Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Robert Knight :: Townhall.com Columnist
The New York Times and the Gospel Truth
by Robert Knight
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


As liberal politicians pose at churches, salt their speeches with Scripture, and insist that their aggressive drive for more government is pious obedience to the Almighty, they are getting powerful cover from the mainstream media.

The biggest help they are getting, apart from credulous acceptance of their sudden spiritual enthusiasm, is the media’s demonizing of conservative Christians. Religion’s okay only if it mirrors liberal opinion.

The New York Times has been in the forefront of the conservative Christian-bashing, running voluminous pieces that accuse churches of avoiding taxes and warning darkly that the Christian Right is on the verge of turning the United States into a Talibanesque theocracy.

Maintaining this false image takes a lot of repetition and misrepresentation. A perfect example is an article in The New York Times Sunday Magazine (Feb. 18) in which Concerned Women for America’s position on spiritual outreach is so grossly distorted as to constitute a lie.

I had the privilege of directing CWA’s Culture & Family Institute for nearly six years. At no time did I see any CWA representative say or do anything to support the vicious mischaracterization in this Times article. Here’s the passage, from “Narrowing the Religion Gap” by Gary Rosen, who is identified as managing editor of Commentary magazine:

“On the right, the culprits are familiar, having become stock characters in our politics. In his unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination in 2000, [Arizona senator and Presidential candidate John] McCain called them “the agents of intolerance,” singling out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. For a taste of their views, you can visit the Web site of Concerned Women for America (C.W.A.), which bills itself as the “nation’s largest public-policy women’s organization.” Its mission is “to protect and promote biblical values among all citizens,” the Bible being “the inerrant Word of God and the final authority on faith and practice.” As for dissenters from C.W.A.’s stand on issues like the “sanctity of human life,” a handy link to Bible passages explains “why you are a sinner and deserve punishment in Hell.”

Rosen’s reference comes from CWA’s Gospel page, which begins by reminding us that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Nowhere does CWA state or imply that people will be sent to hell because of their views on public policy.

The reference that Rosen pulls out of context continues this way:

”God, however, has made a way for you to join Him in Heaven instead. Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

This goes for everybody—liberals, conservatives, Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists, Republicans, Democrats, atheists, it does not matter. It has nothing to do with policy or dissenters of any policy.

Are there any editors at The New York Times who still insist on checking facts? Rosen should apologize not only to Concerned Women for America but to the Times editors who trusted him enough to run his piece.

My guess is that most Times editors wouldn’t think of challenging Rosen’s assertion because they share his prejudices. It probably made perfect sense to them. Conservative Christians did not become “stock characters” because of balanced coverage.

Rosen’s main thesis is that everybody should run to the center, and stop worrying so much about nasty issues like abortion and gay rights. He cites several conservatives that he says “have performed a service lately by denouncing the GOP’s pact with such authoritarian bullies.”

Those sweet CWA ladies sure are scary. By the way, one of those “observers on the right” that Rosen names is Andrew Sullivan, the blogger/activist who insists that God approves of promiscuous homosexual behavior, all evidence aside.

Rosen takes some leftists to task for insisting on their own orthodoxies, but in his list of “luminaries” he includes Peter Singer of Princeton, who argues that parents should have a week to decide whether they want to kill a baby after it is born. Singer is also floating the idea that it’s perfectly moral for humans to have sex with animals.

Remember, it isn’t the Singers of this world we’re supposed to fear, it’s the CWA ladies. We know because we saw it in The New York Times.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Robert Knight is a Senior Writer/Correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and a Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

A nice summary of Christianity
"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God, however, has made a way for you to join Him in Heaven instead. Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

I wonder how many NYTimes editors, so educated in the ways of the world, could provide as coherent a summary as that. Or, for that matter, I wonder how many Christians could.

is the quote in fact a misrepresentation
The author of the New York Times article does make an inference that may be unwarranted. He takes the message of the web site to be that to follow the way is inconsistent with holding a view about the sanctity of life that is inconsistent with the CWA view. Is this a mistaken inference? Would they accept that a church goer like Barack Obama who differs with their view on the sanctity of life at least as it applies to policy issues but accepts Jesus will be saved?

On a separate point, someone reading Knights article might come away with the mistaken idea that Rosen in his article is praising Peter Singer. In fact the main thrust of his article is to attack the rise on the left of intellectuals who believe that religion should not inform people's political views. Rosen is attacking both the view of CWA and the view of Singer (among others).

