Religion & the U Part II
March 5th, 2008
By Carl Carpenter
Photo by Ben Lansky
This is the second installment in a two part article on religion. It was originally going to involve just one student group, Campus Crusade for Christ. However, a trail of misinformation left me with a second to consider. Last issue, I wrote about a Dinkytown house that proclaimed, “Jesus Christ is the Lord of the University of Minnesota.” I also told of a candy-filled table in Coffman Union which led me to the owners of the house. They defended their offensive and blatantly inaccurate claim proudly, casually denigrating campus Muslims in the process.
My association of them with Cru stemmed from two specific experiences. First, I had purchased a swivel chair from that house on the way back from class first semester. The students who sold it to me mentioned their affiliations with Cru, but failed to speak of the five student groups that are actually based out of the house. This belief of Cru being the owners of the “Jesus House” was strengthened at the homecoming parade. My group marched behind a campus minister. He told me of his close ties to the Cru organization, but quickly diverted the subject, later inviting me to stop by “the house.”
My curiosity over the house, coupled with the Coffman incident, led me to several Cru events over the fall semester. I didn’t realize the banner wasn’t their doing, and those Coffman reps weren’t actually Cru affiliates, until after attending all of these events. It went a long ways in clarifying the picture. I was confused at the end of my Cru involvements, because that banner and the antics of the table workers didn’t match up with the Cru mentality I’d witnessed.
Besides that first event, there was hardly a hint of Evangelical activism in their weekly meetings in Wiley 175. And even then it was just in a speech from one of the leaders, though she did urge the members to take more aggressive action in their personal relationships. Despite my misinformed associations, I emerged with a strong impression of the impact Cru has on its members, and the overall function Cru serves on campus. But before I elaborate, let me clarify the banner.
The man whom I met at the parade that day was Johnathan Bislew, an assistant pastor at the Maranatha Christian Church, a.k.a. the “Jesus house.” After we spoke, I told him I wanted to interview him about an article I was writing on Cru. He gave me his email to set up a time for me to, “Stop by the house,” failing to mention that it was actually a church, and he wasn’t involved in Cru.
In Bislew’s online entries, he describes his work on campus for the Maranatha Christian Fellowship. He sets up a weekly table in Coffman and “seeds” the campus with leaflets and flyers, all in hopes of attracting new recruits. His efforts appear largely unsuccessful, as his prayer groups at the Church draw an average of only 5-10 people.
The Maranatha Christian Fellowship is a religious relic, a throwback to the days of unregulated Evangelical scheming. The organization from which Maranatha Christian Fellowship was spawned originally formed back in 1971. Named the Maranatha Campus Christians, it was built on the principle of seeking out the best and brightest at universities across the nation. The plan was to flood the next generation with CEO’s and top politicians who’d be able to turn Christian beliefs into top national priorities. The “Jesus House” continues on in this tradition with its certified credo of, “Confronting the hot issues of abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage,… every day right in the center of university society.”
On his site, Bislew talked about trips that have been made to the war-torn African country of Sudan. He spoke of great relief delivered in the form of Bibles and religious promise, about offering the Sudanese escape from their harsh realities by focusing on a more important eternal reward. This logic is about as sadistic and twisted as George W. Bush’s efforts in Africa. Bush has long advocated abstinence as an answer to the AIDS epidemic. He’s even gone as far as to withhold funding from nations failing to comply in these educational programs. Instead of infusing programs teaching sex education, and offering viable solutions to a continent in overwhelming pain, Bush is attempting to force his religious beliefs on an entire continent. This is another painful example of religion ruling over reality and rationality.
I’m currently doing a semester abroad in London. Over here, the notions of religion influencing politics are laughable. Issues like abstinence and abortion are treated as matters of individual conscience, not as rallying points for Republicans to scare Christian voters into submission. In 2004, 27 million evangelicals voted to re-elect Bush, a 4 to 1 margin forming over a third of his total vote. It was the direct result of a well crafted campaign targeting these voters, and Bush successfully exploited his way into the White House. Which religion a politician chooses to practice, if any at all, is of little concern to voters in England. In fact, if a candidate were to begin suggesting he might let his personal choice of religion influence his policies, his career would be over.
When British students ask me about the American elections, they can’t even begin to wrap their minds around the concept of a leading candidate the likes of Mike Huckabee. Given they’ve been raised in a country where religion is genuinely separate from politics, and Darwin’s face is printed on the currency, I can understand their confusion. Huckabee doesn’t believe in evolution, openly advertises himself as a “Christian leader,” and advocates for the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. He finished second in the republican primaries and still remains a leading candidate for the VP nod. Who would possibly care to elect such a man into office? Well, someone who places more importance on these religious issues than on health care system that works and international relations, which have reached all time lows.
The plan was to flood the next generation with CEO’s and top politicians who’d be able to turn Christian beliefs into top national priorities.
