October 13, 2007
Ann Coulter - the voice of evangelicalism in the public square :(
How Ann Coulter can live with herself is impossible for me to imagine. Not to mention how my fellow Christians can defend her.
Her witnessing strategy (assuming that she actually is a Christian, which is debatable) is to be as offensive as possible. Apparently, she believes that Christianity is "the Federal Express of Judaism," a way out of "obey[ing] laws" so that we can be "perfected." Sound unfamiliar to you? Well, "that's what the New Testament says."
Never mind that Paul said that the engrafted branches should not boast against the natural branches. Never mind that he said that the covenants and the patriarchs belonged to the Jews, and that he wished he could be accursed for the sake of his people. Justin Martyr was less triumphalistic than Coulter.
Needless to say, her interviewer was shocked. And evangelicalism is even more discredited in the eyes of the masses.
Posted by donovan at 11:31 AM | Category: Politics
Yes, I was very sad when I heard her tell the world on national television that "Christians are perfected Jews." I wish people would really think their words through before they make a statement that is meant to represent an entire population.Posted by: Lisa at October 13, 2007 4:39 PM
Ann Coulter's style is definitely "shock and awe" and she does it well, IMO.
My thoughts are drifting back to the whole SoulForce episode and all the conversations I had with various people. One of the SoulForce members advocated the idea that Al Mohler was for genocide of homosexuals because he talked about the theory of genetic therapy in the womb and said that "Yes, if there is a gene we should fix it in the womb." or something to that affect.
I would hardly call that genocide because he wasn't advocating killing that person nor would he ever. He was advocating the cutting off of sin.
I would put this interview in the same category. The interviewer was trying to twist her words around calling her intolerant and all sorts of other things that just aren't true. Jews have ceromonies and rituals that they must adhere to or they aren't really "obeying" or whatever. This is what the Pharisees were accused of. Ann is on target when she says Christianity is the "fast track". Its Christ that gets us to heaven.
I know why people find Ann offensive. She is quite brazen. It comes across and downright tactless. However, examine what she is saying. Evan, I know you don't disagree that Jews need to embrace Christ and therefore become Christians.
The phrase "perfected Jews" is definitely one of the more offensive ways to describe Christianity. However, she's not exactly off base. She is and she isn't.
It's a question of being a good witness. Is shocking people a good witness? I would say no.
Theologically, she's off base too, though. She makes it seem like Christianity is just a way to sidestep law-keeping, as if God made things easier over time because He saw that Plan A was just too difficult.
We're not perfected Jews - we're Gentiles engrafted onto the Jewish tree, in Paul's terminology. Not to mention that Coulter seemed to suggest that Jews could be saved just as they were - it was simply more difficult, because of all those pesky laws. Nothing about redemptive history. Nothing about the laws being fulfilled in Christ. Being offensive is bad rhetoric and bad theology. It causes you to gloss over the truth.
Shock and awe was what caused thousands of civilians deaths in Iraq, btw.Posted by: Evan Donovan at October 17, 2007 9:53 AM
I think I'm defending Ann Coulter . . . oh dear.
While being offensive is bad rhetoric and bad theology, new interviews thrive on their short 5-10 minute "guest spot". If I was FOX or CNN for too long my head starts to spin. In 5-10 minutes, shock and awe is necessary if you want to be heard.
I agree with and I agree with Ann, if that's possible.Posted by: Carrie at October 17, 2007 11:27 AM
Michael Horton managed to be heard & to convey the Gospel without making himself look like an ass.
That's all I have to say about that.Posted by: Evan Donovan at October 17, 2007 5:17 PM
Ann Coulter is a bitch, but in my own small sphere, I notice some definite gender play going on:
1) Most of my male friends hate her because she is a bitch.
2) A few of my female friends *like* her because she is a bitch.
I think there is a bit of envious wishing that they, too, could get away with saying outrageous things. At the very least, they (me?) feel desperate that there are no really great political role models who are female. When the options are Hiliary Clinton and Ann Coulter--who would you root for, if you are from a conservative background?Posted by: funke at October 17, 2007 6:33 PM
Sarah makes a good point.Posted by: Carrie at October 17, 2007 9:46 PM
Yes, but is wanting to be a bitch a Christian attitude?
I'm not saying that Ann Coulter doesn't have a skillful rhetorical strategy, if her goal is simply to be the loudest voice in the room.
I am saying that she and Pat Robertson are one of the main reasons why people hate Christianity in this country.
Sure, we can whine about how we're a persecuted people, but I can imagine people like Coulter holding the whip more readily than I can imagine them being burned at the stake.
As far as the choice between Hillary and Coulter, I think it's a false one, because Coulter doesn't have any real policies to offer, only inflammatory slogans.Posted by: Evan Donovan at October 18, 2007 10:03 PM
Well, I agree that Ann Coulter is more of an activist than a politician, so I apologize for comparing the two.Posted by: funke at October 19, 2007 6:04 PM
I would agree that bitchiness and Christianity shouldn't mix. I really don't know whether I should love or leave her.Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 9:01 PM
Ok, well, at least we're all still friends :) That's the important thing.Posted by: Evan Donovan at October 19, 2007 11:09 PM