One might note that on this point Knight seems to be more dishonest to his source material than Rosen is. I can see how Rosen would come away from the CWA site thinking that their view is that anyone who disagrees with them on sanctity of life issues is facing eternal damnation. I don't see how Knight could read Rosen's article and think that he is not attacking Singer's view.

They're trying to spoil your fun
Yes, the grownups are really scary, terrible people (and HYPOCRITES, that favourite word of all teenagers) because they tell you that if you do A, B will follow when you WANT the truth to be that if you do A, H will follow! And when you do A and B follows, that only proves that your parents suck.

All in all, it's nothing new as far as I can see. Just more rantings by the GrabbyBabies who want everything the instant they think of it, and kick and scream and call names if they don't get it. And they absolutely never admit they're wrong, much less that they're sinners and deserving of punishment -- or ought to do anything to avoid it ...

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Bill O'Reilly's 2 Cents
Interview With Stephen Bennett
The O’Reilly Factor
Fox News Network, September 3, 2002

BILL O’REILLY: In the “Unresolved Problem” segment tonight, apparently, Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, are angry with me because I am not condemning American homosexuals. Now the reason these people are attacking your humble correspondent is that I refused to support a denial of rights for gay Americans. I do believe they have the same rights as everybody else, and I support gay adoption if no heterosexual couple is available to provide a stable home for unwanted children....

O’REILLY: But if [Practicing homosexuals] don’t [convert], you believe they’re all going to hell, correct? If they don’t, if they die and they’re practicing homosexuals, you believe they’re going to hell, right?

STEPHEN BENNETT (former gay man and now a spokesperson for the CWA) If anyone does not accept Christ as their savior, you could have -- you could be a liar...

O’REILLY: And they’re all going to hell, anybody who doesn’t...

BENNETT: Can I read to you from your Catholic Bible?

O’REILLY: ...We live in a secular society. You’re a religious fanatic, with all due respect.

BENNETT: I am far from a religious fanatic.

O’REILLY: You’re a religious fanatic. Now you have a right to be that, and I even respect you for being a very, let’s say, devout man in your own way. Once you cross into the secular realm and start denying people rights, then I...

BENNETT: I deny nobody rights.

O’REILLY: You don’t want gay adoption, correct?

BENNETT: Exactly.

O’REILLY: ...You don’t speak for God, Mr. Bennett.

BENNETT: The Bible does!

O’REILLY: You don’t...

BENNETT: Your own Bible does.

O’REILLY: You interpret it your way, and everyone else will interpret...

BENNETT: How could you misinterpret “God delivered them up,” “The woman exchanged natural intercourse”...

O’REILLY: All right. Nice to see you, Mr. Bennett.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/751/CFI/cfreport/index.htm

The NYTimes was right, in this case
Conservative Christian organizations say over and over that you can't be a true Christian and believe that abortion should be legal, period. The CWS site said this. Now, connect the dots . . . you can't get into heaven without being a true Christian, so there you are: oppose legal abortion or go to hell, literally.

liberalgoodman
They have a right to believe that you're going to hell, though. That's an absolute right. It's your absolute right to disagree with them. When you die, you'll know one way or the other, so what does it matter that someone you disagree with thinks you're hellbound? If you're right, then it's not going to matter anyway. The problem would come if they decided to help you along the way, but as far as I can tell, Conservative Christians on the whole have no interest in killing you just to say, "Told ya so!"

So?
CWA is a very informative organization that I support wholeheartedly.

The New York Times is rapidly becoming obsolete in this age of the internet and technology. They will write or say anything to increase circulation. Why should it surprise anyone when they print garbage about a Christian organization? Everyone knows that the NYT is a bastion of liberal bias!

BTW - funny post Miss_W!!!

Miss_W
The problem is that the column above is calling the writer of the Times commentary a liar for saying what you are acknowledging is the truth. That is, no one is objecting to the right of CWA to hold that view. The author of the Times Commentary (the article is an opinion piece by an outside commenator rather than a news organization) is critical of the CWA view, but as you say he has a right to be. The problem is that Knight incorrectly accuses him of lying and uses this as evidence that the Times has poor editing.

So if telling the truth is an important thing then it matters whether accusations of dishonesty are themselves dishonest.

Moral Law still in effect...

Repealing the sodomy laws did not repeal the moral Law, though it seems that some think and act as if the Law is of no effect.