I can tell you one man who might be advocating for Mike Huckabee in his sermons and daily exchanges. It’s our old friend Johnathan Bislew. On his website, Bislew tells a story about a Sudanese student named Both. Both was one of 14 siblings, and the only one to make it out of Sudan. He hadn’t been in the country long when he met Bislew. This was a common trend I noticed in many of Bislew’s accounts. His few success stories usually involved foreign students who had just arrived in the United States, and it makes perfect sense. Who better to recruit? Who better to manipulate than someone who’s new and alone? Bislew writes, with great self-importance, of saving Both from believing what he learned in an anthropology class. Evolution was a foreign concept to Both, and when he met Bislew, he told him that he was staring to understand it. “You can begin to see how the enemy was using the lie of evolution to take his mind captive,” explained Bislew. Is this the kind of guy we want walking around our campus? Declaring our professors to be “enemies,” taking advantage of vulnerable exchange students, “seeding” our beautiful campus with flyers (i.e. littering), and isolating minority groups at every turn.
Maranatha Campus Christians was removed from several campuses for its authoritarian nature and the organization disbanded in 1989. The U of M’s Maranatha Christian Fellowship sued the U of M in 2003 for being forced to sign a discrimination statement required of all U of M student organizations. Maranatha felt that allowing homosexuals to join their group would undermine their ability to spread their anti-homosexual sentiments. They were backed publicly by the Campus Republicans group. They ended up surviving in a settlement which created a narrow loophole, allowing only religious groups to forgo signing the statement.
Despite what Maranatha Christian Fellowship would hope you to believe, they hold few similarities to Campus Crusade for Christ. They’ve got a lot more in common with Brother Jed, and his legion of fire and brimstone fanatics who take the mall each year. They try to downplay the difference by saying they take a more “charismatic” approach to their “spreading of the gospel.” In all actuality, it’s a lot closer to brain washing, as was exemplified in Bislew’s self offered story involving the Sudanese student.
Cru isn’t necessarily in the business of conversion, or at least I was never approached about it at any of the events. It’s more of a safe haven for Christians of all dedications to interact. It’s a way for Christian students to make it through college with as little non-Christian interaction as they please. At my first meeting, I was handed a sign-up sheet for a program called “Crumigos.” Students fill out a form on which they rank (on a scale of 1 to 10) their “desire to know God”, whether they’re more introvert or extrovert, and how often they could meet with their new “Crumigo,” Making new friends has never been easier! Nor has it ever been less challenging. On the Cru website they have listings for students in need of housing, or looking for more roommates. Many of the listings cited ‘Christian’ as a stipulation for those to be considered. Ya know, just in case any non-Christians were referencing the Cru website for housing. You can never be too cautious…
Last October, I stopped by the Cru Halloween party in Dinkytown, Graham Crackers and kegged Root Beer on the (haunted) house. The notion of preferred isolation from non-Christians made its way to the surface. I sat talking with a friend of mine whom I hadn’t known to be a Cru member. I overheard a big group conversation next to us. “It is really nice to know that it’s just Cru people here though.” One of the girls confessed. “I know,” supported the others. “I just feel more comfortable,” confided a boy. Agreement reigned.
Answer me this Cru nation: how will you ever know Christianity is right for you if you’ve never challenged it? Coming from Midwestern towns, Christianity is understandably all most of us have ever known. In my hometown, it was common place for strangers to ask, “What church do you go to,” immediately after exchanging names. This sets the tone from an early age that being a non-Christian isn’t even a consideration. Johnathan Bislew’s daughters (two of whom are named Evangeline and Faith) will likely be offered no choice other than Christianity.
My parents raised me Christian, presumably to spare me social repercussions. I attended church until I was confirmed, and then just slipped into the gray, ducking religious inquiries and dodging any discussion of the matter entirely. Since graduation, I no longer feel that pressure to evade. I can approach the matter with an open mind, judgment free. I can consider various life explanations before I assume the first I learned to be law. I’ll eventually decide on something, but I can assure you this: I’ll never feel the need to force it on others, nor a desire to exclude myself from or in any way discredit those of different beliefs, upbringings, and orientations.
The title of my first article was “2 Live Cru: Spreadin’ Love or Fueling Campus Division?” This query is more appropriately assigned to Maranatha Christian Fellowship, and the answer is that they’re clearly fueling campus division, with no potential to accomplish anything else. I think it’s disturbing they were able to stay on campus, and I’m embarrassed to have them associated with the University of Minnesota. I’ll continue to raise ‘hell’ until they’ve at least been forced to remove the banner.
Aside from achieving the removal of the banner, my intention in writing these articles is to raise questions and provoke thought. If just one Maranatha member reads this article and rethinks his/her association with a group admittedly discriminating against minorities, I’d be happy.
If I had one hope for all the Cru members, it would be to consider the irrationality, and consequences, of mixing religion and politics. We’re a country on the brink of change. We clearly need it, and can’t afford to vote based on religious ideals like so many Christians did in 2000 and 2004, further delaying that change another four years.
Will you continue to dismiss politicians like Minnesota’s House Representative Keith Ellison, simply because his religious beliefs don’t match up with yours, as so many republicans have done? Perhaps it’s time to step outside of party lines, and realize there’s a little too much at stake this time around.
