On Messengers

I was watching The O'Reilly Factor the other night when something caught my ear.  For those who don't watch him regularly, he reads viewer mail at the end of his program.  In this particular mail segment, he criticized a viewer for calling President Obama a socialist.  That email was a counterbalance to someone on the left who probably couldn't recognize debt if his car was repossessed.

This sort of criticism irks me as any honest analysis of the president's past, beliefs and actions in office indicate that he believes that socialism is positive for society.  Now, whether or not he believes that the United States should be transformed into something beyond a quasi-socialist European state is debatable, but he clearly believes in radically transforming and moving the nation in that direction.

As I mulled over O'Reilly's criticism, however, something occured to me.

John Hagee

Something I have come to realize in my Christian walk is that there are many different kinds of preachers out there.  To cite two well-known examples, I specifically have Pastors John Hagee and Joel Osteen in mind.  Both are great men of God who have brought many to faith in Christ.  However, I seriously doubt you could find two men whose styles are so different.

Pastor Osteen is very soft-spoken and gentle.  His message revolves around telling his congregation and the millions he reaches on television about God's love and His plan for their lives.  Pastor Hagee is much more a classic "fire and brimstone" preacher.  He talks just as much about the risk of Hell as God's plan for life.  His barking voice commands attention and "scares the hell out of them," as it were.

These are two very different, but very necessary, men.

Joel Osteen

As different as the two may be in style, they are preaching the same message.  The key is that the difference in style attracts different kinds of people.  Not everyone will be stirred by Hagee's powerful, direct style and indeed may be turned off by its percieved harshness.  Osteen's style lacks the punch needed to convince those who live in (and possibly even revel in) their sin to turn from their path.  Personal preference for one style does not make another irrelevant.

The same goes for political messaging.  Lately, I have heard some criticizing the aggressive styles of radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin.  I do not see the point in that.  They're good conservatives.  Belligerence alone is not a reason to call them bad messengers; they merely appeal to a certain audeience.  Even if that audience is the choir, remember that sometimes the choir can go astray.

Just like sinners needing a savior, some people will be more receptive to conservatism when they are boldly confronted by their hypocrisies and evils.  If you think Rush has spent decades on the air and not convinced people of the moral justification for conservative values, then I don't understand how you think he has been successful.

Now, do we need more Joel Osteen-esque messengers?  I believe so.  Does that require declaring something wrong with the John Hagee's we already have?  Not at all.

Improving our messaging does not require criticizing perfectly capable messengers.  Doing so would only drive more wedges in a wounded movement.