If this is true, then there is no sin, 'for sin is the transgression of the Law'. If there is no sin, then Christ died needlessly. There are no consequences for immorality of persons or of nations. His resurrection to power and glory is of no benefit to His church.

The men of this world accuse the Christians of bigotry and fanaticism because we would rather believe Jesus Christ than what they say.

They testify of their rebellion against God. They will not submit to the law of God, nor are they able to do so. Herein lies the deception unto death. Unless God rescues them from there lawlessness, they will perish in their sin.

Christians have been bought with a price. We are no longer our own, having been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Shall we not hate our sin as that which put Him to death?

God promises in the New Covenant the great spiritual blessings of the forgiveness of sins and the writing of the moral Law on the heart of ever believer. Shall we who have the law written on our heart not forsake that which He calls sin?

The world may call us whatever they will. They may do to us whatever they will. We cannot help but testify of the Lamb, who has delivered us from sin and death.

Thanks be to God for sending the revelation in word and in flesh, or we should all be sinking into the pit. God not only gives us a revelation of His will, but makes us to understand and believe that revelation, and gives us grace to live under its influence.

Christians, let us give thanks and praise His name.

The Big Bad NY Times
Ever since Watergate, you right-wing extremists have always tried to balmed the media for all your own problems.

CWA is nothing more than a bunch of GOP hardliners who will never acknowledge that world is round. They are stuck in the 17th Century and aren't about to budge.

This 72-year-old Methodist Great-grandmother can spot a phoney a mile off.


The title of this column
is an oxymoron.

the religious left is alive and well
Group asks: What did Jesus say?
By Frank James
Chicago Tribune 9-19-2006

I went to a press conference yesterday and a church service broke out.

The press conference at the National Press Club was held by the new Red Letter Christians network, Christian communicators who say they want to change how Christians influence the national public policy debate. The Religious Right, with its focus on a narrow set of issues like abortion and gay rights, has dominated the public arena for too long, says the RLC.

But Jesus, whose words in many Bibles are printed in red, hence the new group's name, was concerned about social justice issues like poverty and discrimination that are as neglected on the RR’s agenda as the robbery victim on the Jericho road in Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan, say RLC members.

What would Jesus do? is a line popular among Christians. The RLCs add a new wrinkle, a new way for assessing policy and political candidates: What did Jesus say?

So through a series of what amounted to small sermons, the Christian clergy, activists, scholars and writers who attended yesterday’s event, announced that they wanted to elbow their way into the national pulpit, as it were, to give issues of social justice, global warming, peacemaking etc., an emphasis in policymaking they say is now lacking because the RR largely ignores these other issues.

But the RLC has another reason for being, say its members. To be prophetic, that is, to tell a society what God requires of it even when that’s unpopular, means being independent of party politics.

The RLCs criticized the RR for essentially serving the interests of the Republican Party and vice versa.

The press conference was meant to pre-empt the RR's “Values Voter Summit” to be hosted here Washington later this week by FRC Action, part of the Family Research Council, a conservative group that binds fundamentalist Christianity and Republican politics. Featured speakers at the event include conservative favorites William Bennett and Ann Coulter.

(Considering what Jesus did in the temple when he encountered the moneychangers, it’s interesting to consider what his reaction might be if He were sitting in the audience when Coulter dropped some of her more out-there comments like “I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties” and “I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning.” But I digress.)

“…It’s actually, I would suggest, arrogant to assume that only two issues involve moral values,” said Rev. Jim Wallis, referring to abortion and gay marriage.

Wallis is one of the nation’s leading voices on social justice issues. Head of Sojourners, a progressive Christian group and author of “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It” has been trying to wrest the microphone away from the Religious Right for years.

“And it is hubris to say that only those people with a conservative political position are voting based on values. What should be valued is the broader and deeper question. We want a politics grounded in all of our values and what really appeals to the basic moral concerns of all Americans.”

The RLCs can’t be written off as a bunch of liberal, anything goes, Christians. Wallis has been very public about being pro-life. Rev. Tony Campolo, a well known Christian educator who attended yesterday’s press conference, was very clear about personally opposing gay sex and marriage, what he called “same-sex eroticism.”

So they share some common ground with many people on the Religious Right.

But the contest over whose version of Christianity will win out is going to waged over the differences between the RLCs and the RRs. And by the sound of it, this contest could get pretty heated.

Randall Balmer, a Columbia University professor and expert on American religious history, gave just a sense of the fight that’s brewing.