In the previous installment, Carl attributed certain aspects of Maranatha’s Ministry to Campus Crusade for Christ, as was explained in the beginning of this article. The Wake apologizes for any confusion and perceived misrepresentation.
Comments & Discussion
You cannot assume that just because these people are religious they vote republican only because of their religion. I met many christians and many of them were democrats working for John Kerry’s campaign in 2004. If you go talk to these people, I bet you would be surprised how many of them do not vote straight republican, but rather are independents or democrats. Even though there is the stereo-type that everyone who is religious votes republican but that is just not true.
At no point did I imply all Christians vote Republican. I simply asked for Cru members to consider the facts and analysis laid forth.
Given the United States’ capacity to improve life internally and to create positive change around the world, I think we owe it to those less fortunate than you and I, to vote for more valid reasons. The Christians who elected Bush for their own religious agendas were outright selfish in doing so, and have caused a great deal of suffering and pain, accomplishing nothing but self gratification in the process.
I don’t doubt that there are members of Cru who support rational voting. My intention in writing this article was to rouse complacent Christians who might be acting irresponsibly out of habit and learned behaviour, and to potentially reconsider their religious and political leanings. I hope this article would at least engage them in new discussions, which might lead to such reconsideration.
Thanks for the articles. There is another Christian group on campus that I would like to draw your attention to because I think they pose the greatest threat. They are called the People of Praise, they are an ecumenical charasmatic Christian community that is comprised mostly of young Catholics. They believe, similarly to Maranatha, that the University is their campus. More specifically the POP believes that this is their “city” they are building. The POP has supposedly recieved a ‘prophecy’ to build 200 cities and have 200,000 members in 40 years. This is a very audacious claim considering they only have 1,900 adult members currently. They live on the corner of 11th and University. Beware!
I find Carl’s poor journalism to be the first clue that would lead one to question his conclusions. He doesn’t even apologize, but justifies his obvious flaws of fact. Also, it’s hard to appeal to the audience of Maranatha members if you write a mean-spirited “article” (tabloid material) in the first place. Where’s the love man? Where’s the tolerance? Don’t you like diversity on campus, or would you rather have Maranatha “take their banner down” in the name of tolerance? A bit hypocritical, but that goes without saying.
Whose definition of “rational voting” are we to use? And what do we define as “acting irresponsibly?” This is not an “article,” but rather one man’s op-ed.
First:
As a professional journalist, I am embarrassed at the extreme lack of research and fact-checking that went into this article. The fact that you wrote an entire article about Cru, their banner, and their contact table WITHOUT even checking to verify that information was correct (which it wasn’t), is indeed an embarrassment. Also, the organization from which Maranatha was “spawned” as you put it was not called Maranatha Campus Christians. If you can’t even get that fact right, how much of this op-ed is credible?
Secondly:
I used to be president of Maranatha Christian Fellowship before I graduated in 2004. I was president when our organization filed the lawsuit you mentioned regarding signing the non-discrimination statement. I would encourage you to read the article linked below from the MN Daily archives.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2003/10/27/7136
Maranatha has always been open to any person of any race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation attending our campus functions and events. If you had ever hung around and done the required research for this article, you would have found this to be true. The lawsuit was about not allowing people who are in blatant disregard of our beliefs and standards to be a part of the organization’s leadership. This is all explained in the article.
Finally:
Maranatha has every right to have the banner up in front of their house. If the campus Muslims want to put up an “allah is lord” banner on their building, they have the right to do that, too. TRUST ME, there were plenty of attempts to have the banner taken down when it first went up many, many years ago. All efforts failed because we live in a beautiful nation that gives us the freedom to do so. Any attempt to have the banner taken down now would be a lost cause.
I’m sorry that you have such a distaste for people who hold tight to their beliefs. I hope you won’t err on the side of “intolerance” towards a sincere group who hasn’t done any harm to anyone in the 25+ years they’ve been on campus.
Oh, the pains of research and checking facts…
Dude, this is massively weak journalism.
Seriously Carl, the amount of factual errors in your initial article are front-page-retraction worthy. Then you follow it up with a completely unapologetic attempt at “what I meant to say was…”
There are countless ways that you could point well-founded criticism at very real issues on this topic. But geez man… This was amateur night.
I’m no longer a student at the U of M, but I can honestly say that religious preferences aside, politics aside, this is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I’ve ever read.
Start up a myspace page, bro. Leave the real journalism to the big kids.
The second article explains the reasoning behind my decision to write this article from a chronological perspective, with the reader gaining info in time with my progression. It wasn’t due to lack of research or proof-reading. I wrote it in this step by step, unfolding manner as an attempt to show the formation of my thoughts on each group. It was an approach that would have been best served in one 4,000 word piece, but that doubles the limit of one piece, thus the two-part approach.
