Church-Bashing and Genocide

(With thanks to David Singer for the photo!)

Genocide is not a weed that just suddenly appears. It has to be deliberately cultivated over a long period of time. The henchmen have to be prepared and convinced that they are doing the right thing. The target group has to be defamed and demonstrated that they do not have a right to exist. They are vermin that have to be eliminated in order to create a better world.

The Communists did this with the land owners. They were consistently cast as the “oppressors.” The National Socialists did the same thing with the Jews; the Hutus with the Tutsis – first vilify and then eliminate!

This is part of the reason why I object to the overwhelming torrent of criticism aimed at the church in the West. It is not that we are totally innocent; nor is it that we cannot profit from the criticism. We can! However, there is a point when criticism ceases to become constructive and instead becomes systematic defamation, and defamation opens to door to subjugation and even elimination.

It is so troubling to hear the many voices calling for the silencing of the church. And what a stark contrast to the Western acclaim for diversity and tolerance! While they wave the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, they are intent on marginalizing or even eliminating the church. As one atheistic group, I’m Proud to be an Atheist, advertised:

• I’ll stop attacking religion when religion stops hurting people and telling lies.

According to this group, we hurt people by our very nature. We talk about eternal judgment, and that bothers people. Consequently, the attacks will not stop. But talk about calories bothers people! Another group, Atheism and World Peace, declared:

• I have no reason and no intention to respect a religion that violates basic human rights. 

In other words, “I refuse to respect you unless you agree with my philosophy of life.” In this intolerant social climate, we are now charged with “hate speech” when we don’t agree, and therefore, we must be silenced.

However, what are even more troubling than the hypocrisy of the West are the voices within the church, especially among the evangelical break-away group calling itself the “Emergent Church!” One of their exponents, Shane Claiborne, described the traditional church this way:

• When studying sociology, I saw a lot of disturbing things. Sociological studies show that the higher a person’s church attendance, often the more prone they are to be racist, sexist, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty, and known for a lot of things that Jesus wasn’t know for…Just a few years ago, friends of mine did a study; they asked non-Christians around the country, “What do you think when you hear ‘Christian?’” And the number one answer was “anti-homosexual.” (ALife, 7/15/13, 14)

Well, this is not surprising, given the anti-Christian animus in the West! While I will not dispute that Christians haven’t always conducted themselves as they should have, my experience runs counter to the narrative ubiquitously promoted in western media – Christian parents disown their gay children. I have never seen an instance of this. However, I know many Christian parents who have been rejected by their gay children!

It is not surprising that Claiborne has referenced  selected studies that have reflected badly on Christians. However, I have seen many studies with the opposite findings. However, Claiborne has concluded that these studies represent, proof-positive, that the church has failed to follow Jesus and that He and his Emergent Church movement are correcting all of that by simply taking Jesus literally.

Well, let’s look closer at his critique. Perhaps serious Christian are more “sexist.” It depends upon what Claiborne means by “sexist.” If he is referring to biblically ordained role distinctions, then he is right. Perhaps serious Christians are also more “pro-war” and “pro-death penalty.” However, to deny that war is ever necessary is also to deny that police are ever necessary!  Perhaps Christians are more, “anti-gay,” depending upon what he means by that. If it means that we are against this highly self-destructive lifestyle, then I guess we are anti-gay. But is this in opposition to the love of Jesus, calling everyone to repent of their sins? And is this an adequate basis to join the prevailing culture to vilify the church?

It seems that Claiborne entered into his sociology classes with a worldview already poised against the biblical church. We then have to ask, “What does he mean by Christians being more ‘racist?’” Perhaps he simply means that many churches congregate according to race. Although I wish this wasn’t the case, this is certainly a far cry from his charge of racism.

Here’s what troubles me – so many members of the Emergent Church are just as critical of the church as those on the outside. In Claiborne’s case – and his worldview is reflective of the attitudes of many young Christians – his contempt for the traditional church has led him and other Emergents to reject the church and to reinvent it in a way that it more congruent with Western tastes.

Although the Emergents do not want to see the church eliminated in the same way that atheists want to see it eliminated, their criticism of the traditional church reflects an unbiblical contempt and a willingness to misuse Scripture to support their own agenda.

Claiborne claims that the traditional church has not reflected Jesus as they ought to have. He cites, “And they will know you are Christians by your love,” to prove his point. However, he has wrongly quoted this verse:

•  ^“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35)

According to Jesus, the world will know that we belong to Him by our love for the brethren and not by some amorphous “love” that is supposed to embrace all lifestyles, no matter how sinful or destructive. Sadly, the Emergent Church has failed in Jesus’ love. Instead of loving the brethren, they have rejected us.

I have my own sins, and I am very willing to confess them. We all must confess our sins. However, according to the National Socialists, the Jews had devolved far beneath other peoples. According to Muslims, the Jews had become children of apes and swine, far beneath any Muslim! Therefore, it was fitting to eliminate them as they would any disease. This is precisely what has been building in the power structures of Western society regarding the church.

Criticism has its place, but it also must be kept in balance, the very thing that is now lacking. Once people believe that we are worse than others, they will begin to treat us as such!

