The Dishonest Double-Speak of SBC Leader Richard Land
By Brannon Howse
Last week I wrote an article titled: Marxists, Muslims, Mormons, Globalists, and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. Instead of being straight forward with the Christians that listen to his national radio program, or the SBC members from which he receives $3.2 million dollars a year to run his office, Richard Land chose to defend his unbiblical activities and affiliations using double speak, obfuscation, straw-man arguments, and what I see as outright dishonesty.
Let's begin by acquiring the definition of doublespeak. Dr. William Lutz from Rutgers University defines doublespeak this way:
Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, and the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it."8 [bold added] The use of doublespeak includes the use of phrases and terms that rename otherwise objectionable concepts..."
Now let's see if Richard Land is gifted in the art of doublespeak.
Richard Land's doublespeak on supporting the building of mosques:
In responding to articles by such individuals as Michael Carl of Worldnetdaily, Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association and myself, Mr. Land put out a rebuttal to our objections in the following manner:
Q) Is Richard Land involved with a coalition to defend the right of Muslims to build mosques in the United States?
A) Richard Land defends the right of American Muslims to build their houses of worship (mosques) in places where they live. He is NOT involved in efforts to encourage or aid the building of those mosques. He is only involved in legal efforts to defend American Muslims who are having their legal rights under the First Amendment denied or curtailed by zoning commissions and city councils.
That is doublespeak. Land is NOT involved in helping Muslims build mosques he is simply helping Muslims overcome legal obstacles so they can build their mosques?
The majority of Southern Baptists that donate funds to their churches are not doing this so a percentage can go to Land's office so he can be involved in "legal efforts to defend American Muslims who are having their rights under the First Amendment denied or curtailed by zoning commissions and city councils."
As I stated before in my last article, we are not for the federal government prohibiting the free exercise of religion of Christians or Muslims. However, if local communities do not want a mosques in their community because 80% of mosques in America are being funded by the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia, that is their right. Why would any Christian work to build mosques for a satanic religion such as Islam?
Land and I are both in favor of religious liberty but that does not mean I am going to join the interfaith coalition of the Anti-Defamation League and now help the Muslims overcome the obstacles they encounter in local communities. When was the last time you saw Muslims help a Christian church overcome obstacles thrown in their way by a local planning commission? If this is Land's new calling then he should leave the SBC and go start such an organization.
Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association nailed it in his article, "No mosque at Ground Zero? Then why a mosque anywhere?" in which he wrote:
There is nothing in our Constitution that requires us to give space to an institution that is determined to wipe out the Constitution. In fact, the one crime identified in the Constitution is treason against the United States. So not only do we not have to give room to those who "adhere" to the enemies of our way of life or give them "Aid and Comfort," we can put them in jail.
Is every mosque a center for terrorism? Nope. But 80% of the mosques in America are funded by Saudi Arabia, which sends them literature to distribute to their attendees, which calls for the blood of infidel Christians, and Jews. Thus 80% of the mosques in America are almost certainly teaching and preaching violent jihad against America. They are teaching violence against their host country. That's not religion, that's treason.
If a group of Muslims is willing publicly - say, in front of a zoning board or a city council - to renounce the 109 verses in the Koran that call for the spilling of infidel blood, if they are willing to renounce the verses that call for second-class citizenship for Jews and Christians, if they are willing to renounce the verses that call for the decapitation of Muslims who convert to Christianity, if they are willing to renounce the verses that call for husbands to beat their wives into submission, if they are willing to publicly declare that Christians and Jews are not pigs and apes but rather human beings created in the image of God, and if they are willing to publicly state that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and that Hamas is a terrorist organization, then they should be allowed to build as many mosques as they want. But then they wouldn't be building mosques at that point, would they?
What is it about what Bryan wrote that Land does not understand? I also recommend you read the article by Bryan Fisher titled, As One with a Southern Baptist Heritage, THIS Saddens me!
Richard Land's doublespeak on his endorsement of a book by Jim Wallis:
Land wrote: [emphasis added]
Q) Does Richard Land endorse "radical" Jim Wallis?