As you might know if you’ve ever read any copy of the Wake, it’s commonly reffered to as an alternative news source, sharing as much in common with The Onion, as it does with The Daily. The Wake is home to all kinds of experimental takes on Journalism, and my peice was nothing out of the ordinary. Everything in it was supported and factual, it was merely presented in an alternative manner than you’d read in The Daily or other formal newspapers. I waited until the end to clearly define my stance on Cru because I hadn’t developed it until the end of my interactions and research.
I assumed that as an off shoot of my writing the article in this fashion, it would help to grab some attention, and judging by my wealth of responses (for an online wake article), I’m doing quite well. However, it saddens me, though hardly does it surprise me, to see that none of you have taken in to account any of the points I’ve made on the decline of our society as a direct result of religion in politics.
My hope now, as I’ve again clarified the banner point, is that each of you (mostly graduated) Cru and Maranatha members can go back and potentially engage in some intelligent discussion on the issues that have been raised.
Several Cru members, active Cru members… as in still students, have contacted me personally via email and facebook, and we’ve been openly airing positive feedback and concerns in a civilized manner. It’s been quite productive, and both sides have made concessions, in essence, educating and furthering ourselves in the process. Even ‘funzo’ and I have established a correspondence, and though we’ve yet to find a middle ground, we’re still keeping it genuine, and attempting to understand one another’s reasoning.
I’m not opposed to Cru, my article simply sought understanding of a group who are affecting the future of our world through their organizational and motivational abilities. Cru has an open focus on “evangelism,” and evangelical Christians rallied to the election of our last president. It’s 6.30 am here in London, and I’m just home from a party. I met Europeans from numerous countries tonight, and many of those who recognized the name Minnesota were quick to bring up Bush and the Bible Belt. The world knows more about our politics than we do, which I guess makes sense, because if we had voted responsibly (ie. voted for reasons that will improve the over all quality of life for our nation as a whole, and not for selfish, self gratifying religious reasons) we’d be Bushless and basking in stronger world relations and a more internally sound society.
Eric, thanks for reading the article, and spreading some knowledge
Roland… “dude”…”man”…. “bro”…bra… guy… pal…mate… buddy… chief… champ… killer… sport…
this article clearly wasn’t for you, but for someone who might actually be willing to read an article like this, and not take immediate offense to anything of an opposing view. I hope other religious readers will put sincere thought in to my propositions, and not cut them down with generalizations which aren’t based of anything written in my article which hasn’t already been explained.
Grant, thanks for keeping a regular look out on to the comment board, I see you have a lot of spare time on your hands post graduation. I think I remember seeing a Grant listed as a paid staff of U of M Cru, or was it Maranatha. That wouldn’t be you, would it? If so, is it part of your job description to post defaming messages on student websites? I ask this in all sincerity, because it wouldn’t surprise me if it was, especially if it was Maranatha that I saw a Grant associated with.
Audrey, Thanks for the article link. I’m curious as to why you didn’t bring up the fact that it was you who wrote that article. Maybe because your points were nearly all opinion based. That was reason I opted to use the two other Daily articles written on the subject. Maranatha members deservedly stood mostly unsupported in their stance, presumably because it does spread hateful sentiments and promotes division on campus.
Here’s where my facts came from on the Maranatha Case:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2003/11/05/7299
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/soccon/04-11-01.html
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2003/11/07/7342
and here’s the link to where a current U of M Maranatha associate refers to a professor teaching evolution as the ‘enemy’, perhaps you’d like to comment on that, or anything else I mentioned besides the matter which I just, or had already previously clarified:
http://www.windycitycommunitychurch.org/missionaries/bislew/index.php
* Grant Buse, the Grant whose been posting his “you calling us intolerant because we’ve admitted to it makes you intolerant” arguments, has added me as a friend on facebook.
Grant is indeed a staff member at the Maranatha Christian Church. His position title is defined on his profile as “Campus Evangelist.” He graduated from the U of M twin cities in 2000. I highly doubt he’ll be addressing the fact that my “poor journalism” and lack of “fact checking” were actually his inability to comprehend the articles progression. Nor is it likely that he’ll be back on this wall posting a response to my questions, or to any of the points about Maranatha that were made in this article.
I’m not sure where Roland is from, or if he’s actually still a student or not, but i have a hunch that he’s a youth leader of some sort, which I base off his awkward use of terms like bro and dude. I mean, who the hell actually types “Bro.” Smells like a fish out of water, or another youth leader on a student website trying to “act natural.” I guess we’ll find out.
Carl,
After reading the responses to your article and your responses to them I think you may be confused. It seems that the largest complaint is not that you took a critical view of Christianity, but that you presented so many falsehoods in a news publication.
I agree this is poor reporting. You should reconsider being a writer.
Hello everyone,
I would like to point out that The Wake is meant to be a forum for students - where they can state their opinions, bring ideas to light, etc.
It is an alternative publication precisely becuase of that - because it gives a voice to all kinds of different people.
Opinions expressed by any writer at The Wake are not opinions held by the magazine as a whole.
I really appreciate that everyone has been sharing their reactions to Carl’s piece - this is exactly what we a re trying to do (stimulate conversation, get people thinking). Because we have been getting so many great comments on our articles, I have started publishing some of them in the print publication in hopes that this will help establish The Wake, itself, as an unbiased publication.
