David Brooks rightly criticizes Dr. Jerry Falwell's self-proclaimed position as spokesman for evangelicals in today's NYT.
Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life.
Inviting these two bozos onto "Meet the Press" to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D. H. Lawrence. Naturally, they got into a demeaning food fight that would have lowered the intellectual discourse of your average nursery school.
Brooks writes that John Stott might be a better spokesman for those of us mortified every time Falwell or Robertson bloviates. Personally, I'd prefer the writings of C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, and G.K. Chesterton to "speak" for evangelicals. The collective body of work produced by these great thinkers and apologists is nothing short of breathtaking. Few 20th century Christians were able to match the breadth or plunge to the depths of their discussions on Christianity.
Unfortunately, today's average evangelical would rather be besotted by the Bruce Wilkinson's, Rick Warren's, and Joel Osteen's of the world. Augustine who? Aquinas what? I recently read that Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life has sold 20 million copies. Unbelievable.
All is not lost however. There ARE shining stars in the apologist universe - Ravi Zacharias shining the brightest, in my 'umble opinion. Zacharias's Great Conversations series was brilliant. The "conversations" between Jesus and Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha, and Jesus and Oscar Wilde were not only a delight to read, but genuinely thought provoking as well.
If we're gonna elect an evangelical spokesperson I cast my ballot for Ravi Zacharias...
Comments