A) No. Richard Land did provide an endorsement for Jim Wallis's book The Great Awakening in 2008. A recent commentary on Richard Land truncated and largely took this endorsement out of context. The full and accurate quote from the book is:
"Despite our significant public-policy differences, I commend Jim Wallis for advocating religious belief as an invaluable resource in addressing the urgent moral and social crises of our time." - Richard Land
Remember this is a statement put out last week by Richard Land. Richard Land's name is at the top of the statement as the author. This would really be funny if it were not so serious.
Land is saying that he does not endorse Jim Wallis but he did provide an endorsement of Jim Wallis' book. That is exactly what I stated in my article last week. Thank you Richard for confirming what I wrote which was that you endorsed the book of a neo-Marxist and commended Wallis for bringing religious beliefs to bear on the urgent moral and social crises of our time.
What Land wants to make clear is that he does not endorse Jim Wallis, he just endorses the book that contains Jim Wallis' radical ideas. That is what is called doublespeak.
But wait, it actually gets worse. On his October 9th radio program Land again says that I wrote in my article that he endorsed Jim Wallis. NO WHERE in my article did I ever write that Land endorses Jim Wallis. I specifically had the subhead line of: "Land endorses a book by Radical Jim Wallis".
Land also says that I did not quote the full endorsement he gave on the book by Jim Wallis.
Land says, "the first half of the quote says although I disagree with most of the views in this book, I do applaud Jim Wallis for understanding that religion has a place in public policy, well he just takes out the first half of the quote and says that I am endorsing Jim Wallis. Well that is just dishonest, that's just dishonest and its misinformation."
Land's endorsement of the book by Wallis does not read, as he claims, "Although I disagree with most of the views in this book…" You will not find those words in his endorsement. Please read the full endorsement again by Land that is provided above.
Land is the one being dishonest and putting out misinformation. Land wants you to believe that I wrote something that I did not write. Land is trying to change the debate and muddy the waters so people will think that I took Land out of context when that never occurred. Land wants you to believe he is the victim of misrepresentation when in fact; it is Land that is misrepresenting my article and the facts contained therein.
Land is Shocked That People Believe The Content in my Article:
On his October 9th radio program Land said, "Well you know, the sad thing to me is so many people that believe this article that know me."
This reason they believe the article Richard may be because they DO know you and have followed what you have been up to. The other reason they believe the article is because it is factually accurate and I provided numerous hyperlinks to news articles that document your silly and misguided quotes, affiliations, and beliefs.
Richard Land's Double Speak on Amnesty:
Land says he is not for amnesty but for illegal aliens paying a fine and getting to the back of the line. That is amnesty even if Land says it is not. It is amnesty from being deported. Staying in America and going to the back of the line for citizenship is not the same as being deported and waiting in line in their country of origin. Thus it is amnesty from the full penalty of the law and thus what Richard is supporting is amnesty. I believe Richard Land is very gifted at doublespeak.
Specific Issues I raised in my article that Land never addresses:
1. Land never addresses how he is in clear violation of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 2 John 9-11 when he entered into a spiritual enterprise with Glenn Beck and locked arms with members of all faiths in an attempt to look to "one god".
2. Land never addresses his taking scripture out of context to support his amnesty agenda. Why? It is because I provided the hard evidence from a concordance that he had taken scripture out of context and so instead of taking responsibility he just ignored the facts?
4. Land never addresses why he would call Mormonism the fourth Abrahamic faith. Mormonism does not believe in one god but millions of gods, making it a polytheistic religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic; meaning they believe in only one god. So how does that make Mormonism a fourth Abrahamic religion? Mormonism does not date back to Abraham so how can Land call it the fourth Abrahamic faith? Why did Land not address this part of my article? Is it because he cannot doublespeak his way out of this blunder?
3. Land never addresses the anti-Christian, anti-American, globalist agenda of the Council on Foreign relations or his giving them credibility as a member. Instead, Land claims to be fulfilling the Matthew 5:13-16 mandate to be salt and light. Land needs to understand that we are never called to be salt and light by compromising and becoming members of an anti-Christian, antichrist organization like the CFR. Again in 2 Corinthians 6:14 and in 2 John 9-11 the Bible speaks to this issue.
Renaming Otherwise Objectionable Concepts:
Remember that part of the tactic of those engaged in doublespeak includes the "use of phrases and terms that rename otherwise objectionable concepts..."
Land will not admit that I, and others, have laid out clear examples of unbiblical partnerships, alliances and endorsements. Instead Land seeks to call compromise by another name-evangelicalism.