Everybody is encouraged to write an opinion article if they wish (or any other kind of article for that matter). Email me!
I can’t guarantee, of course, that we will publish any article, but those decisions will be made based on the quality of the writing, not the opinions expressed. I am more than willing to work with anybody who is interested in expressing his or her opinion in The Wake.
Thanks everyone,
Please keep reading!
Peace,
Alice Vislova
Editor-in-Chief
avislova@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.
So who are these people you talked to at the table? You name drop Johnathan Bislew in the second article, yet you don’t identify him as one of the guys at the table. Your whole “conversation” is fabricated, Mr. Glass.
How is The Onion an alternative news source? Isn’t that like saying Al Franken is a reliable political commentator?
Is this a smear? Is this critical thought? Are you advocating fair-minded contemplation in your articles?
You are essentially saying, “No, you see, everyone else is wrong because I’m right.”
“I’ll continue to raise ‘hell’ until they’ve at least been forced to remove the banner.”
You’ll have to amend the United States Constitution first. Good luck with that.
Xian-
Let me guess, you’re a Cru member who heard the hype and came running. You heard that I claimed Cru to be the owner of tables in Coffman and that awful banner, and you hastily played the shitty journalism card. No worries. Go back, read both parts of the article, realize that it was actually a conscience decision to withhold the true owner of the house for matter of suspense and format, and hopefully you’ll be willing to respond to some content in the article.
You’ll realize that I’m not attacking Cru in this article at any point; it was all strictly observation and honest assessment. That’s what I saw and experienced, and that’s what I wrote about. I have a lot of friends in Cru, and they’re great cats. But I do honestly feel that Cru occasionally serves as a shelter, and it can rob people of the positive experience that meeting new and different people in college can be if they want it to, which is their choice, and I’m not judging on that. That’s just what I’ve observed. Go back and read the opening paragraphs from part 1, I never say that all of Cru is like that. “Members needn’t let college change them…” was used, not “Members don’t change in college.” I used it to set up the events of the story. I quickly transitioned into my disgust over the banner and the Coffman bigots, who turned out to be Maranatha members. I expose this at the point where I actually learned this, as the article does weaves between my chronologically given experiences with Cru, my thoughts and analysis, and various antidotes and asides.
Hope to hear back,
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 anyway. You turned on instant defense mode, and in the process, misinterpreted all the points I made. I understand, it’s hard not to get defensive when something you stand for is being questioned. But I’ll break it down for you. Here’s what you missed:
You brought up the point that Bush has done good 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 some how 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 qually 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.
Words in my mouth. You’re seeing what you want to see, but your not actually stopping to think about my points. My points were that it’s absurd to give Africans an ultimatum of Aids relief or your 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 minded banner. They denounced all campus Muslims, and took me for an instigator. At this point, they turned on defense mode, and the conversation was clearly going no where.
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 proved 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 absent mindedly 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?
But hey, let’s find out what Maranatha are really about! Let’s clear up all these misconceptions and lies I’ve supposedly penned, because you’ve yet bring up a single legitimate point about anything I’ve actually written. Granted, it’s hard to maintain a coherent discussion across the Altantic (especially at 4 in the morning), but the fact that you’re wanting to debate is terrific. That was my exact intention in writing this article, to set the table for conversations across ideological rifts. It’s the only way to turn this country around my friend, and I’m willing to take the heat until we do, one uncomfortable issue at a time. So of course. Let’s debate!
I’m not a member of any religious group at the U of M. I’m not opposed to your freedom to have an opinion. I’m not offended that you have a beef with either of these organizations.
I would hope in a country which still maintains some semblance of freedom of speech Mr. Carpenter does not feel the need to defend the voicing of his personal opinions.
However, on the flip side, as a journalist he carries a heavy burden of the obligation to report any facts that he feel smay support his opinions in a truthful and accurate way. I feel that he has failed to do that in these 2 articles.
The intention to do a chronological reveal in multiple news publications is so ill-conceived that any Freshman English major would advise you against it. This is not a novel in which you have the assurance that your reader has just finished reading the previous chapter before starting the last.
I don’t believe that The Wake should be called “a rag” or lose its funding. I have enjoyed and still enjoy reading it. I do, however, feel that a ball was dropped here.
This author seems young and unexperienced, but passionate, which I love. Time may still develop him into a wonderful writer. However, his defensiveness and rather arrogant responses to some of the (I feel) relevant points raised by readers here lead me to worry that this may not a realistic expectation.
-Xian (she-yen)
Xian,
I’m glad to see I was wrong in my guess of your being another misinformed Cru member. I assumed only because I’ve had to clarify that point several times. And also because the only Xian at the U of M on Facebook is Xian Wang, and he’s a Cru member, but given the size of our school its more than likely there are several registered Xians’, not registered on Facebook.
It’s clear that you have read the article and all responses thoroughly and for that I’m appreciative. You’ve made fair points over the misguided nature of my article’s format, and the confusion it’s caused.