".. The evangelical faith that nurtured me as a child and that sustains me as an adult has been hijacked by right wing zealots who really have no real understanding of the teachings of Jesus,” he said.

“They have taken the Gospel the Good News of Jesus Christ, something that I consider to be lovely and redemptive, and turned it into something ugly and punitive," he said. "They have cherry picked through the Scriptures wrenching verses out of context and used those verses as a bludgeon against their political enemies.”

Balmer went on to say he has no problem with faith in the public square. His problem was that the RR seemed to view itself as inseparable from the Republican party.

“…There’s a real danger when the faith is identified too closely with anyone political ideology, political party or, in this case in recent years, with a specific administration. Because at that point the faith loses its prophetic power.”

Then Balmer told a story. While he was doing research for a book, he asked eight RR groups for their position on the use of torture. Only two got back to him, saying they agreed with the Bush administration.

“These are people who purport to be pro-life,” he said. “These are people who claim to hear a fetal scream. And yet they’re turning a deaf ear to the very real screams of people who are being tortured in our name. I happen to think that’s morally bankrupt and we need voices speaking out against this sort of travesty.”

Then there was Campolo. “Red Letters Christians are above else a challenge to the Religious Right. We want to challenge them on their own ground,” he said. “They don’t do what has to be done to eliminate abortion as a case in point.

“The Guttmacher Institute recently reported that if you made contraceptives available to lower income women, you could cut the number of abortions in America by 200,000. Add to that this fact, that if you provided medical care for the poor, if you provided daycare for these children who are born, if you provided a raise in the minimum wage, you could cut abortions by another 300k.

“Consequently, there are one million abortions in America. You can cut it by a half a million if you took care of the poor. We challenge the Religious Right that meets at the end of this week to do something about the poor… if they’re rally serious about their pro-life agenda.”

Rev. Romal Tune, an African American who has a community-activism ministry he takes to churches nationwide, accused the RR of being elitist at one point referring to its leadership as “ultraconservative elitist white males.”

He mentioned how his seven-week old cousin was killed by a stray bullet during a drive by shooting two years ago. “The dialogue around gay rights and abortion will do nothing to get guns off the street. It will do nothing to improve legislation and stricter gun laws,” Tune said.

“Rather this conversation will only allow people to hide in their offices or simply cower down behind pulpits rather than stand beside the people who need them most in the inner cities and our rural communities. This is the difference between prophetic ministry and pathetic ministry.”

Alexia Kelley, a founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, said: “We stand for peace. But if there’s a culture war that’s needed, it is a war on greed, on poverty, on materialism and on economic security of the middle-class”

Another speaker, Rev. Robert Michael Franklin Jr., a professor at Emory University and president of the Regional Council of Churches of Atlanta, said that as an African American preacher he could speak to the dangers of a group aligning itself to closely to one party, as African Americans have with Democrats.

“We humbly say to our fellow values voters, be cautious in over identifying with a single party and a narrow set of values,” Franklin said . “In the black church we speak from experience here. Because many of us have too often aligned ourselves, uncritically, with a single party.

“But today we urge black church leaders around the nation and evangelicals not to simply endorse Democrats or Republicans out of blind loyalty but to discern the congruence of their policies with God’s politics.”

To that end, the RLC press kit had in it a voters’ guide. It doesn’t tell voters who to vote for. Instead, it provides a framework for how voters can use Christian values in consistent way to inform their choices.

For instance, it suggests Christians should vote for a consistent ethic of life. That means supporting “common-ground “ policies that would lead to fewer abortions while at the same time voting to end capital punishment.

The RLCs also have a blog, Godspolitics.com. This week, Wallis and Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition head, have a debate on Christian values.

“I want to pledge to you we will not treat our opponents the way the Religious Right has treated those who oppose them," Wallis said. “Our conversation will be open and welcoming and civil. We’re not afraid of dialogue. The Religious Right wins when they control a monologue. They begin to lose when dialogue breaks out. Dialogue has just broken out.”

Elisabeth is an idiot
The Methodist church long ago left the mainstream of conservative christian orthodoxy. My spouse is a Mensa level brain and has a very productive career. She is a CWA member. You, on the other hand, spout tired liberal nonsense and have not grown up-despite your advanced years.

I have a journalism degree and all my fellow students were far left wackos and they now run the MSM.

Keep deluding yourself, it is easier than thinking.




Christians and the law
The Bible is concerned with personal beliefs and choices, not laws.

To my knowledge of the Bible there is no 'go and make this law' commandments from Christ to His church.

