Coulter throws verbal bombs for a living. It was only a matter of time before one of her verbal bombs blew up in her face. That time has arrived.
In a commentary published by TownHall.com, Coulter aims one of her bombs at Dr. Kent Brantly, a Christian physician who performs medical missionary work in Africa under the leadership of Samaritan’s Purse, an international Christian charity. Dr. Brantly is the American physician who acquired the Ebola virus and was returned to the USA for specialized medical treatment.
In her commentary, Coulter accuses Dr. Brantly of “Christian narcissism” because he performs his missionary work in Africa instead of the USA. Coulter writes the following:
But serving the needy in some deadbeat town in Texas wouldn’t have been “heroic.” We wouldn’t hear all the superlatives about Dr. Brantly’s “unusual drive to help the less fortunate” or his membership in the “Gold Humanism Honor Society.” Leaving his family behind in Texas to help the poor 6,000 miles away — that’s the ticket.
Apparently, Coulter has read neither the New Testament parable about the sheep and the goats nor the parable about the Good Samaritan, both parables having been told by Jesus himself. Had she read and understood them, the Coulter would know that Dr. Brantly was doing exactly what living out the Gospel message requires, which requires taking personal risks when necessary.
The idiocy of Coulter’s rant against Dr. Brantly has resulted in plenty of scorn. In a commentary published by the American Thinker, Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse writes the following:
One of the essential lessons of clear thinking is to avoid specious “either/or” dichotomies. Ann Coulter violated this basic standard in her intentionally sensational article, “Ebola Doc’s Condition Downgraded to ‘Idiotic.’” She wondered why missionary doctor Kent Brantly didn’t stay in the U.S. to “serve Christ” instead of going to Liberia, where he “risked making his wife a widow and his children fatherless.” In other words, in Ann’s opinion, Christian service is limited to one of two options: serve in the U.S., or abandon wife and children to “slink off” to do “heroic” “good works” in “Third World countries” that are “disease-ridden cesspools.” Obviously to folks with Ann’s infantile perspective, such “idiocy” is merely to “impress” people like the NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
It is ironic that someone as so publicity-obsessed as Coulter would have the gall to assert that if missionaries weren’t so “narcissistic” and had courage or weren’t burned out over all the social problems in the U.S., they’d stay in “some deadbeat town” in the U.S. and forego all the “superlatives” they get for serving as foreign missionaries.
It probably is a waste of time to ask the question: did you really mean to reveal how shallow your thinking can be?
Regarding Coulter’s rant, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. writes the following:
Coulter has written a very sad and infuriating article – an article that should lead to outrage in Christian circles. It reveals a radical nationalistic and libertarian worldview that is fundamentally incompatible with evangelical Christianity, with the Scripture, and with the command of Christ.
Peter Rosenberger is president of an organization that provides prosthetic limbs to people in Africa. In an opinion piece published by FoxNews.com, he writes the following:
There are plenty of things for Ann Coulter to harp about when it comes to American politics. When it comes to this issue of why American Christians go to the mission field, she, like many of the patients we treat, doesn’t appear to have to have a leg to stand upon.
Only time will tell if Coulter feels enough shame to apologize for what she wrote, or if she will be too narcissistic to make such an apology.