However, since we’re here, why not discuss some of these relevant points you feel I’ve arrogantly dismissed, because I cannot think of any. But I’d love for you to cite them, and cite the parts of my story you find unsupported and not fact based, and let’s move from there. It could be beneficial for the both of us.
I agree with Xian that Mr. Carpenter’s choice to write this article chronologically was the wrong choice. Upon doing so, he brought to himself a mob of angry (and rightfully so) people that felt completely mistreated because they felt that they were being wrongfully bashed (the CRU folk) I understand their frustration as to why that is very unprofessional.
I myself went to the U and was a member of CRU. I read the first article and I was quite astonished that it was so incredibly inaccurate. I was so turned off by it that I did not even want to touch the second article. However, being the open-minded, LIBERAL, firm Christian believer in Christ that I am - I thought I would give you a second chance…
So I would like to ask you - Mr. Carpenter - did you consider interviewing any CRU members or U of M CRU alum about their CRU experience? I would have loved to talk to you about how CRU allowed me to open up and become a better person - not just because of my faith life and personal relationship with Christ, but because I found, through CRU, WHO I WAS. I went through some nasty times in my early college years and when I really started involving myself in a CRU study, I found a bond with those women that showed me that I could be myself and feel more accepted then I ever did getting trashed at parties.
I understand that The Wake is a place to start conversations about various issues - so why not make it a well rounded discussion, involving more than just bashing the “evangelicals” that are so closed-minded and all conservative W. Bush loving people. I am completely in support of open forum and discussion - just involved everybody.
Just think Carl, if you did ANY research on Maranatha, not secondary sources, before writing your opinion, you would have known that I was a leader in Maranatha without me divulging it to you (see how helpful we closed-minded bigots can be?). I better not write any more, though, because, according to your analysis, Carl, I am disqualified and discriminated against based on creed, age and alumni status.
But for kicks, how do you define tolerance?
What type of actual religious background do you have?
I grew up Lutheran, ended up getting sick of hypocrisy and became an atheist for my teen years. I ended up actually getting “born again” (John 3:3) when I was 18 after hearing the Gospel and hearing Jesus call me to relationship with Him.
There’s my basics…I have plenty of bias, but a bias towards truth is a good thing.
by the way, we don’t “denigrate Muslims” as you say repeatedly in your opinion. Some of them are our greatest friends and we meet on a regular basis. They know our differences from the start and from there we can have some great conversations and actually tolerate one another..AMAZING! I think I hear the Hallelujah chorus…
still waiting for your apology on the lack of fact-based opinions in both of your articles. It would help with our ideological digestion at this point.
also, your facts on the 2003 lawsuit are not even correct…look again, did the University say that we didn’t have to sign the Equal opportunity statement? You’d think that you would be for freedom of association. Mark Rotenberg, the u’s general counsel, certainly understood that and they knew they were in a losing situation, so they settled (in the summer when the story could be buried). I hate having to do all your work for you, so please try a little harder next time.
My name’s Henry and I first met Johnathan Bislew during one of his trips to MSU, Mankato where I went to college. I wasn’t an international student my first week in the US. I was born in Mankato and grew up there. Jonathan is a very genuine, kind-hearted person. He will go to great lengths to help people. It’s not because he wants to bring more people into a little club, it’s because he’s driven by the real love of Jesus.
I enjoyed meeting with Jonathan and the rest of the Maranatha visitors to Mankato every week. I was raised going to a common denominational church but never knew what being a Christian really meant. The guys would tell me what I needed to hear and a lot of times it was stuff I didn’t like. In this case it wasn’t joining a group to cut myself off from the rest of the campus as Cru was made out to be in article 1. I was looking to expand my knowledge on my faith.
I challenge everyone else to do the same, explore what you believe. If it’s the truth, it will stand up to the testing. If it’s not true, don’t you want to know? The author here, and many authors who denounce religion, makes it sound like we all just form our clubs, make up our rules, and try to get more and more people to join. What people need to realize is that there can only possibly be one truth out there. Not all religions can be true if they contradict. We’re all going to die and what we can’t change what will happen to us just by believing something we want. We have to know the truth so we can prepare.
I didn’t know that truth until I started studying the Bible more with Maranatha and other Christian groups. I discovered we can’t make it to Heaven by good works like I had believed my entire life. Only faith in Jesus and relationship with Him will allow us into Heaven to be with God. There is nothing we ourselves can do to cover our sin, only the blood of Jesus can.
I would love to discuss more if anyone’s interested. I don’t think I’ll be checking in here much more.
hthrun@hotmail.com
http://www.myspace.com/henrythrun
How about we have the debate at the Maranatha campus house on 11th and 4th? You know, the house with the big banner.
Regarding the Muslim comment: Not one single person who has ever sat at that table will EVER say that it “would be wrong” for a Muslim to have a “Allah Is Lord” sign. We believe in free speech, and even though we might not like what you say, we will defend to the death your right to say it.
