|
RUMOR
CONTROL |
| Being a public figure isn't easy—at least, that's what I'd always
heard. But I had never really understood just how difficult it was to
truly be in the public's eye until it happened to me. Now, part of my
ongoing challenge is to live with the realization that those of us who
are constantly scrutinized by society are left almost defenseless
against hurtful gossip, malicious rumors, and internet blog ramblings. Occasionally such things can be chalked up to honest
misunderstandings. More often, however, they are clear attempts to
mock, belittle, or degrade. As for me—a journalist who has covered several controversial issue (usually associated in some way with religion)—rumors have taken a unique turn. My line of work has created for me a lot of . . . well, I'll not use the word "enemies," but let's just call them "folks who ain't too pleased with what I've had to say about their personal pet idea"—be it a favorite book, a cherished religious belief, an urban legend, or some ideology. So, to defend what is dear to them, they have attempted to impugn my personal character, journalistic integrity, and even ethics/morality by spreading (most commonly via cyberspace) some interesting accusations. Even certain media outlets have made inaccurate statements about my views based on their false perceptions and bias. The misinformation can be a bit daunting, but fortunately, there is always the truth. So I try to just smile and take it all in stride, understanding that we live in a very imperfect world. I've learned that sometimes all I can really do is have a good chuckle (which sometimes isn't so easy), offer the truth to the public using my own outlets (welcome to my website), and then move on. So here we have my official page. MISCELLANEOUS TRUTH: I am not a fundamentalist Christian. During a recent interview with the "Christians Who Love Harry Potter Journal," I explained: "I am not a fundamentalist in the negative way that the word is so popularly used today throughout the media and also by assorted Christian-bashers. It's sort of become the worst name you can call a Christian in this age of enlightenment, and has a lot of negative baggage associated with it, calling forth mental images of people who are either abortion clinic bombers or barely literate, barefoot, Bible-thumpers. And sadly, there is indeed a kind of narrow-mindedness and ignorance of the world in general when it comes to fundamentalists, whom I would consider to be Christians that go beyond what is actually biblical and have a terrifically rigid perspective of what is right and wrong or good and evil in the world. The word, I think, would also cover how such individuals respond and react to the world in which we live. Usually it is with condemnation and self-isolation. They tend to be extremely locked into one way of thinking about all kinds of things from dancing, to video games, to appropriate ways of preaching the gospel, to what is (and what is not) acceptable music, forms of entertainment, etc. etc. etc. So no, I am not a fundamentalist. I am an evangelical and a fairly open-minded one, at that. I do, however, hold to all of the essential doctrines of Christianity—i.e., those outlined in the ancient creeds of the church. That, by the way, is what it actually used to mean to be a fundamentalist—i.e., a person who simply held to the fundamentals of the faith. But the meaning of the word has chanegd so much, that it cannot really be used in that sense anymore by people like me, who seek to practice the kind of tolerance Jesus displayed in scripture toward others. Oh, that's another aspect of today's Fundamentalists -- they are not very tolerant." RUMOR: "What I meant to say, or thought I said, was that he was posing as a Christian conservative, when I view him as a Christian, very much a Christian liberal, which is, I believe I can easily defend that statement" (Chuck Missler, Calvary Chapel, listen to sound file). TRUTH: Amusingly, in this remark we have an accusation that stands in total opposition to the previous accusation. LOL. The first critic assigned me to the far right side of the Christian religious spectrum, while the second critic sent me to the far left side of the Christian religious spectrum. Hmmmmm, guess that means I must be somewhere in the middle, which of course, makes true extremists unhappy. So, in answer to this Abanes-is-a-liberal rumor, let me say, "No, I am no liberal." Nor am I "posing" as a conservative. I am indeed a conservative, evangelical Christian who holds to all of the essential doctrines of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith as outlined in the long-standing, and most renowned creeds of Christendom; namely, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Creed of Chalcedon, and and the Athanasian Creed. My beliefs were outlined in one of my earliest books, Defending the Faith, endorsed by conservative theologians/scholars J.I. Packer, Ron Rhodes, Norman Geisler, and