This past Saturday in the NYT Nicholas Kristof wrote of John Stott’s presentation of evangelical Christianity:
In these polarized times, few words conjure as much distaste in liberal circles as “evangelical Christian.” That’s partly because evangelicals came to be associated over the last 25 years with blowhard scolds. When the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discussed on television whether the 9/11 attacks were God’s punishment on feminists, gays and secularists, God should have sued them for defamation.
Earlier, Mr. Falwell opined that AIDS was “God’s judgment on promiscuity.” That kind of religious smugness allowed the AIDS virus to spread and constituted a greater immorality than anything that occurred in gay bathhouses.
Partly because of such self-righteousness, the entire evangelical movement often has been pilloried among progressives as reactionary, myopic, anti-intellectual and, if anything, immoral.
Yet that casual dismissal is profoundly unfair of the movement as a whole. It reflects a kind of reverse intolerance, sometimes a reverse bigotry, directed at tens of millions of people who have actually become increasingly engaged in issues of global poverty and justice.
This compassionate strain of evangelicalism was powerfully shaped by the Rev. John Stott, a gentle British scholar who had far more impact on Christianity than media stars like Mr. Robertson or Mr. Falwell. Mr. Stott, who died a few days ago at the age of 90, was named one of the globe’s 100 most influential people by Time, and in stature he was sometimes described as the equivalent of the pope among the world’s evangelicals.
Mr. Stott didn’t preach fire and brimstone on a Christian television network. He was a humble scholar whose 50-odd books counseled Christians to emulate the life of Jesus — especially his concern for the poor and oppressed — and confront social ills like racial oppression and environmental pollution.
Related Articles
3 users responded in this post
As I see it Kristof’s column reads more like a polemic against conservative Christians,and an apologetic for progressive Christianity (social action)rather than a tribute to John Stott.
I guess I see it differently. As I read it, Kristof has affection/appreciation for the witness of John Stott and disgust for Robertson and Falwell. I can appreciate that point sentiment.
I very much enjoy Nick kristof’s editorials in the NYT… If you haven’t seen it you should check out his HBO documentary REPORTER About journalism and it’s capacity for good. http://www.reporterfilm.com/synopsis.html Awesome film!