Regarding community college writers - I was editor of a community college newspaper, and 95% of the material submitted was crap. The paper was crap before I came, and the paper went back to crap when I left. Feel free to double check back issues at North Hennepin Community.
How am I reading into your comments when I respond directly to your statements in your own words?
I would curious to know what your grade for this article was, if The Wake even bothers with such things. I have this feeling that this paper was a diatribe following a visit to a local pub in London.
Bring back some fish and chips, mate! Chips…not crisps. And some Guiness.
(BTW, isn’t abstinence the best way to avoid STDS/HIV? Do you propose an alternative?)
Oh, and would it be ok if I called up Bislew and asked him if he remembers you? He’s out of state currently, but I’m sure he’d love to get back to you. Whenever its convenient.
Sue,
As was stated in the article, Cru is only negative in the way that it can isolate students from exposure to different ideas and explanations, if want it to. I never said it couldn’t/ and isn’t a positive influence on many lives.
Your grievance with the format is duly noted, as were all the others. Perhaps now we can move forward to open discussion on the ‘inaccuracies’ you noted in my article.
I actually did talk to several Cru members both before and during the writing of my article. Since, several Cru students have engaged in ongoing discussions with me via email and facebook. Unsurprisingly, they refrained from joining this mess, as its been wholly unproductive as of yet.
I can understand, and expected these ceaseless attacks on my credibility, as that’s the tried and true tactic used on anyone who confronts religious matters. I feel those concerns of credibility have been addressed, and there’s yet to be an actual error discovered with in the article. Grant’s claim about the case facts was of course unfounded, and no one from Maranatha has made a legitimate claim about any of the in article material.
As far as the claim that the conversation in Coffman didn’t take place, I can assure you that it did, as it was something that I’ll never forget, a memory ingrained in my mind.
Henry… wow. Thank you.
Your explanation of there can be only one true religion and it’s mine totally clears up all the confusion… or wait, was that illogical thinking not the entire basis of this piece in the first place?
Stuart,
Yes, abstinence is a smart bet for avoiding STD’s, it’s also completely unrealistic, as not everyone is a Christian.
As far as the debate at 11th and 4th… I was thinking more along the lines of an auditorium of some sort. More seating available, though I would encourage you to bring your banner with you. My vote is that we select a neutral panel of three judges. If I win the debate, the banner comes down, if you win, I’ll apologize to Maranatha for writing this article.
Deal?
Carl, even if MY religion isn’t the true one, only one of them can be true if they’re contradicting each other. That’s what I’m saying. There’s a chance they could ALL be wrong. But there is only one truth and one reality. Reality doesn’t change to conform to our beliefs. How can two or more contradicting belief systems be true at the same time?
Why does the banner offend you? Is free speech offensive?
Carl, the banner issue has already been debated and in the end it was determined by university sources that there is no debate. They even marched in front of our house with signs. We kindly offered them refreshments and told them that we appreciated their free speech but agreed to disagree. In the words of Leo Strauss, “Absolute tolerance is altogether impossible; the allegedly absolute tolerance turns into ferocious hatred of those who have stated clearly and most forcefully that there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature of man and the nature of things.” Mostly, people who scream intolerance are those who are simply insecure about what they really believe and desire to silence those with real conviction. To quote civil rights advocate Sarah Patton Boyle, “Tolerance is only complacence when it makes no distinction between right and wrong.” Jesus loves ya Carl, that’s why you’re getting all this attention.
Stuart.
Yes. Free speech can be offensive. Do they have the right to hang the banner? Yes. Do skinheads have the right to burn crosses? Yes. Is it good for society in general having a sign that says “Jesus Christ is Lord of the University of Minnesota?” To me it isn’t - I personally think it’s offensive because, as a student at the U, it implies that Jesus is my Lord. Which he isn’t. Your argument that “we can do whatever we want because of the First Amendment” is so similar to hate speech defense it’s really troubling to me.
-Erik
Erik, I think skinheads can only legally burn crosses on their own property.
There’s no question that Jesus’ message is offensive. He states in the Gospels how it will turn people against each other and how the world will hate it.
Henry
I’m glad to hear you acknowledge that a religion besides Christianity could conveiably be true.
That’s the sort of rational and worldly thinking that I hoped this article might lead to. And here I thought that you wouldn’t be “checking in here” again. Glad you reconsidered.
Stuart
Free speech is offensive when it is blatantly inaccurate and is being used to spread hateful sentiments. Obviously not everyone who attends the U of M is a Christian; therefore Jesus is not their Lord. That banner is a shining example of the kind of obnoxious religion that has turned our area of the country into an international joke.
Grant scoffed at the notion of my calling Maranatha members, “bigots.” A bigot is, “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
You are all, by definition, bigots, and your banner is the perfect testament to this truth. You’re all too set in your ways to even consider or comment on any of the genuine and exposing facts presented in my article, and have instead opted to pursue the exonerated notion that my article was inaccurate.
And finally, Grant. Yes, thank you for divulging the fact that you were actually working for Maranath. Or wait, didn’t you fail to mention this in your first two attacks on this board, and only admitted it after I suggested I suspected you to be a Maranatha member? Nice.
