WWJD 9
As the two or three of you who regularly read this blog know, I am a Christian. I was raised Southern Baptist (and, as a footnote, the Southern Baptist tradition in which I was raised is in no way related to the current conduct of the Southern Baptist Convention), attended Roman Catholic churches for years, because by ex-wife was Roman Catholic, and now attend a little local Methodist Church, not because of any specific adherence to Methodism, but because of the character of the congregation.
So I am well familiar with both the “evangelical” tradition and the non-evangelical tradition.
There are those around us who wear their Christian beliefs as if they were some kind of flag, while at the same time doing and saying things that are somewhat odd.
Accordingly, I found this post quite thought-provoking. Follow the link to read more:
One of those in the group was wearing one of those WWJD bracelets that proposes that when facing any decision and in every circumstance, the question should be asked, “What would Jesus do?” He evaded the question as to whether or not Jesus would torture a terrorist.
January 6, 2006 at 11:05 pm
He evaded the question; I won’t: I think Jesus would be willing to send a terrorist to hell.
January 6, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Oh, I also noticed the quote is from Tony Campolo. I love him… totally misguided but a brilliant and Godly man. Are you a fan?
(The private e-mail I sent you a few weeks ago joking about you and I doing a point/counterpoint website was inspired by a Steve Brown show I listened to that day where Steve and Tony, good friends, had an exceptionally good liberal/conservative debate.)
January 7, 2006 at 4:08 pm
No, I don’t know him. I can’t say I agree with his conclusions, but I thought his comments worth considering.
In response to first comment, I don’t see the issue really as whether Jesus would send someone to Hell. Rather, I see it more as would Jesus approve of the things that some of those who claim to speak in His name say and do.
To focus on one recent item in the news, I have to say that I think Pat Robertson is in for a hell of a surprise when he finds that hatred is not a component of a Gospel of Love.
January 8, 2006 at 12:15 am
I read the link but I’m confused. Who are you accusing him of hating? At first I assumed you were accusing him of hating Ariel Sharon, because of his comments this week, but the link talks about some Zionist award, so maybe you are accusing him of hating Arabs?
January 9, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I selected the link simply because of the irony between what he said about Sharon last week and what transpired three years ago.
I will try to put this tactfully. I accuse him–and many of his ilk–of basing religion on hate and of encouraging believers to act, not out of love and compassion, but out of hate and fear.
January 9, 2006 at 7:35 pm
OK, I get it now. I don’t watch him, so I don’t even know if I agree, but I see where you are coming from. (How would you like to be the intern at one of these news departments who has to watch him night after night waiting for him to say something incendiary?)
In a related issue, though, I’ve never understood why it wasn’t an equivalent story when Sheryl Crow said that our involvement in Iraq was going to bring “huge karmic retributions.” I’m glad I don’t have to explain to anyone how that’s any different from the kinds of things Robertson says.
January 9, 2006 at 9:38 pm
One doesn’t have to watch him night after night to wait for him to say something incendiary. It’s just-a-gonna happen.
In response to your question, I would say that invoking “karma” is not the same thing as saying that you are speaking for the Christian God. And Ms. Crow does not claim to be a person of God. She and Pat Robertson are not playing on the same field.
She may well be wrong. He may well be wrong. But she, at least, is not a hypocrite. He is.
January 10, 2006 at 6:16 pm
They aren’t playing on the same field but they’re making the same moves. (Given that the press reports I hear about both are honest.) Of course a Buddhist is not going to claim to speak for God. It wouldn’t cross a Buddhist’s mind to do that; they don’t think that way. But both Crow and Robertson are saying that the failure of their political opponents to submit to their (Crow’s and Robertson’s) religious concepts of good and evil will bring ill fate to those opponents.
And yes, Robertson will continue to say these things, but how will we know unless the press watches him? (The last time I ever watched The 700 Club was one day about 5 years ago when Rebecca St. James was on, and even then I only knew because of a note on her website.) And you know none of these million dollar network anchors are going to waste their time with it, so I figure they probably stick some journalism intern with the task.
January 10, 2006 at 6:59 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/01/06/publiceye/entry1183896.shtml