You have probably heard this so many times you are surely ready to spin your head around and spew green vomit, but I must say it nonetheless: yesterday was the 6th of June, 2006, or 06.06.06. If the Beast of the Apocalypse is a day, then yesterday was beastly. But I am not going to discuss Satan here, though I am going to discuss Ann Coulter, which, I know, is pretty much the same thing if you are a left-leaning pol or pundit unnerved by Ms. Coulter's incendiary prose and devilishly long, and beguiling, legs. She is a feisty one, that Ann.
Yesterday marked the debut of her book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." No doubt it is a rowdy read, and, well, an arousing one, too. While I can't imagine a first date with Ms. Coulter, I could imagine a 666th one, and I think by then she would have me deconstructed to a rather small figure of a man. In fact, I would be reduced to little more than an exclamation point chained to her ankle bracelet, a mere punctuation mark, the leftovers of my last two cries, "What the ?!" and "Help me!"
Anyway, back to the book. Ms. Coulter made the talk show circuit yesterday promoting her newest work, having a moment of difficulty (when has she ever had an easy interview?) with Matt Lauer and a less than flirtatious moment with Alan Colmes. In the latter interview, along with Colmes' co-host Sean Hannity, Ms. Coulter revealed that Christianity is her motivating force. She insisted that it enfuses her every strident phrase and pugnacious punctuation mark; that it calls her to take a stand, to confront lies, to battle darkness, to challenge the Zeitgeist, and to show off her legs as much as possible.
But what is curious is something that has to do with Contratimes. It is not that I know Ann Coulter, nor is it that I have often written about her. What is curious is that yesterday dozens of people suddenly showed up here looking for Ann. According to my statcounter, there was a sudden surge of online queries for "Ann Coulter and Bob Guccione III." And their queries sent them here. You see, Ann Coulter, a Cornell grad who once dated Bill Maher (another Cornell grad), also dated the heir of the Penthouse magazine empire, Bob Guccione. So, why this sudden interest in that fact? You know why.
The sudden interest has got to do with Ann Coulter claiming to be a Christian. For we all know a real Christian would never date a pornographer's son. We all know that Christians are ALWAYS to be nice, with their actions and words always subdued, proper; with their words tumbling over lips of purity, perfect and prim.
In other words, Ann Coulter is a hypocrite. Of course, I have no doubt that she is. We are all hypocrites. But what alarms me most about the charge of hypocrisy aimed at Christians is that it is always pronounced with such righteous indignation. Where, after all, should hypocrites be if not in the Church? Doesn't everyone realize that Christianity is the household of the broken; that it is not like the Democratic National Convention, which is the household of the whole? Why be surprised to learn that Christians are hypocrites? They are sinners, after all.
I attended one of the elite evangelical colleges in the United States. This does not make me an evangelical, mind you, anymore than going to the Jesuit-run Georgetown made Bill Clinton a Catholic. But the prejudices to which I was exposed (by outsiders) were often astounding. Once, when our hockey team was pounding the pastries out of a visiting team, a group of visiting fans of the visiting (non-evangelical) hockey squad astonished by my alma mater's bruising checks asked me during a period break, "Your team is rough. Isn't everyone here studying to be a bunch of priests?" Alas, such ignorance. Yes, we are all -- from pre-med women to elementary-ed men, from chemists to philosophers, from poets to journalists -- studying to be a "bunch of priests." But the broader implication was comical: Real Christians don't play hockey roughly; they don't check or battle for the puck; they don't compete. (Oh, and don't let me forget: There was one time that a New Hampshire team left our ice because we played "too rough". No kidding, they actually went home after the second period.)
You know the implied line: Christians must always be meek. Sort of like St. Paul, when he wished aloud that the Judaizers in Galatia would cut off their own genitals.
Ann Coulter is playing a game, and she is competing. The left has its nasty pugilists, its bullies. Liberal pundits have said countless outrageous things; and they should not suddenly blush when a conservative says some pretty outrageous things in reply. The prophetic voice, in the truest sense of that descriptive and necessary voice, is often filled with hyperbole; with strong language that makes us blush, cringe, squirm. Often idolatrous excesses could only be staved off by prophetic excesses, by language and rebuke that stops listeners dead in their tracks. I am not suggesting that Ms. Coulter is a prophet, nor am I suggesting that she does not often (always?) go too far. What I am saying is that the Left is also filled with hypocrites, who suddenly act like a bunch of Puritans when listening to Coulter and yet giggle with delight at the offenses which pour forth from the "satirists" at the Daily Kos. Clearly, Ann Coulter (and one has to be blind not to see this) is having fun. And pointing that out is not to suggest that she is merely having fun; that this is all a wink-wink, nod-nod, flash-flirtatious-smile game she is doing for cash. She strikes me as sincere. But one thing I am saying: she is a formidable foe.
There is some passage in the New Testament suggesting that the Antichrist will deceive "even the elect." In other words, even the Christians will find the Antichrist desirable. Alas, Al Gore may indeed be the one bearing the numeric marks of darkness, but Ann Coulter, surely, strikes a confusing pose for many of us.
As I think about it, I never once expected the Antichrist to look quite like that. I mean, I am of the generation weaned on The Omen's black-clad Damien. I never could have guessed that the devil might really be a Dame in a blue dress. O, men! Beware!
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Ann Coulter, Antichrist, 666, Al Gore, The Omen
4 comments:
Bill--
You may have stumbled upon this in your blogging travels, but my alma mater Harding University, no bastion of liberalism to be sure, "disinvited" Coulter from a speaking engagement at our American Studies Institute early this past academic year.
