Purposeful Provocation and Christ’s Love

It’s hard to be bold and courageous on tough issues while also exemplifying meekness and love. In fact, some say it can’t be done.

This past week, the Christian-right has found itself divided in regards to the Garland, Texas cartoon contest sponsored by Pamela Geller.

Should we insult all Muslims for the sake of making a point? Is it better to turn the other cheek and kill them with kindness as the old adage advises? This is a tough scenario to decipher.

Rev. Franklin Graham denounced the event, saying that we - meaning Christians, I presume - should not mock other faiths. However, I wonder if the event was truly mocking devout followers of Islam or instead, was a purposeful provocation in the market place of ideas- and yes, there is a difference. The distinct difference is emotion or lack thereof.

As courageous Christian activists, we must strive to be like Christ. We must strive to be like the individual who befriended the hated tax collector, the outcasted prostitute, and spent time with lowly children. Concurrently, we must also strive to be like the individual who rebuked Satan and violently overthrew tables in the temple. I understand and sympathize with those of the Christian-right who feel marginalized and ostracized within our so-called “Christian nation.” And while I call upon Christians to stand up and engage in the political arena, Christians must do so without emotional looseness.

We can rebuke and engage with our detractors, all the while exemplifying Christ’s love. The best example of this balance is when Jesus ran the moneychangers out of the temple as described in Matthew 21. I can imagine Jesus calmly thinking, “Hmm. This is wrong. I guess I need to get everyone’s attention. I guess I’ll go flip over the tables and drive them out of my Father’s house. Maybe then they’ll pay attention to the truth and turn to my Father.”

Being that Jesus was perfect, He did all this, acting in righteous anger, while exemplifying the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. His actions were not an emotional reaction, but rather purposeful and thought-out action, employed to fix a problem. Sometimes it takes purposeful provocation to bring attention to an issue. And when done so with an even-temper and emotionless rationality, it honors Christ.

Whether Gellar's cartoon contest was crass, courageous, or Christ-like I do not know, because I do not know her heart. However, I do believe the verdict comes down to this and this alone: Christian activists must strive to be intellectually fierce for an emotional cause; Loving Christ with all our hearts, but taking up His cause with a calm and intellectual motive. Anything but a perfect balance of the two is a failure to act as Christ did.

ANTI-ISLAM CARTOONS AND FREE SPEECH by Bill Donohue, Catholic League, May 5, 2015

Bill Donohue comments on the anti-Islam cartoon event in Garland, Texas that left two gunmen dead and one security guard wounded:

According to some media outlets, minutes before Elton Simpson started shooting, he tweeted, "If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions." He was shot dead quickly thereafter, never realizing that his plainly irresponsible position—no limits on speech means no limits on conduct—was the proximate cause of his death. Absolutism also explains his attraction to Islamism.

There is no role for absolutism in a free society. Yet there are those who, like many members of the PEN American Center, embrace it, at least when it comes to speech. Tonight they will honor Charlie Hebdo in New York City, the French magazine that was tied to the Paris murders. Officials from the publication will receive an award for "freedom of expression courage." But other PEN members are objecting, saying that freedom of expression has limits: by depicting Muslims as savages, Charlie Hebdo is promoting bigotry.

Both factions of PEN are phonies. In October 1998, I led 2,000 demonstrators in the street outside the theater that featured "Corpus Christi," a play that depicted Christ having sex with the apostles. "From the beginning," I wrote in the November 1998 issue of Catalyst (our monthly journal), "the league has argued that the play should not be censored by the government but that the producers of the play should have cancelled it in the name of common decency." On that same rainy night there were 300 counter-demonstrators: they came to protest our constitutional right to freedom of speech. Among them was a contingent from the PEN American Center.

The other phonies are the ones who don’t want to honor Charlie Hebdo. They have no problem offending Christians, but when it comes to bashing Muslims, they are horrified. The entire organization is corrupt.

Here’s my take: It is wrong to honor Charlie Hebdo, and it is equally wrong to intentionally bash people of faith.

Greta Van Susteren talked about somebody coming “unglued.” Others talked about “nutjobs.”

This is to miss the reality completely.

Muslims are not “offended.” They are trying to impose Sharia Law.

Pamela Geller was not “provoking” an EMOTIONAL reaction. She was engaging in CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

Everyone must continually correct the WRONG FRAMING of this issue as a matter of Muslims’ FEELINGS. The issue is Muslims’ AGGRESSION, and how to resist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.