My collected thoughts on "World Changer"

Warning: this post is excessively long.

Okay I warned you.

IWU's theme is "World Changers." According to their website, "The concept of being world changers and developing world changers permeates everything we do at IWU. Whether you are a student, an employee, an alumnus, or a guest at IWU, we are striving to bring out the world changer in you."

In the library, around the watery spinny globe, are strategically placed bronze busts of all the past recipients of the "World Changer" award. The award was first granted in 2003 "to recognize role models who have exemplified the concept of world changers and whose lives can serve as an inspiration to future generations." 

Again, according to the website, "The idea for the Society of World Changers sprang from a campus-wide conversation about the book Roaring Lambs, written by the Society’s first inductee, the late Robert Briner. The book challenged believers to live out their faith boldly in the hustle and bustle of their everyday world—and to engage head-on a culture that is often indifferent, if not antithetical, to the Christian worldview." 

So! With that prior knowledge in mind, let me name for you the recipients from 2003 until the present date of the "World Changers" award: 

• 2003 Robert Briner, "He Wrote the Book: awarding-winning TV producer, sports executive, and author"
• 2004 Frank Peretti, "A Publishing Phenomenon: bestselling... Christian suspense novelist"
• 2005 Dr. James Dobson, "A Family Man: founder and chairman-emeritus of Focus on the Family"
• 2007 Dr. Benjamin Carson, "The Doctor: director of pediatric neurosurgery and professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions"
• 2008 Tony Dungy, "An Uncommon Coach: he led the Indianapolis Colts to Super Bowl victory in 2007, the first such win for an African-American coach"
• 2009 Joni Eareckson Tada, "From Her Wheelchair, She Has Moved the World for Those with Disabilities: she was paralyzed at 17 in a diving accident, but since then has written 35 books, accepted a presidential appointment to the National Council on Disability, spoken in more than 45 countries, established a disability ministry that reaches around the world and produced paintings with a brush between her teeth"
• 2010 Bill and Gloria Gaither, "Changing the World One Song at a Time: the American Society of Composers, Artists and Publishers (ASCAP) named them 'Songwriters of the Century' - Unquestionably, Christian music falls into two categories: Before Gaithers (B.G.) and After Gaithers (A.G.)"
• 2011 S. Truett Cathy, "Founder and chief executive officer of Chick-fil-A, Inc."

And this year's recipient? Why, none other than Kirk Cameron, "an American actor best known for his role as Mike Seaver on the television situation comedy Growing Pains (1985–1992)," according to the all-knowing Wikipedia. 

And now, a word. I apologize if, in the remainder of this post I sound cynical, heretical, harsh, critical, unchristian, unpatriotic, or any other such negative-type adjective you would care to put there. I am not writing with the intent to be such. I will be discussing my opinions, and hopefully working through why I hold them. And, as always, if someone is under the impression that I've stepped out of line, I invite correction. Call me out.

The term "World Changer," though empowering, potentially carries with it a connotation of superiority or arrogance. Understood in its intended sense, I agree -- that wherever followers of Jesus Christ end up they should be leaving impressions that ultimately glorify Him. What changing one's world actually looks like, however, seems to be up for interpretation. Unfortunately, in the back of my mind the words "colonialism" and "crusade" pop up before I have the chance to brush them away. 

colonialism 

— n

Also called: imperialism - the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker peoples or areas

crusade

— n

any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims

If we march out into the world waving a banner and claiming to hold some kind of elitist superiority over people that we are appointed to "change," I just get this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that we'll do more harm than help. 

Growing up out of the United States, I was exposed to a so-called "third world" country's attitude toward my "home" country. 

A lot of people don't like us. There is an opinion out there that we're a bunch of arrogant snobs who think we run the world and that no one else would ever be qualified to do so. I'm in the history class American Civ After 1865 this semester and, as I reflect on U.S. foreign policy over the years, I'm starting to see more and more clearly why the opinion exists. Going back even to The Women of Lockerbie, the play I'm in right now, the Scottish characters say to an American government official who claims to have their best interests in mind:

OLIVE: The Scottish people are quite capable

of looking out for our own welfare, Mr. Jones.

We don't need you or the American government

to do that for us.

HATTIE: This is why no one likes Americans, sir.

You think you know what's best for everyone.

WOMAN 1: Aye. This is Scotland!

WOMAN 2: The American government should have no say

about what happens over here!

And I wonder if American Christians, specifically, are brought up with this deep-seated superiority embedded into their framework. Take one of my recent posts on the persecution complex I've observed in evangelical Christians. Anytime our established superiority (hegemony) seems to be threatened, we have immediately snapped to the offensive, and we have often left wounds and scars that drive away the very people we say we want to help. I recognize that this is not always the case. That Americans and Christians both are responsible for a lot of good that has been done in this world. But I also can't overlook an opinion about our attitude that seems to ring so true. An attitude that I don't want to be guilty of perpetuating. 

If a "world changer" is one who leaves this place to go out and try to make other people look exactly like me and do things exactly the way I do things and think exactly the way I think, I don't want to be a part of it. Now, before I say anything else that might get me accused of being un-American, back to the award and to the recipient-to-be, Cameron.