Rick Warren. RUMOR: "Richard Abanes has admitted that much of the material in his book [One Nation Under Gods] is not true. He copied it from antimormon sources, got it published, then tried to push the book on ZLMB, and was corrected. Didn't go so far as to publish a retraction tho. Book sales too lucrative, I suppose" (Woody Brison, 2006, alt.religion.mormon.fellowship). "Abanes' book is unreliable, and he admitted this himself on ZLMB a couple years ago. (But he didn't retract the book or decline the royalties.) The source would be the same old man tho. . . ." (Woody Brison, Dec. 2007, alt.religion.mormon.fellowship). TRUTH: This is absolutely, uncategorically, blatantly . . . false. I have never stated anything remotely similar to what this person is alleging. And I have no idea where he got his ludicrous notions of what I have supposedly admitted. With regard to ZLMB, a Mormon message board, the only thing I mentioned at that website was that some changes I had requested to be made to the original manuscript before it went to print as a hardbound release were never made by my then-editor (who ended up getting fired, interestingly). These changes, therefore, had to be made subsequently in the paperback version, which was released about a year after the hardbound version. Some of the alterations included re-phrasing of certain concepts, clearer explanations of events, and in one place an error where a quote I had used was flipped backwards within text. All of these changes, which amounted to an extremely small percentage of material, were made to the paperback version—a common occurance in book publishing of non-fiction. None of them affected in any way the overall thrust of the book, it's message, the general history of Mormonism, or the thesis I presented. RUMOR: "Whatever view Abanes takes, he has serious doubts about the sanity of individuals who are interested in prophecy. . . .An interest in prophecy is, according to Richard Abanes, some kind of a demonic fatal attraction that we need to repent of-and quickly!" (Larry Spargimino, from a book titled The Anti-Prophets). TRUTH: Never have I ever directly stated, intimated, or suggested such harsh things about people who find prophecy interesting. My book End-Time Visions dealt with individuals and groups across a wide religious spectrum who went beyond a mere interest in prophecy, and into the realm of actually predicting the end of the word—sometimes with grave consequences. RUMOR: "Abanes not only doesn't trust anyone who isn't a Christian, but he's opposed to anyone who doesn't make public announcements of faith, no matter how irrelevant to the topic" (http://www.filmatheist.com). TRUTH: I have no idea what in the world this atheist is ranting about, but it all apparently stemmed from some fairly harmless criticisms I had made about Harry Potter, and also a benign observation I had made about how J.K. Rowling has never explained publicly what she precisely believes with regard to faith, God, Christianity, etc. (I had made this latter remark in response to Christians claiming that Rowling is indeed an orthodox, biblically-based Christian comparable to C.S. Lewis or a J.R.R. Tolkien). I trust plenty of people who are not Christians, and I am not "opposed to anyone who doesn't make public announcements of faith." And speaking of Harry Potter . . . . . . . HARRY POTTER
RUMOR:
"Richard wrote on that Blog this morning that his new novel debuted at
#7 on the Amazon new books list. On the Amazon sales rank list, though,
it is #124,586. Having read the first chapters of this novel, I
don’t
anticipate it will win the movie deal he is hoping for. The discrepancy
between what Richard wants you to think about Homeland Insecurity—
“Amazon #7!”—and the sales rank reality
is sufficient metaphor and
gauge of his relationship with the truth" (John Granger,
http://hogwartsprofessor.com).TRUTH:This accusation, clearly intended to impugn my personal character, was made by John Granger, a rather interesting (odd?) fellow who seems to think Harry Potter is some kind of Christian allegory (contrary to statements made by J.K. Rowling herself—see my blog about "The Evil Hogwarts Professor." He's a bit irritated with me these days because I, on more than one occasion, have pointed out to him (and others) where he has used false information to prove his thesis, often doing so in direct contradiction to statements made by J.K. Rowling. Ahh well, on to the rumor control. What I actually said in one of my blogs was that my new novel, Homeland Insecurity, was "resting at #7 on the amazon.com list of hot sellers for new releases." That list to which I referred is NOT the overall total ranking list at amazon.com, which is apparently the one that Granger looked up in his efforts to prove me a liar. The list I spoke of was actually a different list on which my novel was indeed bouncing happily around for weeks since its release on July 1, 2007, from #7 to #40 to #21 to #15 to #whatever. Our "Hogwarts Professor" once again simply displayed his poor ability to do accurate research. Ah well. RUMOR: "Fundamentalist Christians have renewed their efforts to have Harry Potter books banned from schools in the US. . . . Richard Abanes, author of ‘Harry Potter: Harmless Christian Novel or Doorway to the Occult?" (www.timesonline.co.uk). TRUTH: 1. As stated above under Misellaneous, I am not a fundamentalist. 