|
GunNewsDaily.com
Mother Teresa with a Beard William Lolli Gun News Daily Contributing Editor Saturday, July 17, 2004 This is my response to the New York Times’ Nicolas D. Kristof July 17, 2004 editorial entitled Jesus and Jihad. To do so will require a bit of parsing of the column. I don't agree with Mr. Kristof. His perspectives and conclusions are based upon incomplete information, which lead him to prejudicial conclusions. Mr. Kristof sites his concerns about the popularity of the Christian fictional book series Left Behind. I say that it is Mr. Kristof’s abilities to accurately research and factually connect the dots that got left behind. It is true that the Left Behind series of fictional novels are believed by many as being scripturally accurate; however, that doesn't make it so. For example, Mel Gibson's Passion, although many believe depicts an accurate representation of the Lord's last 24 hours [including the Pope], in fact does not. It is a story told from the perspective of Mel Gibson. It is a good story. It is great movie. I say, one of the best movies ever made. It is a very close visual adaptation of what COULD have been the last 24 hours of Christ's sufferings. It is also a very good match to the scriptural accounts as recorded by the Apostles. But is the Passion accurate in the sense that what you see on the screen actually occurred? Of course not. It is Art and Entertainment. It is not Divine Revelation of fact. Left Behind is a FICTIONAL series of novels. The authors' adaptation of the future events of Scripture represent their perception, in fictional-novel form, of the accounts of fictional characters living through the predicted future. If it weren’t for the Jesus part, you would say it was sci-fi. To complicate matters of fact versus conclusion in his column, Mr. Kristof asserts several theological points in that I address before I continue with my critique: 1. Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus will return in the Battle of Armageddon: Yes 2. Do the Scriptures teach that the enemies of God will try to destroy Jesus when He returns: Yes 3. Do the Scriptures teach that the enemy armies' flesh will be dissolved as they stand on their feet? Yes 4. Do the Scriptures teach that a chasm will open and armies will be swallowed up: Possibly, depends on how you read it. They are destroyed in one region of a battle like this. 5. Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus kills animals: Not directly no, but they do teach that as a result of the battle, a lot of birds will feast on the flesh of man and beast. Killing animals is nothing new in the Bible. A lot of horses died when God closed the Red Sea on Pharaoh’s chariots. 6. Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus is an animal lover or hater?: They are silent on the question as asked, excepting that in a parable Jesus asks the rhetorical question that if God the Father cares to feed the birds each day, how much more does he care for your needs? Mr Kristof makes some interesting comments, and asks some interesting questions. Here are my observations and answers: These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and
they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is
"Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe
all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic
cleansing celebrated as the height of piety. Response1: I haven't read this last novel myself. If the authors are portraying that Christ will wipe out all non-Christians (planet wide); they are theologically mistaken. Christ is expected to wipe out the armies who oppose Him, true. But as to the allegation that all non-Christians will be wiped out, not true, Scripture-wise. Kristof could be wrong here, or the authors. I cannot say. An assertion here begs the question: When Christ returns, does He engage in ethnic cleansing, as described? My answer: No. If anything He is being quite ecumenical about it. No ethnic group is immune to God's judgment. These armies are millions of people, armed to the teeth, whose sole motivation is to prevent Jesus' return to setup His Kingdom. Granted, by today's cultural standards of self-government, His approach is not very democratic. But the Scriptures are clear: if He did not return, mankind would have destroyed itself. Remember that in this period of future history, all of mankind has thrown itself under the power, influence and will of the Antichrist. The Antichrist's sole aim is to act under the agency of Satan. Satan's sole desire is to thwart the will of God. If Satan and the Antichrist can get mankind to destroy itself, the game is over; and when Jesus returns to setup a kingdom, who will be left? No one. All humans will be dead. Hence, no kingdom. This theological interpretation dove-tails into the explanation as to why Jews have been so hated and persecuted throughout history. Jesus is the King of the Jews. If you kill all the Jews, when Jesus returns, of whom will He be king? Therefore, it has been a long held interpretation that Satan seeks to kill all Jews to thwart the will of God. Now-- we can all sit around and second-guess why God/Jesus doesn't do this or that, or take this or that action in those futuristic Last Days of Divine Judgment. I don't know. All I know is that for some strange reason, God/Jesus want to intervene in the affairs of men and prevent the total destruction of the planet and its human inhabitants-- and that means taking on an army of highly motivated people who would rather die than live under the "tyranny" of Christ. Response2: If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious
Appearing” and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre
of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite
properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the
intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own
eyes. Yes, well good luck to the Islamists on that. On that score they have no Islamic Messiah, and he can't be Jewish since Jews are “dogs” to them. Would we really have a fit if a Muslim wrote a book as described? I disagree. I think most Liberals would hail it as equal-time, embrace it as a sign of our tolerance, and get the California Supreme Court to put it on the required reading list of our public schools. If anyone did have a fit, it would be viewed as a further sign of our intolerance of Islam, by our media elites. As to his point about how intolerance leads to violence, I agree with Mr. Kristof. Any serious examination of Christian history [Islamic history too] shows the dark-side of Christian fundamentalism, as it pertains to and demonstrates how any faith can be used as a platform for world domination or systematic subjugation of others. I would like to believe that modern Christianity has learned this lesson [let me be more clear-- the lesson being not of "tolerance" but of self-control and self-examination]. But I do not agree with Mr. Kristof that the Left Behind series of books promotes ethnic cleansing or violence. I am still waiting for the proof on that. As an aside, it is classic Liberal sophistry to get you to concentrate on the mote in your own eye, while you are being clubbed by the mote from the Liberal’s eye. Response3: These scenes also raise an eschatological problem: Could devout