I have no doubt that Kirk Cameron is a wonderful human being. I value and appreciate him as such, and I am happy for him in the successes that he has had in his life. I appreciate that he has a relationship with God.

Do I agree with the way he has purportedly "changed the world"? No, no not really.

As he came into adulthood, Cameron became an outspoken evangelist. He partnered with evangelist Ray Comfort, apparently subscribing to and promoting Comfort's messages and means. They founded their ministry The Way of the Master together, and have undertaken many evangelistic projects together. 

I object strongly to Ray Comfort and to the way he goes about doing things.

His book titles say it all for me: You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think, How to Know God Exists, God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, and Evolution: The Fairy Tale for Grownups. Those titles scream arrogance and elitism. They seem to say, "I am enlightened and you are ignorant." And if I'm not mistaken, that's not the kind of attitude we should be shooting for.

Comfort and Cameron participated in a debate, pieces of which aired on Nightline, along with atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Conner, which centered on the existence of God. According to Wikipedia, again, "Comfort stated he could prove [the existence of God] scientifically, without relying on faith or the Bible." You don't believe me? Please watch Cameron's opening statement of the debate (approximately 0:07 to 0:50). 

I have a huge problem with that statement. It undermines the entire concept of "Christian faith." A friend of mine who wrote an award-winning opinion article about his objection to the choice of Cameron for the "World Changers" award put it this way: "I’m sure I’m not the only person of faith who takes issue with that claim."

And if you go on to watch the whole video, you will see that the atheists do not come off as ignorant, but, unfortunately, Cameron and Comfort seem to. 

In 2009, on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Cameron helped distribute altered versions of the book at one hundred universities in the United States. The altered version had four important chapters omitted, and a 50-page introduction written by Ray Comfort. Wikipedia: "According to Comfort's website, 'Nothing has been removed from Darwin's original work,' but Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, noted that Comfort deleted four chapters by Darwin that described the evidence for evolution, adding that two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin's strongest evidence for evolution. She wrote that Comfort's foreword is 'a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments, teeming with misinformation about the science of evolution, populated by legions of strawmen, and exhibiting what can be charitably described as muddled thinking.'" 

If you have the time, here is the video featuring Kirk promoting it. And, if you have even more time, here is a blog post by Rachel Held Evans, an author, speaker, and blogger, responding to the video. She starts her post by saying, "You know that feeling you get when your sweet, 90-year-old grandmother makes a blatantly racist comment at Thanksgiving dinner or your creepy uncle starts rambling about how the moon landing was staged? You are no doubt familiar with the spontaneous full-body wince that inevitably follows an interview with Al Sharpton in which he claims to represent all African Americans, Michael Moore in which he claims to represent all liberals, or Ann Coulter in which she claims to represent all Christians. Whether it’s a politically incorrect relative or a cartoonish pundit, there are just some people who make you want to stand up and shout, 'Shut up before people start to think that we’re all like you!'" 

I must admit, that has become the exact sentiment I have when it comes to the IWU-World-Changer-to-be.

She goes on to name six stereotypes of evangelical Christians that Cameron seems to perpetuate within the six minutes of the promotional video: 1) Evangelicals suffer from the delusion that they face religious persecution in the U.S. (Did I hear an echo?), 2) Evangelicals are unable to make a distinction between atheism and evolution, 3) Evangelicals love drawing fallacious cause and effect conclusions regarding other belief systems, but have a selective memory when it comes to their own beliefs and history, 4) Evangelicals have little respect for science, 5) Evangelicals always have an agenda, and 6) Evangelicals use fear and patriotism as tools for manipulation to call their people to action.

I also object to some things Cameron has done in his acting career. Again, according to Wikipedia, "Cameron was an atheist in his early teens, but when he was 17, during the height of his career on Growing Pains, he developed a belief in God, and became a born-again Christian. After converting to Christianity, he began to insist that story lines be stripped of anything he thought too adult or racy in Growing Pains."

As an aspiring actor who also has faith in God, this is unsettling to me. Should our faith mean that we also have standards? Yes. But I also said that if a "world changer" is someone who goes out and tries to make other people look exactly like me and do things exactly the way I do things and think exactly the way I think, I don't want to be a part of it. This is what Cameron tried to do. He tried to impose his own standards on others who had no reason to adhere to them. It, again, conveys that sense of superiority. Looking down on people for not making moral choices. And now this goes straight back to my art and faith tension again.

Some of the names on the list of people who have received the award, in my mind, would be rather better described as "evangelical-Christian-subculture-changers." They have had a great following of Christians, but they do not fare so well with the rest of the world that they happen to live in. That's not to say that there's not a place for ministry to fellow Christians and that we shouldn't edify each other. I'm not saying that at all. Of course there's a place for it. But why are we giving such people "World Changer" awards? Dr. James Dobson seems to fall in this category, as well as Bill and Gloria Gaither, and definitely Kirk Cameron. 

Near the beginning of this post, I said that what changing one's world actually looks like seems to be up for interpretation. I think it's becoming crystal clear that IWU and I have different ideas indeed.