. As you probably already well know, there is a huge difference between the Religious Right and evangelical Christians.
I read the Christianity Today article you posted in the comments under Mr. Mark's article and I recommend it highly to those people who might confuse evangelical Christians with the Religious Right (may God have mercy upon their poor, tormented souls).
I will not make presumptions about any particular person's intentions, but there is a lot of confusion these days because Christians are getting a bad reputation from the words and actions of a few power-hungry extremists who have twisted the Christian faith to suit their own temptations.
3 - Phillip Winn
If Al "Justice Sunday" Mohler is not part of the "religious right," then there is no such thing.
Condemnation of Robertson has been as close to universal as it could be.
4 - Dave Nalle
The evangelical community is a big part of the religious right, and Warren has a good point here. He could have been more pointed about it, though. David Mark has a well established pattern of cherrypicking information to suit his agenda rather than present a comprehensive and accurate picture.
Dave
5 - Warren
Margaret, I am very aware of the difference between the RR and evangelical Christians. But when you look at the people the CT article is quoting, many of the folks that they are quoting from DO represent the religious right (as Phillip mentioned). Bobby Welch and Al Mohler are definately Religious Right, if anyone can be called that.
The CT article does an outstanding job of getting feedback from Christians of all political persuasions. It's clear that Robertson's comments have been roundly condemned by Christians of all stripes.
6 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The Religious Right is not a Christian denomination or sect, it is a political movement whose membership includes evangelical Christians, Christian fundamentalists, Biblical literalists and other assorted conservative Christians.
The political objectives of the Religious Right have nothing to do with spreading the Word because the Religious Right is too busy politicizing Christianity -- at the behest of politicians who exploit their fears, uncertainties and doubts in order to get their votes -- to even bother studying it in the proper context of the Scriptures.
When Bobby Welch and Al Mohler made their statements about Reverend Robertson, they did so in their capacity as Christians, not as members of the Religious Right.
See what happens when we blur the line between church and state? The churches in which we should be praying for spiritual guidance and inspiration are denigrated into partisan political rallies.
And then people who sincerely want to share the Good News are thwarted in that endeavor because people keep mistaking them for members of the Religious Right (may God have mercy upon them and lend His grace to me so that I do not let my pride and my wrath get the better of me).
7 - Warren
Al Mohler and Bobby Welch are BOTH politically active conservative Christians.
I've been involved in Religious Right organizations. I was a member of College Republicans at Liberty University (heard of that school before?). I am intimately familiar with the RR in ways that you cannot begin to comprehend. Guess what? Pat Robertson hold NO WEIGHT with the vast majority of the Religious Right. Jerry Falwell's influence is waning. Actually the Religious Right as you've defined it is waning -- you're no doubt thinking of the Christian Reconstructionists, who are an extreme minority of evangelical Christians. Jerry Falwell is NOT a Reconstructionist. I think Robertson may be one, though ...
So yes, I am familiar with what we're talking about. And I agree with you that Christians are putting too much emphasis on solving the problems of the world by political power (a recurring theme at my own blog, actually).
But it doesn't matter -- looks to me like you've already decided that anyone who HAS responded negatively to Robertson is automatically NOT a member of the Religious Right. It doesn't work that way.
8 - Phillip Winn
So when a card-carrying member of the religious right criticizes Pat Robertson, he doesn't do so as a card-carrying member of the religious right, but when he [fill in the blank], he does? This remarkable bit of self-selection makes it easy to say anything about anybody!
I suppose we could turn it around and pick on the left, too? When [fill in the blank] criticizes Howard Dean for outrageous and inappapriate statements made at a recent fundraiser for the Democratic party, he wasn't doing so as a prominent Democrat, he was doing so as a short man.
That's just silly. The fact is that the condemnation of Pat ("Lying sniveling nutjob") Robertson has been universal, and deafening coming from people on whom I bet he thought he could depend. From the religious right to more-sane evangelicals to the irreligious, there is nobody sticking up for the gutless liar.
9 - David R. Mark
"to say that none of the evangelical community were speaking against them is flat out wrong" >>
Yes it is. But I didn't say that.
What I wrote was: "Also silent were many conservative Christian organizations. Leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying through spokesmen that they were too busy to comment."
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?
10 - Dave Nalle
The three groups you name have no particular foreign policy interests or positions, so why would they comment on Robertson's statement about US foreign policy? It's not part of their mandate. Did the Milk Council condemn him? Did the UAW come out with a position statement?