I think you'll find this to be interesting reading. It makes me wonder if St. Paul would also be disinvited for that little "emasculation" comment.
Mike,
I thank you for the link. Prior to your kind linking to the story re: Harding, I had only picked up pieces here and there in the Churches of Christ blogworld. I am now kind of bemused by the whole thing. "Do good to one's enemies," comes to mind. If we are to love our enemies, and do good to them, how much more are we to love those who are not our enemies? If Harding and Coulter agree on most of the message but not the delivery, as the story to which you linked suggests, is this not a bit like disagreeing about form in Christian worship and yet agreeing on the essentials of creed and code? And if Coulter is indeed an enemy, what a wonderful opportunity for Dr. Cope and Greg Kendall-Ball to demonstrate not only true Christian hospitality, but also true Christian charity: Surely they could have reached out to Ms. Coulter by letting her into their "home." After all, she was not bringing a contrary doctrine; she was just being a contrarian. Surely they could have modelled wondrous things to her and her interlocuters, and perhaps even to those who would heckle her. What a life experience Harding missed! It breaks the heart to think of how a set of wise educators missed a chance to turn her visit into a benchmark for ecumenism, for understanding; for the demonstration of charity in the midst of difference and conflict. "Blessed are the peacemakers" was never uttered to inspire capitulation, censorship or isolation: It was uttered to bring peace, not the avoidance of conflict (or concern about appearances).
At my alma mater, every year (during the early '80s, mind you), we had a lecturer come to our upper-level psychology courses. He was an ordained Episcopal priest; Harvard Div. educated, married; he served in a Cambridge parish. In fact, when he lectured he always brought his wife. Why? Perhaps so she could confirm (and she did) the details of their marriage arrangement: He was bisexual and, their 'covenantal' marriage permitted that, should he need a male lover, he could have one, as long as he did not 'commit adultery' by actually falling in love with someone else. Moreover, should his wife desire a male lover, since she was heterosexual through and through, she could enjoy sexual pleasures with other men than her husband. The same 'thou shall not commit adultery' rule applied to her as well. And to top it all off, the man defended this arrangement by citing St. Paul: He did his doctoral thesis on Paul's utterly permissive (and thoroughly hidden) rules regarding the marriage bed. Ahh, to think the man defended that thesis at Harvard, or was it Episcopal Divinity School?
Does Christian charity go too far in trying to understand this sort of perspective, this sort of corruption of Christian sacramentalism and fidelity? Did not this man bring a different sort of gospel to a thoroughly traditional and evangelical campus? Perhaps. And yet, did not Christ say that we were to be kind to our enemies? What is kinder than listening to them, allowing them to engage us in discourse; challenging our perceptions; involving us in sharing our understanding of Christ's calling? Are we not to be witnesses of Christ's own life: that He came to a world filled to the rafters with enemies?
I do not know what to do with Coulter. On the one hand I believe she in fact does go too far. On the other hand, her critics, particularly her Christian ones, go too far too. She may be a thrower of bombs, but there is no sense in throwing bombs back (unless you're dating her, and then throwing bombs would be jolly, though rather tiring). Yes, sometimes, even most times, I believe her invective hurts the cause. But it is not generally her printed acrimony that is offensive; it's her manner on camera. I have read most of her books, and, though I wish she would pull back a few of her punches, her written ad hominems seem to make more sense: there is a context that gives some framework for her madness. But when she speaks on TV her manner is bombastic and bitchy (sorry) too often; she is a harridan when she could be a Joan of Arc. I know that she finds herself and all of those around her rather amusing. She is, clearly, having fun. But sometimes she is so cantankerous that I think she indeed is working for the other side of her own arguments.
I am not one to embrace the ad hominem fallacy when arguing. I find that I do not need to resort to that sort of thing most of the time: I can defend an argument usually rather soundly. But we know that Christ, and the disciples, committed the ad hominem often. "You believe this because you are lost, blind, dumb, deaf; a brood of vipers, a pile of dead men's bones. ... You do not receive because you are lost in sin, unregenerate, forsaken, unchosen, etc." So we can't entirely rule out personal attacks, for they are often true. But we need not usually resort to them, particularly as a first strike offense. And I am not sure that I, a mere sinner in need of grace with no special anointing, can ever justify hurling ad hominems with much force.
Anyhow, a long response to your terse comment, and to a rather large issue.
Peace to you,
BG
They say that liberals are censored. Yet, I see a helluva lot more of Michael Moore and Maureen Dowd and Al Franken (well, you get the picture) than I do Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter etc. My point is that I know more about Moore than I do Coulter living in Canada - though we pretty much get access to 90% of American stuff. Assuming the CRTC doesn't stick its communist/maffia nose in our lives. Anyway, they are at the very least equal in the public view. But I do find it laughable that liberals claim to be in the minority or a dissident voice. They have control of the medium! Less so now but hey. I'm not sure where I fit on any philosophical scale, but Conservatives are pushing back a little. That's a good thing. As for hockey, it's an aggressive sport even for the Holy. Ned Flanders needs to clear the front of the net roaming with heathens like the rest of us.
I like your comment here even more than I like the original piece, BG! I tend to have a harder time Listening to/Watching Ann Coulter than I do reading her books, mostly for exactly what you have said here. To be honest, I put OFF reading her because of what I saw/heard on TV for a long time.
Abrasive is also a word that comes to mind when I watch her.
Post a Comment