2. I have never been involved in any attempts to ban Harry Potter books from schools. In fact, I have been an outspoken critic of those who have sought to get the books banned. 3. I have never written a book titled Harry Potter: Harmless Christian Novel or Doorway to the Occult? (NOTE: After sending a letter to the Times Online where in corrected their errors, my book title was surreptitiously changed to Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings. However, my letter to the editor was not printed, and none of the other comments/corrections I made about my views/my work were updated in the online article). RUMOR: "Conversely, fundamentalists like Abanes, who excoriate Harry as occult proselytizer and Potter-mania as Satanic conspiracy, have an almost exact counterpart in secular critics like Jack Zipes and Andrew Blake" (http://www.swgc.mun.ca/animus/2004vol9/jacobsen.htm). TRUTH: Zzzzzzzz......yawn.......I am not a fundamentalist (see above entries). Also, I've never labeled as "Satanic," let alone a "Satanic conspiracy," anything associated with Harry Potter or Pottermania. During a recent interview with "Christians Who Love Harry Potter Journal," I explained: "My main point regarding Harry Potter books has remained consistent over the years: Like them. Love them. Hate them. Whatever. But know what they contain, not only from a spiritual perspective (pro & con), but also from an ethical/moral perspective (pro & con). Then, make an appropriate decision for yourselves and your children based on the possible effects of such content, especially on the malleable minds of young, impressionable kids. The HP series should be approached like any other stack of books. They must be judged according to their content, neither overly condemned, nor overly accepted. Take them for what they are, not for what one may want them to be, either out of fear of them, or out of some misguided sense that because culture as a whole accepts them, we also must accept them wholeheartedly or look foolish. I see both of those extremes being displayed within the Christian community. And it's unfortunate. I've looked at the subject, or at least I've tried to look at it, very even-handedly. When it comes to HP, it's really a fairly simple issue, at least to me. But the waters have become muddied by people on both sides of the fence who have their own agenda (especially within the Christian community, where everyone should be showing more restraint, love, and a willingness to look at the facts with an eye toward finding the truth). You have the true Harry-haters on one hand who want to ban/burn the books because they contain occult imagery and mythological references. They are not recognizing the literary merit in the volumes, nor are they seeing some of the valuable lessons in the story or the positive character traits in several of the characters. On the other hand, you have the Harry-worshipers who refuse to hear anything negative about the volumes, and have gone so far as to twist and pervert the books into what they want them to be—i.e., a blatant Christian allegory (despite words to the contrary by J.K. Rowling, whom they claim to admire so much). Again, I have to say, that I fail to see, even after all of these years, why people have gotten so emotionally caught up in the HP series. I suppose it is indeed somewhat like radical sports fans who will actually come to blows against another person who doesn't like their team, or who says something bad about their favorite quarterback. I never really got that caught up in sports—maybe that's my problem." RICK WARREN
RUMOR(s):
"My old sparring partner and
un-officio
spokesman for Rick Warren has all but disappeared from the net"
(www.fulfilledprophecy.com). "Clicked on the link and saw it was the
book written by Slick Ricks purpose driven Unofficial spokesman for all
of Warrenanity Richie Abanes"
(simplyagape.blogspot.com). "About a year ago Rick
Warrens
unofficial spokesman Richard Abanes disappeared from the internet"
(simplyagape.blogspot.com). "I just have a problem with Warrens
minister of propoganda defending Slick Rick as Warren continues to push
his own agenda and weaken Christianity" (Tim Wirth, simplyagape.com
owner, posted elsewhere). "I think Slick Rick has retired Richard
Abanes as his unofficial spokesman. Besides Richard did sign on the
dotted line at Saddleback church meaning he is under Slick Ricks boot"
(Tim Wirth, simplyagape.blogspot.com, posted elsewhere). "Rick Abanes, apologist
for Obama's friend, Rick Warren" (http://watersblogged.blogspot.com).
