So yeah...she's a handful.
I am not a particularly political person, mostly because it is neither fun nor funny and the people you would have to deal with seem to be demon possessed and/or dead. Also, and I can't state this strongly enough, I hate meetings. Hate them. All of them. They are, quite possibly, the single worst social invention in history and I want them all to stop. SOMEONE JUST MAKE A FREAKING DECISION ALREADY! WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING!
Sorry, I had a flashback to student government (story for another time). But as God is teaching me the necessity of not fighting the culture wars stupidly, I am trying to broaden my horizons about politics and how I should be involved as a Christian. Which brings me to Ann Coulter. Why, you might ask?
Apparently she is a Christian.
And now for the portion of the blog where I talk to myself:
Huh.
Yeah, I know.
But she's so...mean.
No kidding.
I mean, I'm not like that and I'm a Christian.
Well, that's true. Good thing you are not the standard by which all Christians are measured.
Fair point...but didn't I just state that I'm not mean?
Doesn't count when it is self analysis.
If you...
Ahem
...I say so.
And now back to the blog already in progress.
So, I'm looking at Ann Coulter and some of her articles and even an interview she gave a while back and I must say that I am a big fan. Her humor does not always work and yes, I find her to be harsh, but she is absolutely fantastic at pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. And now, for the other shoe.
Ann Coulter should not be doing what she is doing. But not for the reason that you think.
I was talking to my mentor one day and he was talking about Deborah, a righteous woman of God and the only female judge of Israel. He was talking about Deborah's song and how the form of it was Canaanite. What he said was that the point of the song was to parody the ways of the Canaanites in verse that the Canaanites would use in order to make the Canaanites and their practice ridiculous in the eyes of the Israelites. His analogy was Weird Al's Amish Paradise. You can't watch that video and then go back to Coolio's original. It's just not...cool anymore.
I feel like this is what Ms. Coulter does: she shows just how ridiculous liberalism is. But the thing about Deborah that is always at the forefront of my thinking about her is how she did not seek to lead Israel in war. That call was on a man, Barak son of Abinoam. He shrugged that responsibility by making his obedience conditional on Deborah's assistance and was therefore denied honor. This paradigm is what I think about when I think of male leadership. It is not that women are incapable of leadership or that they would do a bad job, it is that God has given to men a responsibility and when it is avoided, men are diminished and women are endangered.
I don't think Ann Coulter should be writing her books or doing shows not because she is wrong, because I don't think she is. I don't think she should stop because I don't like her style, even though I do think it could use some work (and I do mean some, mostly in comedic timing and a little bit of tact). I think she should stop because men should rise up to do what she does: calling hypocrites out on their hypocrisy. I don't want to be one of those men (see previous thoughts on meetings) but...well, Lord, do with me what You will.
2 comments:
How many more men do you need to fill that role? For conservative politics there's Rush, Hannity, Boortz, Mark Davis, Mark Levin; for conservative theology there's Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, John Piper; quite a few capable, though less known, economists active as well. The difference between Ann (and Laura Ingraham) and Deborah is that, while in the latter there was only room for one leader--meaning that if Deborah was leading, Barak wasn't--there's no restriction today. The men are doing there thing, and the women are, too.
Oh, and I'm with you about meetings...totally infuriating.
I have been thinking about your question and honestly I don't have what could even charitably be called a good answer. I will attempt to apply a principle that may not apply to this case at all.
If numbers are the issue, there are a few ways to tackle that. You listed off 8 people and between just the two of us I'm sure we could get up to 50-100. That is for a population of what, upward of 300 million? David had 30 mighty men for a population of about 6 million, and with another dozen or two advisers and military leaders we could look up. If we are talking ratios, we have Israel with at least 5 per million versus the U.S. with less than 1/2 per million. Or we could take the Twelve Apostles. By the time they needed deacons, they still had less than 10,000 (assuming Pentacost was not the norm).
Or take LOTR: Return of the King. Eowyn tags along with the army, in the process defending her uncle. She is capable, certainly. But in the context of the story, her presence there is to underscore the desperateness of the times.
But again, that principle may be way off. We are talking politics and not warfare or religious practice (though I think elements of both can be found in the current political climate). Here is my concern: protecting the womenfolk. I know it is old fashioned but I'm still pretty sure it's right. And the sort of attack that Coulter receives is different than what Limbaugh or Hannity receives. Not all the time and not from all sources but enough.
On a slightly related note, had you seen this article of Ms. Coulter's (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=378)? It is along the same lines as your last post.
Post a Comment