Religion & the U: Part 3
Now In Print!, The Never Ending Debate Continues
March 27th, 2008
By Carl Carpenter
Carl Carpenter would like to encourage everyone who thought his article inaccurate due to false accreditation of the Jesus banner and Coffman evangelists, to please go back and read both parts of the article, mindful that it was actually a conscience decision to withhold the true owner of the house and bigots for matter of suspense and format, and hopefully be willing to respond to some content in the article.
Comment taken from wakemag.org:
I have been wondering for some time now what Stephen Glass was up to. Guess he’s studying abroad.
This article further reinforces the growing belief on campus that The Wake and the MN Daily are tabloid rags filled with cartoon stories penned by whiny children.
So President Bush has had a bad policy in Africa? Hmm. Bob Geldolf would disagree with you.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-1,00.html
Religion has ruined politics? Strange. Wasn’t this the first Nobel Peace Prize ever awarded for Religion? I guess we should keep Global Warming talk out of politics. I’d agree with you on that one; religion is just beginning to ruin politics.
I’m surprised you think Johnathan Bislew is voting for Mike Huckabee. If you had bothered to ask him, at no point would he have endorsed Huckabee. Far from it in fact. As a rational voter, he would back Ron Paul; heck, you’d think all students would support someone who wants to get rid of the tax on tips!
Perhaps you should give Johnathan a call, maybe let him take you out to dinner when you get back? Perhaps clear up some misconceptions.
Or are you afraid to do that? Are you afraid to actually take responsibility for your words and test them? Any of us Maranatha members (Maranatha. Not Cru.) would be delighted to sit down and inform you of the truth to your claims. Without even a hint of evangelizing.
These articles belong back at community college. Until you can get your facts straight, you do not deserve to be published on anything more than a blog.
Audra, Grant, Johnathan, Bruce and I would be willing to debate you. On paper. In The Wake. If you are up to it.
- Stuart.
Stuart—You’re putting words in my mouth man. You’re seeing what you want to see; you’re seeing in me things that fuel your fire, that reaffirm your beliefs. But you’re selling me, and yourself short here. You’re not challenging yourself in any way. You turned on instant defense mode, and in the process, misinterpreted all the points I made. I understand that it’s hard not to get defensive when something you stand for is being questioned.
You brought up the point that Bush has done well in Africa… Well no shit. Of course he has! We’re the world’s number one super power. We have enormous capacity to offer them relief and guidance, and any United States president would do just that. That fact is we could be doing a lot more for a continent in the midst of multiple civil wars, dictatorships, and unbearable poverty. However, my aired grievance focused on just one policy in specific. He’s denied funds to countries not implementing abstinence education, which you diverted from by somehow making it about all of his work in Africa, and an article written by Bob Geldolf (which was really interesting by the way).
Your tangent on Bislew not actually supporting Huckabee is as equally out of left field, as were your comments on global warming, Al Franken, and Ron Paul. What I wrote was, “I can tell you one man who might be advocating for Mike Huckabee in his sermons and daily exchanges.” It was a segue tying the matter of Huckabee’s views on Evolution into my story on Bislew and the African student. Never did I say he for sure supports Huckabee, I simply implied they’re both anti-evolution.
My points were that it’s absurd to give Africans an ultimatum of AIDS relief or their religion, and it’s perverse to call professors the “enemy,” and manipulate foreign students for religious satisfaction, undermining a paid education in the process.
And no, I didn’t get names from the men at the table. I was too busy trying to think of a way to initiate a discussion without them turning instantly hostile. I brought up the banner, and asked what they’d think of a similar, but Islamic banner. They denounced all campus Muslims, and took me for an instigator. At this point, they turned on defense mode, and the conversation went nowhere.
I tried all last semester to get an interview with Bislew, face to face. He never had the time. I would have called him, but he just gave me his email. I’m sure he took me for an instigator too. I am an instigator, but I’m doing it to bring about these kinds of discussions, and I’ve done it with nothing but supported truths and facts. Not a single person on any of the comment boards has proven otherwise.