"While
responding to Richard Abanes, whom one blogger has coined Rick
Warren's "excuseologist" for his tireless efforts at defending all
things Purpose Driven" (mcclare.blogspot.com). "Whatever happened to his [Rick Warren's] former apologist
Richard Abanes" (puritanreformed.blogspot.com). "The
post gained the
attention of Rick Warren's 'intellectual' body guard, Richard Abanes"
(hipandthigh.blogspot.com). "I guess if you write some widely read
posts on Rick Warren and his main bulldog, Rich
Abanes, comes and takes you to task on your comment page, you have made
it big time as a blogger" (hipandthigh.blogspot.com). "In trying to defend Rick Warren, Saddleback apologist Richard Abanes
pulled a quote out of a 1997 sermon where Rick Warren repeatedly said
that God was not in everything because that was “pantheism."
(reinventingjesuschrist.com).
"Funny looks like Rick Warren let my old pal Richie Abanes out of his
cage. Richie is a pseudo apologist and unofficial spokesperson for Rick
Warren" (simplyagape.blogspot.com). "I
have good
reason to believe that John Brown is actually Richard Abanes, the
official Rick Warren attack dog and biographer, who spends an
inordinate amount of time on fundamentalist blogs defending Rick
Warren. John/Richard even claims that he goes to a fundamentalist
church to enhance his credibility. Hmmm"
(www.sliceoflaodicea.com). "I went through this with Richard Abanes
back when he was a Warren apologist" (http://www.apprising.org).
"Warren
has an attack dog name Richard Abanes who is out trolling the
internet looking for anyone who says anything negative about Rick
Warren" (poster at
http://www.extremetheology.com). "Richard Abanes has been
appointed internet defender of Rick Warren for years" (poster
at
http://www.extremetheology.com). "Rick
also relies on a spin doctor (not just Richard Abanes) to fluff his
stuff to the undiscerning masses" (Tim Wirth,
http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/). "An interesting discussion has
broken out in the comments section of this post at
Daily Discernment between the author of the piece and Rick Warren
apologist Richard Abanes" (http://christianresearchnetwork.com). "The
faithful and discerning Christians here have certainly 'outed' Rick
Warren and his lapdog, Richard Abanes" (http://www.extremetheology.com).TRUTH: These comments (and similar ones littering the internet) from so-called fellow "Christians" are by far some of the harshest, most mean-spirited statements that have ever been made against me—and it's all simply because I have disagreed with these individuals and their particular views (based mostly on inaccurate information, flawed reasoning, and paranoia) of Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church and author of the highly popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. So, once and for all, here is the truth: » I
am not now, nor have I ever been, a spokesman (unofficially or
officially) for either Rick Warren or his
purpose-driven philosophy relating to church health and personal
spiritual
growth. I have merely reported on those subjects and related issues as
a religion journalist, and along the way have voiced my own personal
views
of Warren and his teachings, including agreements as well as
disagreements I have with him. My only published work to date on this
topic is Rick
Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him.