On his October 9th radio program Land clearly implied that those who are criticizing him are fundamentalists that want to withdraw from the world and those that support him are evangelicals that want to engage the world.
When Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and Neo-Marxist Jim Wallis all call themselves evangelicals then you know the term has been co-opted by the progressives. Considering what I believe to be Land's moves to the left perhaps Land is an evangelical.
Land can call those of us that disagree with him "fundamentalists" but I believe he is seeking to turn the word into a pejorative and an insult. Land can insult me if he likes but in reality I believe he is also calling those that agree with the facts that I have presented in my article last week a pejorative and that just happens to include many Southern Baptist members and pastors that have e-mailed me in agreement with my article.
Perhaps we "fundamentalists" should donate to our SBC churches with clear instructions that none of our contributions are to make their way back to the SBC where a percentage is given to fund the work of Richard Land and his office.
Also on his radio program Land spoke to my criticism of his accepting the invitation to become a member of the anti-Christian, anti-American, globalist organization, the Council on Foreign Affairs. Land said "I mean what am I suppose to do say no because some pinhead may think that I'm an internationalist and I want to reduce America's sovereignty because I am a member of the Council on Foreign Relations?"
I assume I am the pinhead Land is referring to. Yes, Richard, I do think that a Christian leader should have enough discernment to know that you were invited to join the CFR because they want to use you to make themselves appear "Christian friendly" when in fact they are not. The fact you cannot figure that out and I can makes me the pinhead?
I personally think it is time for Land to go and start his own organization and raise his own funds instead of relying on the hard work of us "fundamentalists."
However, just because I call myself a conservative, Bible believing Christian and do not want to join the Council on Foreign Relations, endorse a book by neo-Marxist Jim Wallis, seek to build bridges with radical Islamic fundamentalists, push for amnesty for illegal aliens, proclaim Mormonism the forth Abrahamic Faith and join Mormon Glenn Beck in a spiritual service does not mean I want to retreat from the world. What it means is that I want to be in the world but not OF the world. And that is no doublespeak.
Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
Printer Friendly Version |
Return to home |
Send this article to a friend
Read More Feedback
I was wondering if what I am hearing and reading in his responses, does he follow the doctrine of progressive revelation? I have run into this false teaching lately by some leaders in our local Baptist community. From what I am hearing from Mr. Land, sounds the same.
|Posted On: 10/18/10 07:11:01 AM
||Age 0, OK
This is why the IFB's separated
The symptom above is the reason the group now know as Independent Fundamental Baptists separated from the Southern Baptists. The SBA's just strayed too far from the Biblical doctrines and truth.
Now none of the IFB's are perfect by any means, but at least we don't have an umbrella org (churches not locally run) that sucks all our money unfairly away to support purposes that are not even asked of us.
|Posted On: 10/16/10 08:53:35 PM
||Age 0, CA
Tactics of Richard Land
Mr. Land's membership in the CFR (globalists), his involvement with Glenn Beck (cultist), and with this muslim group (Islamist) point to his stated tactic of trying to be "salt and light" to them. In effect, he is stating that he is trying to infiltrate and change them. (Interestingly, illegal aliens are doing the same thing, though perhaps not purposefully.) Perhaps that is why he sees nothing wrong with what they are doing.
|Posted On: 10/15/10 05:20:51 AM
||Age 0, MS
Where is Mr. Land's Humility?
I wonder if Mr. Land has enough humility to publicly repent when he has erred. Perhaps God will grant him godly sorrow and repentance. It would be wonderful and refreshing to see that happen.
I recall very clearly the day an illegal alien called in to Mr. land's radio program and said he owned a business (maybe two) and that it would hurt the economy if he was deported. There was an arrogance underlying his comments, in the sense that we would only be harming ourselves by enforcing our laws. Then Richard Land affirmed the man and told him he was exactly who he (Land) had been talking about. That was disturbing to my spirit. I stopped listening to "For Faith and Family" when it became clear that Mr. Land did not respect a law that is not in conflict with God's Word.
|Posted On: 10/13/10 09:27:54 AM
||Age 0, UNITED STATES
Let's make it simple
Richard Land said we can join with Mormons or others to promote a common cause as long as the cause isn't religion. I wonder if he'd join with Satan to promote stewardship of the earth or if he'd realize you shouldn't EVER partner with someone in such a way that it would weaken your witness for Jesus.