As for the debate, sweet Moses! Yeah of course I’m up for it! I’m glad that you proposed it and feel like it might be a step towards common ground, something that Maranatha seems to have a hard time establishing. Not surprising given in one posting session alone, you absentmindedly implied that kids who opt for Community College are inferior writers, and that everyone who’s worked for either the Daily or Wake were employed by “tabloid rags.” Come to think of it, do you by chance work the tables in Coffman union from time to time?
- Carl Carpenter
*Please read these posts in their entirety, along with over 50 others, on the message boards for the first two installments.
Comments & Discussion
Kara on March 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Carl,
I read both articles soon after those issues of the Wake came out and, like many others who have already commented here, thought that your reporting could have been better (i.e. more factually based). However, before you jump to any conclusions as to whether or not I am a bigot, member of CRU, supporter of Huckabee, or any of the many other suppositions you have made about other commenters, I want to mention that I am the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship student group presently. I also support Ron Paul and in November I hope I will be voting for him. Not because he is a Christian, not because that’s what all the other Christians I know are doing, but because I agree with the majority of his political and economic policies. Also, I will admit that I went to a Christian middle school and high school, and was raised “Christian” so you have no need to observe that I have a bias towards Christianity because its obvious that I do. And I write Christian in quotation marks because that term is thrown around so loosely that its hard for many people to define what it means anymore. But for my situation at least, it meant that I had Christian values for the most part, but my parents rarely taught me about the Bible or God.
So with that all being said, I would just like to ask you about the email you sent me in February asking about Maranatha. In it you stated that you were “interested in joining an on campus Christian group.” From your articles that doesn’t seem to be true as you seem to belligerently attack anyone who has any backbone and will stand up for what the Bible teaches. So really, my question is, was this email just a ploy to get one of the Maranatha group members to tell you the supposed brainwashing techniques the leaders like Johnathan Bislew and Grant Buse use? Or were you truly intending to weigh the different student groups and check which one would “fit best” for you? I don’t mean to be too critical because I understand that journalism often needs key testimonials from people inside the groups in question, but couldn’t you have just said that you were doing an article? I’m just asking for honesty here. I would have told you the same things in the same pleasant, non-instigating attitude if you would have been honest and told me that you were doing an article.
Carl on March 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Kara,
When it comes to finding out facts about Maranantha, the online resources available are quite vague and nondescript. I emailed you because you were listed as the president. I did so from the vantage point of a prospective member because that’s the way I approached Cru. I was sincerely interested in both groups, as they both make pretty appealing offers (eternal life, ect.). I feel I have the right to freely consider a group that’s offering me such an opportunity without being called disingenuous. I was sceptical going in, but that’s not to say I wasn’t open-minded. The fact that I remain unconvinced is the culmination of my objective observations.
Please feel free to point out a specific instance in the article where you feel Maranatha was unfairly represented. Make sure it’s not one that’s already been addressed, unless my response left you wanting, in which case you can contribute to that ongoing discussion.
Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the banner? Can you see why it might put a lot of people off, or offend them, or make them uncomfortable? Do you think it would unreasonable to request a change of wording?
Henry,
A little more free time on your hands I see.
I’m sorry to hear that the rewording won’t work for you.
I’m quite happy, however, to continue reading your thoughts, as they’ve yet again reinforced my article. Even if non-Christians at that U might be worshipping, “false lords,” I think there are better ways to “spread the word of god.” Perhaps you could do it in a different way. A way that doesn’t proclaim your belief of ‘everyone who doesn’t believe as I do is wrong,’ especially when there’s no way to prove who’s right.
Kara on March 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Mostly my complaints about how you represented Maranatha have been covered, so I don’t really feel the need to add to that discussion.
As for the banner, I am sure some people feel uncomfortable when they see it, but as many others have stated, it is our first amendment right to have it up. And also, if someone else wants to put up a banner stating that their deity is lord, then I say they should do that. It’s as much their right to do so as it is ours. There are banners/ads out there that make me uncomfortable and a few that would probably offend me, but you know that’s how freedom goes. Not everyone will ever be entirely satisfied with what others believe and with what they post on their houses.
Kara,
Sut can you see why the wording comes across as overly antagonistic, and seem to be nearly challenging on a level. There are clearly those in your group, Maranatha, that feel like other religions would be wasting their time putting up their own banners, because there’s no way anyone else can be right, which is absurd given there’s no way to disprove one person’s faith over another. This is the kind of thinking that leads to problems. Major problems, like those addressed in the article, and in turn, tactfully avoided by your leaders (or pastor, or president, or is it supervisor? I’m confused as to what exactly it is that Grant and Stuart do within the group. Could you elaborate that one for me? They kind of just came out swinging with no introduction).