fundamentalists really enjoy paradise as their friends, relatives and
neighbors were heaved into hell? I have no problem with this at all. If my friends, relatives and neighbors were to take up arms against Jesus' return, I would side with Jesus. Sorry, but that is the way it is. And by the way, these same "friends, relatives and neighbors" would have beheaded me and any of my other friends, relatives and neighbors who refused to take the Mark of the Beast, anyway, so-- all is fair in love and war. I think I could get over it. But Kristof shows his ignorance here in the unspoken comparison of the Ultimate Conflict of Good and Evil to a church-tea get-together where friends or relatives of believers have politely declined the salvation offer—and are tossed into hell for it. Response4: As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this
portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals
of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding
over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam. No this actually represents a shift in Mr. Kristof's preconceived notions of Jesus. It has always amazed me how both secular people, and believers alike, akin Jesus to some kind of cultural representation that they can understand. The Mr. Rogers icon, the New Gandhi, or a Mother Teresa with a Beard. Then when they are presented with some aspect of Jesus they don't understand nor comprehend, oh my, how surprised and shocked they are!? The reason for this is, of course, they really never grasped that Jesus is God; and therefore, can never be truly "known". [--not because He is unknowable, but because the substance of His being is so vast, it cannot be known completely] But this is their problem, and they must overcome it if they are ever to learn how to discuss a topic intelligently that they know nothing about. As to his assertion that “Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam,” come on. Left Behind authors Jenkins and LaHaye didn’t cook up this series the day after 9/11. That is a stretch and an insult. Response5 No, I don't think the readers of "Glorious Appearing" will
ram planes into buildings. But we did imprison thousands of Muslims here and
abroad after 9/11, and ordinary Americans joined in the torture of prisoners
at Abu Ghraib in part because of a lack of empathy for the prisoners. It's
harder to feel empathy for such people if we regard them as infidels and
expect Jesus to dissolve their tongues and eyes any day now. And speaking of linking unrelated facts together to form a prejudicial position under the guise of piety and tolerance: this one takes the cake! Yes, although he doesn't think the readers of Left Behind will ram planes into buildings, they will be willing accomplices to George Bush as he rapes our natural resources, gives tax cuts to the rich, endorses the torture of all brown-skinned people everywhere--- because, after all, the 10 percent of Americans that call themselves born-again Christians represent GW's voting-block base. And besides, are not these the same people who want to oppress the Palestinians, stop food programs, privatize Social Security, keep Home Schooling legal, block stem-cell research, and take away a woman's Right to Choose? Yes. These are the same people that committed crimes at Abu Ghraib! And they are right here in River City! Response6 I also feel a responsibility to protest intolerance at home. Should we
really give intolerance a pass if it is rooted in religious faith? Boy, this guy Kristof really cares! And that Jesus character, especially in the novel, and worse yet in that hive-of-narrow-thinking, that Bible—SO INTOLERANT. He has convinced me! I feel like renouncing the Lord right now! Where do I sign up for Planned Parenthood? Response7: Many American Christians once read the Bible to mean that
African-Americans were cursed as descendants of Noah's son Ham, and were
intended by God to be enslaved. In the 19th century, millions of Americans
sincerely accepted this Biblical justification for slavery as God's word -
but surely it would have been wrong to defer to such racist nonsense simply
because speaking out could have been perceived as denigrating some people's
religious faith. People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels. In some ways, I don’t know how to respond to the ridiculousness of this last section: Sure, as I said before, and examination of history reveals many horrors associated with interpretations that when manifested as social or political action created holocausts. But Kristof uses this fact as a basis to proclaim the moral superiority of a secular position allowing for the right of people to ascribe and believe in [a God that endorses and practices] racism and hate; but then says "but we should be embarrassed --" We? We Christians, pale-face? Oh, I see, we Americans. Additionally, Kristof uses the secular moral-equivalency platform to connect to a plea to be embarrassed "when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels". Yes, we should be embarrassed when we celebrate intolerance. But this is not the case. The authors and readers of these books do not celebrate religious intolerance, nor do they endorse and advocate violence against infidels. Jesus Himself does not celebrate religious intolerance, nor does He advocate violence against infidels. [If He did, you would have known about it by now.] Conclusion: Mr. Kristof publicly evidences himself to be completely and prejudicially ignorant about the nature of Jesus, a basic understanding of Christian eschatology; and thus mischaracterizes Jesus and His believers based upon a fictional representation of highly complex, future events. Despite this lack of knowledge, Mr. Kristof bravely blazes his way into the frontiers of ignorance, his cultural bias clouding his judgment. To his credit he tries to do the “right thing” with the only morality he knows. Too bad he got it wrong. Was it something I said? If this
commentary has effected you to respond, you can send your reactions directly
to me at william.lolli@gunnewsdaily.com |