What is the source of the contempt for the church? Instead of answering this question, I want younger Christians to do a little self-reflection. Are their negative attitudes about the church a product of cultural influences? Has their criticism ceased to be constructive? Is it merely serving to further marginalize the church or even to eliminate it? Is this what they want? Above all else, what should the love that our Savior taught us look like?

Huffington Press, LZ, the Colorado Shooting, Libel, and a Destroyed Reputation

LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. In light of the way that he presents Christians, this is not surprising. Granderson writes:

• For all of the rhetoric about Christianity being under attack in this country, oftentimes it feels no one does a better job of hurting Christianity than the people who call themselves Christians.

According to Granderson, even if Christians are under attack, it’s all our fault – a classic case of let’s-blame-the-victim!

Even though I found this statement quite offensive from the get-go – but it’s certainly not offensive to those looking for more ammo against Christians – I decided to read on:

• For example, after the September 11 terror attacks, Jerry Falwell blamed the ACLU, as well as feminists, gays and lesbians, for lifting God's veil of protection.

I was feeling a little better. If he had to resort to an 11-year-old case to bring home his point, it shows that Granderson really had to stretch. He then appealed to the off-the-mark words of Pastor John Hagee and Pat Robertson to make the case that Christians deserve the abuse they receive.

Then, Granderson brought his “evidence” into present time with the Colorado shooting:

• And just this weekend, as the nation is trying to heal from the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado, Jerry Newcombe, a spokesman for the evangelical group Truth in Action, took time out of his day to inform mourners that some of their loved ones were going to hell.

Hm? That sounded strange to me. Not that this type of thing has never been expressed by a professing Christian – Fred Phelps comes to mind – but I was surprised to hear that Jerry Newcombe had informed “mourners that some of their loved ones were going to hell.” However, if “the journalist of the year” had said it, it must be true, right?

Fortunately, my perplexity was put to rest by another article – one written by Newcombe’s brother, Rick, founder of Creators, a worldwide media company that syndicates hundreds of columnists and cartoonists. And he doesn’t even share Newcombe’s beliefs. In “A Misleading Story on The Huffington Post,” Rick writes:

• Several weeks ago he [Jerry] wrote a column about hell, saying that, in his opinion, too many people don't fear it. On the morning of the tragic shooting in Colorado, he retold the same basic column, saying that we had lost fear of hell as a society and that’s part of the reason such evil things happen. In the new column, he wrote, “Tens of millions of young people in this culture seem to have no fear of God. It’s becoming too commonplace that some frustrated person will go on a killing spree of random people. If they kill themselves, they think it’s all over. But that’s like going from the frying pan into the fire. Where is the fear of God in our society? I don’t think people would do those sorts of things if they truly understood the reality of Hell.” 

Of course, any talk about hell or eternal consequences is offensive to many. However, others have understandably noted the connection between the awareness of these consequences and how this has restrained their conduct. Without this restraint, the mass murders committed by the Communists and National Socialists are easier to understand.

However, even if talk of hell might be offensive, informing the Colorado “mourners that some of their loved ones were going to hell” is entirely another matter. From where did Granderson obtain this tasty piece of gossip? Rick Newcombe explains:

• After the column was posted, Jerry was then interviewed by a Christian radio network (AFA out of Mississippi) on the morning of the shooting…The Huffington Post used words from Jerry taken out of context from that radio interview, as if he were talking specifically about the victims of the Colorado massacre. He never made any comment, nor would he, about the state of those who were killed; he even noted this week how some of the victims showed “Christ-like behavior in shielding other victims.”  However, he did say of the alleged shooter: "The next time someone wants to take out their frustrations on others by killing innocent victims, they ought to consider the eternal consequences of their evil actions." On the Monday after the shootings, The Huffington Post ran this headline: "Jerry Newcombe, Evangelical Leader, Says Only Christian Victims Of Colorado Shooting Going To Heaven."

Well, couldn’t this misunderstanding – this libel - be easily cleared up? Rick writes:

• Jerry immediately contacted The Huffington Post and complained that he never discussed the victims of the shooting; they refused to take the column down or run a correction.

However, a juicy story is more appealing than making apologies and doing retractions:

• More than 7,000 readers made comments, mostly condemning Jerry, kicking The Huffington Posts' straw man over and over… Many experienced journalists have warned that, with the decline of newspapers, there are fewer safeguards to make sure that the public is presented accurate information. The Huffington Post, in this instance, violated every principle of basic journalism by claiming that Jerry was talking about the victims of the Colorado shooting, when he was not, and by refusing to correct the error after it was pointed out to them.

Evidently, Granderson happily lifted his dirt from the Huffington Post. Was he aware of the controversy? Who knows? When the media is the information gatekeeper, it is hard to get a word in edgewise, and perhaps Granderson hadn’t been privy to Newcombe’s word of protest. But why bother checking out the facts, even if they sound highly suspect, when you know that your story is going to cater to popular marketplace tastes, and perhaps even win another award.

Meanwhile, a man’s reputation is destroyed, but he’s just a bigoted “fundy” anyway. He brought it all on himself, just as Granderson alleges.