As far as who is to be judged unworthy to enter heaven, only God will judge. Behaviors however we should always speak against if they are sin ; without anger but with love and compassion.

Sin hurts yourself, angers God and dimishes the life God has given you. Viewed in this light, (for example) homosexuality is simply denying yourself the whole and fullfilling life He wants for you.

Christian brothers, stand by your beliefs!


something to consider
Ever wonder why those who rail most fervently against religion also seem to know the least about it?

Hmmm...

Jesus didn't have no bullhorn
There is not a single incident in the Bible in which Jesus marched down Main Street with a bull horn shouting for the government to feed His sheep, clothe the nekkid, visit the sick, comfort the afflicted and pray with the dying. Much less evidence for any time when Jesus demanded that the government make changes in foreign policy, or that the current Roman occupation be overthrown.

Although the story of Barrabas is currently believed to be apocryphal, it is known that Barrabas was a Zionist (a Zealot was the term in those days) -- and so was Judas Iscariot. Neither of these are examples the average Christian holds up as examples of how to carry out the words of Christ....not in my church anyway.

Elizabeth
You may very well be 72 years old ...butin your case you still haven't believed God's intentions for purposeful sinners...boastful arrogant and PROUD of their sin...too bad.Try listening to the Lord as He speaks to you through His word.

What Lon wrote is interesting...
and thoughtful.

Lon writes:
==============================
Lon writes: Wednesday, February, 21, 2007 4:46 PM
is the quote in fact a misrepresentation
The author of the New York Times article does make an inference that may be unwarranted. He takes the message of the web site to be that to follow the way is inconsistent with holding a view about the sanctity of life that is inconsistent with the CWA view. Is this a mistaken inference? Would they accept that a church goer like Barack Obama who differs with their view on the sanctity of life at least as it applies to policy issues but accepts Jesus will be saved?
==================================
CWA can speak for themselves, but AFAIK the answer is yes, any genuine penitent will be/is saved. The CWA website mentioned in the article says what they believe to be the prerequisite for salvation (accepting Jesus as one's personal Savior), and does NOT say (as the NYT misrepresents them to do) that you have to agree with CWA on public policy to be saved.
===================================
On a separate point, someone reading Knights article might come away with the mistaken idea that Rosen in his article is praising Peter Singer. In fact the main thrust of his article is to attack the rise on the left of intellectuals who believe that religion should not inform people's political views. Rosen is attacking both the view of CWA and the view of Singer (among others).
======================================
I rather doubt that Singer's views are informed by "religion" in the sense that the writer of the NYT article believes. Maybe I am incorrect.

ISTM that perhaps the writer would object less to politicians whose views are informed by religion if their initials are HRC (or MLK) and not GWB.

Regards,
Shodan

CWA's thin Salvation explanation.
While I applaud Concerned Women for Americaa for having the guts to stick to their principles during times of outrageous moral relativism, a clarification is order for their take on salvation.

Surely, recognizing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is mandatory for anyone calling himself or herself a Christian. However, it's not that simple.

Jesus said it's not enough to call Him Lord and heap all sorts of praise upon Him if His teachings were not followed and we remained callous to our fellow man or woman in need.

Additionally, Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be baptized by water as well as spirit. Just verbally acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior isn't enough; especially if the acknowledger isn't willing to take the sacrament of baptism.

My problem with the so-called religious right is that it has come to promote the perception of favoritism towards Evangelical Protestants. Indeed, one of its up and coming marquee preacher/personalities is the flamboyant blowhard from the Buckeye State: Rod Parsley.

Good Heavens, conservatives have really slipped when one considers that Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr. set the intellectual standard for presenting the best views religious conservatives had to offer.

It's a shame that the antics of megachurch huckster-pastors such as Rod Parsley's have been rendered "representative" of religious conservatives by our mainstream press. Especially so when there are also other leaders such as Fr. Richard Neuhaus, Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Novak.

You won't print this but
the cwfa website says this....

This means that you are a sinner and deserve punishment in Hell. God, however, has made a way for you to join Him in Heaven instead. Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

Be clear, that cwfa says if you do not believe in jesus, as stated above by them, not by the biblical quotes, their interpretation is "you will go to hell".

And be clear...if you don't believe in jesus the way they believe in jesus, "you will go to hell".

Sugar coat it all you want.

Fanatics are fanatics. Lie to yourself all you want, but it's nothing but the truth. Your lost and afraid, and just a little more than delusional.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.