But yeah, what do you think about some of the other things in there. Do you acknowledge that it might be a bit scary for someone to dissuade a foreign student from what he’s learned in class, and call a professor, “the enemy?”
Do you think that abstinence only education is a rational approach to resolving the aids epidemic plaguing Africa?
I have to agree with Carl, the sign is inappropriate. Let me give you an explanation from my point of view that. I don’t believe in supernatural beings of any sort. Jesus is not *my* lord, yet I am part of the University of Minnesota. If nothing else, that makes the sign dishonest.
The problem with the sign is not that it is not making a statement of opinion. It is stating something obviously false in a factual manner.
You have every right to put that banner on the front of your organization’s meeting house. I’m only suggesting that this approach you have adopted may explain the lacking effectiveness in the way you are present your message.
No one likes liars. Even if they have every right to lie.
*This is a little more relevant to the previous two articles, but this being the most recent article in the series, I’ll post it here.
I’ve been following Carl’s articles since the first one came out. As a friend of many Cru members and a former member myself, I saw the title of the article and was interested in what other people had to say about Cru. I read the article and was disappointed with some of the inaccuracies I found (i.e. the banner and Coffman tables). But as a former member looking from the outside now, I agree with a lot of what Carl has to say. Cru (I don’t want to stereotype, but I think Maranatha as well) is a place where people of similar beliefs can come together and “hang out.” In many ways it is a place where you are not challenged to think outside the box, only the same as everyone else. I feel to some extent that Cru has the intentions of blocking out other views conflicting Christianity. In this day and age, to be so ignorant to not even acknowledge other beliefs only makes you look bad.
Before I continue I should emphasize that I am very strong in my beliefs as a Christian, so I am not saying these things because I am atheist or because I believe in something entirely different than Cru or Maranatha. I do believe in the same God as them. There are Christians out there that believe the things that Cru and Maranatha are doing that give Christianity a bad rep. Not all Christians are like them. I’m not saying they are bad Christians by any means, I’m just saying the way they go about portraying themselves is what others see because they are so visible on campus. I am a member of Lutheran Campus Ministries and lots of times I don’t like to feel compared to Cru because that is not what LCM is all about. Though we believe in the same God, our focus (including evangelism and serving God) is much different and we don’t want prospective “members” for lack of a better word, to feel turned off because we are a Christian group.
As a member of Cru last year I felt very sheltered. I myself love learning about other religions and beliefs. I feel like that only strengthens my own beliefs. But what Cru and Maranatha do is try to stop you from learning that there are other beliefs out there. They believe that Christianity is the only way and if you’re not Christian you’re pretty much out of luck, so they feel the need to try and convert everyone. I know not everyone in Cru had this experience, but in my small group I felt like I was being taught to be an evangelist and it was my duty to go out and get as many people I could to “come to Christ.” This is one of the parts of Cru I feel has totally wrong. It is not our duty to make people believe in God or scare them into believing in God. I don’t feel comfortable telling people that they are going to hell because they don’t believe the same things as me. Really, that’s just going to turn them off more. I think one of the best religious quotes I’ve heard is “spread the Gospel, and if necessary use words.” Evangelism doesn’t have to be as forceful as used by Cru and Maranatha. Go out and do good things for people and they will wonder why. They find out you’re a Christian and some of them might be turned on to the idea of becoming one themself. (Now I’m not saying that people who aren’t Christian don’t do good things, this is not that type of argument.) I’m saying that I think people are more inclined to consider becoming Christians when they are personally affected by other Christians as apposed to being approached randomly on the street and asked to “receive Christ.” Again as a former member of Cru I can confirm that there are people who go to the mall on a Friday night and try to get people to “come to Christ.”
Now really I could go on, but I think the main points I want to get across is that one, not all Christians are as stuck in their ways and inconsiderate of other beliefs as some of the people who have commented on these articles. Two, I think the way that Cru and Maranatha go about trying to “convert” people to Christianity is ineffective and subsequently damaging to the image of other Christians.