Your argument is ridiculous.
Dave
11 - Warren
In your headline, you stated the Religious Right failed.
I guess the quetion you SHOULD be asking is why let facts get in the way of a good headline?
12 - jwhook
Dave -
From the Family Research Council website, policies section, Other Issues includes:
China
Defense
Foreign Policy
Military Defense
National Security and Foreign Affairs
Terrorism
United Nations
The Christian Coalition includes Foreign Affairs as one of its categories for its blog.
The TVC doesn't have policy areas that imply interest in foreign affairs, although it does carry WorldNetDaily headlines on its home page, which are not just national news, of course.
Why make excuses for these organizations who want to play in the mainstream and affect policy, and have opinions on all sorts of statements and decisions in the political realm, but then don't respond to such a bona fide blunder as Robertson's.
Incidentally, Ted Haggard, on CNN, gave the same kind of wrong, but maybe not-so-much-wrong assessment of Robertson's comments, that Robertson himself did in his supposed apology.
From CNN:
The Rev. Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Robertson was wrong to recommend the assassination.
But noting that Robertson's show has a section where he's a political pundit, Haggard added, "I think you to need to understand the context."
"I think what he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of the bad options is to do something about the dictator."
----
Haggard's statement that the political segment of Robertson's show is distinct from the rest of the show, leads me to wonder what Haggard thinks being a Christian really means. Isn't that the point of all the current push into political activism... that we need Christians who are Christians all the time, and in all that they do?
And by attempting to provide cover for Robertson, he nullifies his initial assessment that Robertson was wrong.
Apparently he must have thought twice about the consequences of the Robertson's statements (missionaries may be at risk) and is now taking action to rectify that situation, for which he deserves credit.
- jw
13 - Dave Nalle
I went to all three websites yesterday and couldn't find one word anywhere about anything other than domestic agenda issues. If they have these sections you cite, they're by no means easy to find. All the current items on their main pages are the same old domestic agenda family values issue they're always hammering.
Please note that I don't sympathize with these groups or generally defend them, but I just don't see why everyone should be expected to condemn Robertson. For a lot of people he and his comment are irrelevant - some people probably secretly agree with him, and it's an arguable position. One guy saying that maybe assassination is a solution to a problem with a potential dictator isn't the huge outrage people are making it out to be.
Frankly, I'd rather Robertson made more loony foreign policy statements than keep trying to push his repressive social agenda.
Dave
14 - Warren
I'd rather Pat Robertson just shut his mouth and retire to his horse farm or something and let people who can actually communicate their views effectively get on with proclaiming the Gospel. The real Gospel, not the political agenda that Robertson thinks it is.
15 - Jene
jwhook posted:
>From CNN:
The Rev. Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Robertson was wrong to recommend the assassination.
But noting that Robertson's show has a section where he's a political pundit, Haggard added, "I think you to need to understand the context."
"I think what he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of the bad options is to do something about the dictator."
----
Haggard's statement that the political segment of Robertson's show is distinct from the rest of the show, leads me to wonder what Haggard thinks being a Christian really means. Isn't that the point of all the current push into political activism... that we need Christians who are Christians all the time, and in all that they do?
And by attempting to provide cover for Robertson, he nullifies his initial assessment that Robertson was wrong.<
Where did you find the interview with Ted Haggard on CNN? I've been looking everywhere for either the video or the transcript. I want to confirm something a friend said she heard him say. Thanks! (and, by the way, I completely agree with you!)
Jene'
16 - q nunc
What exactly is Dominionism, Reconstructionism, and Replacement Theology? (Well, I can guess what Replacement theology is).
Is there a difference between the three? I'm having a hard time figuring this stuff out, because their writings seem so vague.
Thanks,
Q
17 - Warren
Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are essentially the same thing -- adherents believe that humans are to set up the kingdom of God, after which Christ returns to earth and takes charge. These are the people who are most interested in setting up a theocracy -- they believe that society must be governed by the principles found in the Bible, and that Christians are responsible for setting up that form of government. The more extreme adherents often believe that ony Christians are suited to govern (the presidency of Jimmy Carter is usually ignored by those folks). This viewpoint is NOT encouraged by premillenialism OR the Left Behind books -- in fact, adherents to dominionism think the Left Behind books are garbage.
Replacement theology is different -- it teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament are promises rightly inherited by the Church; that the Church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Also a viewpoint that most fundamentalists don't hold.