Who Cares If This Will Play In Peoria

Still running short of material, alas. Thus, for your dining and dancing pleasure here is yesterday’s column from the Examiner.

This one took a long time to write. I felt the need to constantly examine (no pun intended) the whys of its content. Was I writing what I believed, and was I willing to accept the instant ostracization that would come with it should any of the Kool Kidz currently ruling the politically conservative blogosphere’s roost come across it? In the end, I decided it was indeed what I believe. And how would being ostracized differ in the least from where I am now? Better to tell the truth and be a pariah than play along for the sake of popularity.

With all that, I present…

Michelle Malkin’s professional culture of corruption

A quick glance at the top selling book list on Amazon and elsewhere shows that when it comes to choice of reading material, at the moment politics and religion are king. Currently conservative tomes are riding high, this being the inverse of what was prevalent during the previous administration. Apparently if you’re not running things at the moment, might as well read someone ripping on those who are.

At or near the top of the sales charts, depending on which one you’re looking at, is Culture Of Corruption by Michelle Malkin. Ms. Malkin is a leading light in the conservative journalism realm, particularly online where between her own site and HotAir, which she owns, there is an average of close to a million visitors per day.

Ms. Malkin’s presentation is in the same mold as most every political commentator regardless of their leanings: I am the champion of truth, justice and the American way; if you disagree with me you’re a babbling moron. This in and of itself is fine, as one should have the courage of their convictions. However, in Ms. Malkin’s case her professional actions belie her spoken intent.

A preface as to why this is so is in order. The debate over what should be a Christian’s approach to politics has been ongoing since the days when Christ was walking the earth. His own comments on the matter were sparse and succinct: give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Other than that He had very little to say on the matter. Apparently it wasn’t a priority to Him. There’s a lesson in that.

Jesus’ message was repentance of sins, salvation through faith in Him and take care of each other — feed the hungry, help the poor. He didn’t make political speeches above and beyond the aforementioned give whatever government you’re under its due while you do what you’re supposed to do. Whether the political aspect, if any, of your reaching that point leads you to be a flag-waving conservative or socially minded liberal is your call. It’s also a secondary issue. Getting there by doing the things He commands in taking care of one another is the primary focus.

While Scripture unfailingly condemns isolation from the world, i.e. other people who do not share the faith, it unfailingly speaks of separation from the world. Why? The fallen nature of the world has nothing in common with the spiritual nature of life in a risen Savior. While a believer is called to reach out to people where they are, the believer is also commanded neither to leave them there nor themselves live in the same fashion. A prime example of this is how Jesus first spared the life of a woman who had committed adultery by telling the crowd, which had gathered nominally to stone her but in fact were there in an attempt to catch Him in His own words, that whoever among them was sinless was more than welcome to condemn the woman for her sin. After the people had dispersed, He told the woman to leave her life of sin. Christ lived among those considered the dregs of society; people such as tax collectors, who by working for the Roman invaders were traitors to their own people, and prostitutes. However, his message to them was never it’s all good. He offered unconditional love, not blanket acceptance. His message was clear: believe, repent, change.

After His ascent into heaven, as the church was created and developed this concept was carried over into its fundamentals. If you’re going to be about the Lord’s work, you need to do so in association with other believers, not non-believers. While maintaining the teaching of Christ about actively sharing His love and following His example of genuinely participating in society, if you’re going to be putting Jesus’ name on it directly or indirectly you’d better be sure you have fellowship by your side and at your back. Don’t throw whatever you run across that coincides with your agenda out there regardless of the source. The devil is a lousy wingman.

If you’re going to say your way is the right way, the Godly way, the Christ-like way, how you bolster your argument and who you work with in promulgating your message matters. Someone who does not share your faith agrees with you? Bully for them. However, this does not negate the fact this person has a critical flaw that threatens to turn fatal at any moment. Namely, they don’t know Jesus. There is a divide between you and them only their accepting Christ can bridge. Walking down the same path politically is never the same as walking together down the narrow path that leads to heaven. The Prince of Peace trumps politics every time. Choose your associates accordingly.

Which leads back to Ms. Malkin’s professional associations.

A central theme running throughout much of the conservative school of thought is the dictum that the movement’s principles and practices are rooted in Christian beliefs. Be that as it may, most of the movement’s leaders, including Ms. Malkin, freely identify themselves as followers of Christ and their political activities being not only correct philosophically and logically, but also spiritually. Therefore, if one extends the tenets noted above about doing the Lord’s work into all aspects of life, a professional exercise rooted in the notion of it being in His service ought to have the same level of commitment to separation as an overtly Christian outreach.

So why doesn’t it?

The main blogger employed by Ms. Malkin at HotAir writes under the pseudonym Allahpundit. Allahpundit is a rabid atheist, frequently making mention of same in assorted blog posts and messages on Twitter. He is openly contemptuous of believers and routinely blasphemous. A quaint word, perhaps, but an accurate description of the man.

It should be noted Ms. Malkin is not alone in the distinction of promoting an individual who at their core rejects the faith professed by the one doing the promoting. Radio talk show host and author Hugh Hewitt, who often writes about his evangelical faith, frequently has atheist political observer Christopher Hitchens as a guest on his show.

How exactly does this work? An individual thinks another individual is an idiot due to their beliefs. Yet because they speak the same language politically, the one considered to be an idiot publicly support the one who considers them an idiot. By what stretch of logic and reason does this make sense? Are politics more important than Christ? Is the number of site visits and/or listeners to a radio show stemming from including these people a greater priority than Jesus? If so, something is seriously wrong.

Not every word out of a Christian’s mouth is going to be “Jesus Jesus Jesus.” There is no justification for isolating oneself from non-believers, associating only with those who share ones faith. That said, if someone is doing what they believe is God’s calling for them, something firmly grounded in Christ, yet in the course of doing so works with those who mock Christ “for the sake of the cause,” they are in serious error. Neither popularity in the public eye and/or among your peers, nor politics, are worth the price incurred by embracing a personal culture of corruption stating Jesus is your Lord and Savior… but isn’t important enough to honor.