» I have never been asked by Rick Warren to publicly "spin" anything, explain anything, or excuse anything that he has said or done. He also has never paid me to "spin" anything, explain anything, or excuse anything he has said or done. » I am not now, nor have I ever been, Rick Warren's "intellectual bodyguard" (offficially or unofficially). This is laughable in the extreme. Warren is one of the most powerful evangelical leaders in the world, pastors one of the largest churches in America, and has several seminary degrees. I am hardly in the position as a religion journalist with no higher education and a modest number of books sold to be his intellectual bodyguard. The absurdity of it all goes beyond words. » I am not now, nor have I ever been, a "Saddleback apologist" or a Rick Warren "apologist" (officially or unofficially). I have always been, and will continue to be, a religion journalist (Christian apologist) who, to the best of his capabilities, provides documented information regarding various religious leaders, groups, and significant movements. (Recently, I have also moved into the realm of pop culture, entertainment, and fiction). I decided to write my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him because Rick Warren, his Purpose-Driven ideas, and Saddleback Church happened to fall into all three of these categories. As a member of Saddleback, I also knew that there would be a good chance of me obtaining access to Warren for an in-depth interview. That's it—end of story. My online discussions and debates regarding Rick Warren took place in response to the release of my book on him. Such internet activity on my part was in keeping with my practice of engaging via cyberspace in discussions/debates related to whatever newest book I happened to be releasing. My activities were not at the behest of Warren, any of his representatives, or anyone else. » Rick Warren has never, and will never, tell me what I can or cannot write about with regard to him, or any other issue. He has never let me out of any "cage." This is America. And I am a free citizen of the USA with the right of free speech. I write and say what I choose to write and say. Rick Warren has nothing to do with either. » I have not been appointed anything by anyone at Saddleback, nor have I been appointed anything by anyone at any Saddleback-associated organization. » I am not this individual named John Brown. I do not know any John Brown. » A "lap dog" is defined as, "One eager to do another's bidding, especially in order to maintain a position of privilege or favor." Well, truth be told, I do not do Rick Warren's bidding, or anyone else's bidding, especially to maintain some position of privilege. In fact, Rick Warren—to the best of my memory—has never asked me to do anything with regard to the various public corrections I have given to his critics. In other words, I am no one's "lap dog." If anyone can produce some documented evidence contrary to what I have just stated, then I would be most happy to see it and publish it. TRUTH: MY PERSONAL VIEWS OF IT RUMOR(s): "That is plain old postmodern
thinking . . ." (Tim, http://www.extremetheology.com).
[in reference to a remark I made on a blog about an analogy Rick Warren used to illustrate salvation. I noted: "That's what it says TO YOU—a seminary grad interpreting it through seminary-trained ears. But it may say, and indeed I know it did say, something different to others"). "[Y]our words and actions indicate a post-modern influence in regards to your view of truth" (post at http://www.baptistboard.com). "He's a modernist" (Bob Waters, http://watersblogged.blogspot.com). "Rick Abanes is not a post-modernist. He does not deny that there is such a thing as ultimate truth, of a sort of inaccessible, Platonic kind. . . . he is merely a modernist—one who denies that truth is finally accessible" (http://watersblogged.blogspot.com). TRUTH: I am neither a modernist, nor a post-modernist. In fact, in one of my books, published all the way back in 2001 (see Harry Potter and the Bible), I plainly stated: "Spriritual discernment may be at an all-time low in both the Church and in the world. The idea of "spirituality"—now all the rage in our postmodern times—is deemed a subjective, relative, pragmatic pursuit of personal enjoyment apart from considerations of truth, rationality or objective reality. And far too many Christians have failed to develop their critical faculties concerning the enticements of a post-Christian culture. Moreover, in our fallen world, many forms of evil masquerade as innocent, harmless and fun. They are often accepted with little evalutaion or criticism, especially when they are popular and entertaining. Yet Paul calls us to test everything, hold on to the good and avoid every kind of evil (1 Thessalonians5 :21-22)." And so, for the record, let me plainly state that objective/ultimate truth does indeed exist and that it is without a doubt knowable/accessible. —The World Is Such A Bizarre Place— |
|
about me |
my articles |
home |
wordpressblog crosswalk.com (a blog) |
in the media |