Over the past sixteen months
I have written six different pieces of what I would characterize as serious
reporting on Samuel Rodriguez, with a number of other shorter blog posts/
responses. I am glad to see that Timothy Dalrymple has become the first reporter
besides me to interview Rodriguez and to ask him for the record some difficult
questions about his public statements and organizational commitments. I wish
the interview had been done differently (to say the least), but I do appreciate that some key
questions were asked and that Rodriguez was invited to give a thoughtful
response. Unfortunately, instead of careful responses what Rodriguez has given
is inflammatory charges, with not even a shred of evidence quoted or linked to,
of anti-Latino and anti-Pentecostal bias on the part of either me or Mark Silk.
Given the context of Rodriguez’s smear, it seems quite clear that Rodriguez was
referring to me and to my work reporting on him and on broader issues about the
New Apostolic Reformation. I am quite disappointed and dismayed that Dalrymple did not ask any follow up questions about these accusations and did not challenge Rodriguez to give documentation. Dalrymple also allows to go unchallenged Rodriguez's claim that I have lost "any sort of legitimacy as a commentator on issues of the public sphere." Tim mentions that he will share his opinions on the interview on Monday, but would it have been to much to ask that he press Rodriguez for any type of substantiation for his charges? I want to respond clearly and concisely to the anti-Pentecostal and anti-Lation charges in the hopes that readers will then turn to my actual reports and see
for themselves the content of what I have written. I earlier responded to the
charge that I am anti-Pentecostal, now I turn to the charge that I am
anti-Latino, again noting that Rodriguez gives absolutely no evidence for this
charge and that Dalrymple did not press him for any substantiation. All we have
is the assertion that I am “a very
discriminating, very bigoted anti-Pentecostal, and in my opinion anti-Latino”
writer.
Of course, there is no evidence
given because there is no evidence to be found. I could bore you with details
of my extensive work with Latino students and families from my time in Southern
California, and I could dig up criticism of Rodriguez from Latinos, but this
would only serve to dignify Rodriguez’s remarks. My writing about Rodriguez,
which is the only writing I have done specifically referring to the Latino
community, is no more anti-Latino because it criticizes aspects of his public ministry
than it is anti-male because Rodriguez is a male, or anti-American because
Rodriguez is an American. My criticism is about specific words and actions that
Rodriguez has spoken and done in his public ministry, not about his ethnicity.
If criticizing a person who happens to be from an ethnic minority makes someone
“anti” an ethnic group, then Rodriguez must be quite the anti-black leader
because of his withering criticisms of the Obama administration. But of course
that is nonsense—some of Rodriguez’s closest ministry partners are
African-American just as some of my closest friends are Latino.
What I would urge everyone to do is
to look carefully at the six articles I have written that seek to investigate
the public record of Rev. Rodriguez and see for their self if any of the
criticism is anyway based on the ethnicity of Rodriguez. The interested reader
might also read my essay on Alan Hirsch, or my criticisms of Eric Metaxas---neither of whom are Latino but with whom I take serious, substantive
issue with.
For convenience, here are the six
essays I have written about Rodriguez:
2.
On Rodriguez’s resignation from Oak Initiative and participation in the New Apostolic Reformation.
**This post was updated on November 18.
No comments:
Post a Comment