David Brooks' apparently doesn't like what he sees on TV. After Sunday's dust-up on Meet the Press between Jerry Falwell (former leader of the right-wing Moral Majority) and Democratic Presidential contender Al Sharpton (and ordained minister), Brooks says neither are the face of Christianity in American public life -- that mantle belongs to John Stott.
Never mind, Brooks says, that nobody knows John Stott. Brooks likes him. And therefore, Brooks concludes, Stott must be the pope of American Christian Right. Oh, apparently, Stott doesn't lead any American groups, isn't involved in politics, and has never appeared on any news shows.
By this line of reasoning, Betty Crocker is as much a leader of the Christian Right as John Stott -- just as many evangelicals read her books, if not more. However, having your books read by people doesn't constitute leadership of them (pace, Brooks -- I know you fight hard for your books to be read at all).
Brooks seems to be under the impression that if things seem to be a particular way to him, then they are that way. However, there's no argument that even one Evangelical Christian read any of Stott's books and, as a result, adopted Stott's line. The opinions Brooks attributes to Stotts (pro-life, pro death penalty) are no different from those espoused by evangelical preachers the country over -- and Brooks doesn't argue that these opinions have historical roots in Stott, instead of heated discussions over the church BBQ.
So, why do I say "Brooks blows again?" Such an unkind thing to say. It's because Brooks is bad at laying out reasoned arguments supporting his plantive statements. His article's conclusions ("Stott the king of Evangelicals") is Wyle-E-Coyote-like suspended in air. He makes no argument that evangelical 1 has ever been influenced by him. So, Brooks is just saying "This is my opinion." Which, you can do. But it fails to be convincing.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Never mind, Brooks says, that nobody knows John Stott. Brooks likes him. And therefore, Brooks concludes, Stott must be the pope of American Christian Right."
I thought I ought to post something on this since I was an Evangelical who was tired of hearing how Falwell and his ilk represented me. I read Brook's article because a friend in my Bible-group had found it and passed it around.
The reaction:
At last! Someone recognizes John Stott, a man who every Christian evangelical has read or heard of. A man who we all admire and look up to. If we had popes, he would be one. IF we had saints, after he died he would be one too. Is he a representative of the Christian Right? No, thank God. But Brooks never said he was. He is a representative of evangelicals many of whom are a part of the Christian Right (all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples).
Stott is hugely influential within the evangelical community, more influential than Falwell (a noisy unpleasant person who causes most people in the seven different evangelical churches around the country I have attended to frown and say, "What a poor misguided man."). So, as Brooks says, for anyone to understand us (even if it only to try to argue with us or disagree) there should be some attempt to understand the people who are actually our leaders instead of the people who say they are our leaders.
Brooks at least makes an attempt to understand evangelicalism (a powerful force in American culture) instead of believing in a steriotypical composite image that has been created by people who know nothing about us.
Post a Comment