1

Here is a recent article in the NYTimes about Stott.

"Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life.

Inviting these two bozos onto "Meet the Press" to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D. H. Lawrence. Naturally, they got into a demeaning food fight that would have lowered the intellectual discourse of your average nursery school. ...

Falwell and Pat Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored. ...

Politicians, especially Democrats, are now trying harder to appeal to people of faith. But people of faith are not just another interest group, like gun owners. You have to begin by understanding the faith. And you can't understand this rising global movement if you don't meet its authentic representatives."

2

Hmm...someone else has been reading David Brooks, too:)

3

Hmm...someone else has been reading David Brooks, too:)

I figured that since Brooks mentioned him (and few non-evangelicals would know who he is) I should bump Stott to the top of the list.

4

I find myself on occasion, defending the 'statements' reported by the press, made by both Robertson and Falwell. Most of the time they are mis-quoted, or the media promotes a slant that paints them as ignorant and/or intolerant. Other times, they say the "darnest things". On occasion, I need to clarify that they do not represent me as an evangelical. I find this NYT's article rather interesting. David Brooks has some keen insight especially what he writes in the last paragraph concerning Faith. My opinion, if the media really wanted to present the true story concerning Christianity and/or Faith, they would have the John Stotts rather than the Falwells or Robertsons on their shows or in their articles. It really is not that hard to find them!

5

It is a great follow-up to the article. This "Know your Evangelicals" series is suchha wonderful tool for introducing people to leaders in the movement.

6

You should really release these profiles as baseball cards. You could make a fortune at Christian bookstores.

7

I'm glad David Brooks wrote this article and couldn't agree more. Since leaving my mainline church upbringing for evangelical churches and para-church organizations, like IVCF, I have virtually never seen Falwell or Robertson referenced while people like John Stott and J.I. Packer are staples.

BTW, anyone thought about adding J.I. Packer to this list?

8

I have a little poll for evangelicals:

In your opinion, what percentage of you believe the State should never impose or even promote any particular form of religious belief or unbelief? What percentage of you believe the State should be neutral on these things? Put differently, what percentage of evangelicals would support the establishment of an evangelical theocratic government, or merely giving legal preferences to evangelicalism over other forms of belief or unbelief?

I ask in part because I have a friend whom I think of as ignorant and paranoid about evangelicals. I am pretty ignorant too, but I don't see the evangelicals or any Christians for that matter being opponents of freedom and a limited State. He however expresses fears evangelical fundamentalists might try to put a theocracy in power if no one stands in their way. I then get a bit angry with him because I think his opinion merely shows a cliched, ignorant mindset about Christianity. He thinks he is defending civilized sophistication against medievalism, and I get annoyed because his 'sophistication' looks to me like the opposite: mental provincialism, and that about a subject any educated person should know in some depth, i.e., Christianity. Even if you are not a believer, you should know in some depth the religion that has formed so much of history and the mind of the West.

I wish I could refer my friend to proof he is way wrong and that only a vanishingly small percentage of evangelicals would support an evangelical theocracy or any other kind of theocracy. Am I wrong?

Thanks for any info.

9

I saw that "upcoming" you would be doing Hank Hanegraaff.

This would be a great opportunity to basically show your movement warts and all, which you neglected to do with James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and others.

Hanegraaff is interesting to me, because basically in being an "apologetics" type, he's been responsible for many mistruths about non-Christian religions. (Dobson's FOTF is guilty of that, too. Check out my blog later today for a good example of that.)

But, evidently, Hanegraaff is not inclined merely to state mistruths about non-Christian religions. He has been accused of plagiarism.

Now, I'm no fan of D. James Kennedy (another serial prevaricator for Jesus) but his stuff is his stuff.

10

Mumom - What is the difference between saying:

"Buddhism has no god and no type of final existence" and "The fact is Buddhism states nothing definite nor indefinite whatsoever about a "final" existence"? Buddhism says nothing about a final existence; therefore, Buddhism, as a religion, does not include a doctrine regarding a type of final existence. You and FOTF as saying the same thing. Semantics.

FOTF - "There’s no forgiveness or supernatural help in Buddhism and Hinduism, only cold-blooded karma."

Mumon - "Neither does Buddhism specifically have a need for "forgiveness," nor for he "supernatural."

Same thing again..except you don't like that they characterize karma as cold-blooded. Fair enough....but not enought to support your claim FOTF is responsible for mistruths.

11

"He who says that religion and politics don't mix understands neither one."
-- Mohandas Gandhi

As an Australian evangelical sitting uneasily on the political left nothing has infuriated me more about grassroots American politics than the insistence of atheists on interpreting the separation of church and state as crudely as possible in order to muscle all worldviews but their own out of the political arena.

The separation of _church_ and state is a separation of institutions. It was a reaction against the Church of England which was supremely controlled by the monarch and had seen a blood bath in every change of ruler as Catholics and Protestants fought for control of the State.

But the notion of separating _religion_ and politics is absurd. This condemns all citizens to acting like atheists in the political sphere. This not only ensures the tyranny of one world view but demands that people of faith live completely disjointed lives or remain politically ignorant.

Once that distinction is clarified the dialogue about religion and politics becomes a little more fruitful.

I'm no fan of theocracy and Christians have had theocractic leanings over the years, with efforts like prohibition and censorship and so on. Of course this is just a leaning, it is a long way from a theocratic state.

Nevertheless, attempts to control others' private lives seem difficult to support without abusing the Bible. While Judaism and the Old Testament practiced theocracy (validly, as the nation was formed and directly ruled by God), Jesus in John 8 gave a teaching ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") on capital punishment that was so sweeping (and conscience pricking) that it virtually amounted to an anullment of Old Testament theocracy. The first church council (Acts 15) decided that Gentile Christians need not keep any of the Mosaic law but only avoid sexual immorality, idolatry and related practices.

This, along with other Sermon on the Mount teachings ("Judge not lest you be not judged") leaves very little room for biblically faithful theocratic tendencies. Christians aren't even to impose laws and regulations on each other (believing instead that "we will be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus") much less on the secular public.

But this does not mean Christians should not proclaim the gospel and the will of God for all people, just that they shouldn't try to impose it by force. In addition, in living faithful lives before God their decisions and their vote - a right as an equal citizen of a democratic state - should go towards shaping laws they believe will protect the vulnerable and see that justice and mercy are upheld. That is, they should be informed by their faith.

That's all I can cobble together for now.

Blessings,

jim

12

Have I heard correctly that John Stott is an annihilationist? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

13

muzjik :

- What is the difference ...

A world of difference: the words by FOTF imply that:

a) Buddhism is a religion of resigned hopelessness...

b) Guilt is always present and experienced...

c) Buddhism denies a supernatural.

Regarding point a), no practicing Buddhist I know experiences resigned hopelessness, because we experience the interdependency between "our" agency the agency of others, and the myriad things in the world about us. When "Big mind" our "Buddha nature" or "it" or "god" or "emptiness" or whatever label you want is understood, there is no reason to be hopeless, or greedy for an expected outcome, either. There is a great deal of awe though...

The other 2 points can also be explained in depth as well.

I'd add "no type of final existence" implies "nothing;" Buddhism says "not something and not nothing." And it's more or less irrelevant. Is it supernatural or purely naturalist to say "Endless Dimension Universal Life pervades the whole universe?" To assert categorically it's "not" or "is" supernatural is to miss the point and viewpoint from which a Buddhist wold say that.