Also, how terribly fitting you would quote Leo Strauss, the very man responsible for the sunken state of America; the man who taught the method of deception for political gain. He believed in “Simple, powerful myths to unite the country.” He admitted that the myths wouldn’t need to be true, but it wouldn’t mater, so long as they united our country. Those myths were Religion, and America’s unique destiny as the “world police,” as Trey Parker and Matt Stone so hilariously put it.
Religion has been a destructive force in American politics, as was illustrated by the irrefutable fact that evangelicals were exploited to elect George W. Bush. Here’s the link to prove that:
http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2006/10/13/tempting-faith-shows-bush-exploitation-of-christians/
And here’s a link to learn about Leo Strauss (this is a long documentary, but definitely worth the time):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IAUDcmaJNWQ&feature=related
Carl, I had some spare time on my hands. Please note though that my point wasn’t that another religion could be true. I’m just saying that for the sake of argument. My point is that only ONE religion/belief system can be true because there is only ONE reality.
Now the question is what is the true religion? We’re all going to die and we all need to be prepared. What if I’m believing the wrong religion? What if you have the wrong beliefs? What are the consequences going to be? Eternity is a long time.
Often the judgment we measure on others is more applicable to ourselves. Your definition of bigot is solid for your own stance, Carl. You are intolerant of our free speech. If you were tolerant, you would disagree with us (which you do) but also allow us to communicate our biblical belief. If it was university property, I would agree that we would have to take it down, but it is not. I personally love it when others are vocal and up front about their beliefs, even though I may disagree. Isn’t that what the marketplace of ideas is all about?
I, of course, do not agree with Leo Strauss on all his points, but it is a measure of open-mindedness to be able to glean from authors who have differing opinions. His point about tolerance is quite valid to our discussion.
As to talking about points in your article, that has occurred frequently many times over, fret not my friend. (This banner issue being one of the chief points.) I’ll pick up on another…you wrote, “I’ll eventually decide on something(referring to your personal beliefs), but I can assure you this: I’ll never feel the need to force it on others, nor a desire to exclude myself from or in any way discredit those of different beliefs, upbringings, and orientations.” Isn’t that what you are doing in regards to our presence and speech on campus. I don’t have to go into detail on the multiple discrediting diatribes in your article.
Our goal on campus is to proclaim the Christian worldview. Of course some will cringe at many of those ideas (others will rejoice, others won’t care), but it’s hardly a reason for an attempt to censor that speech. I do appreciate your willingness to share your ideas, but I also enjoy the opportunity to confront them with faith and reason, hand in hand.
Grant
I will certainly, “allow you to communicate your biblical beliefs,” but I will question something that is so false and fanatical.
The highly respected late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was once in a heated debate with one of his fellow congressmen. When the opposing Senator began to sense he might be on the losing end of that exchange, he shouted out, “Well, you may disagree with me, Pat, but I’m entitled to my own opinion.” To this Moynihan replied, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
To claim that a society as massive and (thankfully) diversified as the University of Minnesota has one lord is simply untrue. For what reasons you have opted for and adamantly stood by this statement is beyond me. I can only speculate at the banners intended purpose.
On this ground, I would propose a change to, “Jesus Christ is one of the Lords at the University of Minnesota.” I eagerly await your response as to why you feel this change would be unacceptable, and you explanation on the statements intended purpose in general.
Perhaps we can pursue the matter further by means of the public debate one of your fellow Marananthian’s has suggested, but first, please address the above raised concerns.
In regards to the quote in question from my article, it’s yet another failed attempt by you to bring up a relevant point. The comments were about my religious beliefs. I will never feel the need to force a religious belief on someone. That’s because Religion is something that cannot not be verified. It’s faith based. My article is about the fact that Religion has negative impacts on reality that can be avoided. Therefore, I’m not being intolerant, as people who join your group inherently are; I’m attempting engage those people in a discussion on things they might not be considering.
Unfortunately, unlike with Cru, I’ve only been able to entice Maranatha leaders, not students.
Carl, the reason “Jesus Christ is one of the Lords at the University of Minnesota” won’t work is because Jesus said He is the only Lord. Since there can only be one reality, the Christian belief system does not allow other lords and Maranatha won’t put up a false statement.
If you believe Jesus is one of the Lords of the UofM then you can put up that banner. But it would contradict Biblical Christianity and you would have to acknowledge more than one reality, which is impossible, or a non-biblical Christianity which wouldn’t make sense because Christianity itself is based on the Bible.
I don’t believe in forcing religion upon people, either. Being a true Christian means having a relationship with Jesus in your heart. Individuals need to come to that place on their own. You can force people to do and say things that make them sound like Christians, but that doesn’t make them true Christians.
I do, however, believe it’s the duty of Christians to spread the Word of God so all can hear it. We believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven and for us the only loving thing to do is let others know about Him. If we don’t, we’re letting them go to Hell and that is totally UNloving.
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.
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.
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.