|Posted On: 10/13/10 04:23:35 AM
||Age 0, GA
Land and Mr. Land
About Land: I am really puzzled about this " taking away of ones' Constitutional rights not to be able to build a Mosque wherever one wants." I live in Chesapeake, VA and one of the large predominately black churches in the area of Chesapeake bought a piece of land to build their next facility on. However, it happened to be at the entrance to the part of the City that the city and those who live there were trying to improve. At one time it had been the center of town and when the new construction began in the outskirts of town in the farmland, the folks moved out there and this part of town went downhill. But the Civic League and the City (the people) wanting to improve the area, thought it best that a Strip Mall with businesses be in that location at the entrance to the area, rather than a Church. Ultimately, the City, the people, shot the church idea down and they had to give up the property, and build elsewhere. Was that unconstitutional? I doubt it. The City is the people. The people shot it down and the Church could not build there. Why is this so different? Because it is Satan's work. About Mr. Land: This is the same spirit that Rick Warren possesses. Remember when he was invited to attend the Jewish Convention a few years back? They were trying to increase the number of attendees in their Synagogues, so they asked Mr. Warren if he would come and share with them his Church Growth Strategies. I guess, overwhelmed with enthusiasm that they would be interested and extend an invitation to him, he accepted and went. Talk about lack of discernment. Imagine, the Pharisees coming to Jesus, after they had packed up the baskets after feeding the 5000, and saying,"Hey, we noticed (despite the fact that we hate your guts) that you really know how to draw a crowd! Do you, could you, what do you think about maybe dropping into our next gathering and just sharing a few tips on how you get them all to come out before we nail you to the cross? We could pay you a little something extra, probably." And while you are imagining that, imagine Jesus, taking the next weekend off to give those who wanted to kill him and lead others away from him, pointers on how to get more Jews to the Synagogues. Hard to imagine? Well, not for Rick. According to him, he is sold out to Christ! But actions speak better than words. Seems like he sold Christ out. I have never tried to help a Jew convert a Jew. And I wont follow a minister who does. It is about building the Church of Christ. Not helping to convert Muslims, Mormons, or Jews on the side, while we preach in a pulpit on Sunday mornings. What Hypocrisy!
|Posted On: 10/12/10 02:05:47 PM
||Age 0, VA
I would take Richard Land more seriously if I saw any indication that he was taking seriously proverbs 9:9 "Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning."
I see no graciousness or humility in Richard Land's responses. Only arrogance and political posturing. He has responded to sound teaching with childish mocking. So, for me, there is nothing left but Proverbs 9:8 "Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you."
I will continue to speak out against error, but I leave Richard Land in the Lord's hands. I suggest you do the same.
|Posted On: 10/12/10 02:05:13 PM
||Age 0, IA
Remind me to never get on your bad side
A superb rebuttal to Richard Land's double-minded speech. Thank you for your boldness in speaking truth! As Paul says in Ephesians 1, "After I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers."
I am also praying that God opens Richard Land's eyes.
|Posted On: 10/12/10 01:02:33 PM
||Age 0, NC
Thanks for the Truth
We are seeing the elite fall as the Bible said would happen. The desire for power, popularity, money, is rampant among our pastors and leaders of the SEEKER FRIENDLY religious population. The Bible plainly says those who hold to the complete counsel of God in His Word will be persecuted and I pray He protects you as you boldy reveal the lies and decietful ways of the enemy during these last days. The SBC should ask Land to step down as you said....and begin his own organization. The TRUTH does not appear to be in him at this time. God bless your efforts.
|Posted On: 10/12/10 12:38:56 PM
||Age 0, TX
God Bless You and Your Courage in the Lord
God bless you Brannon, and your courage in the Lord! I must say, Brannon, that I for one don't believe the "players" at the SBC are ignorant of Land's beliefs and activities. In fact, given his prestigious position at SBC and their silence on these heretical and apostate issues, such silence certainly make them look approving at best, and complicit at worst.
After watching all of the many attacks of the enemy against "the denominations," it certainly seems a possibility to me that in those days that lie ahead, being in a denomination may not be the place for a true Christian?
God bless you, Brother!
|Posted On: 10/12/10 09:42:13 AM
||Age 0, GA