What is offensive?

Anybody see Charles McVety on The Hour with George Stromboulopoulous the other night?  If you missed it, catch the interview here - a rehash of the discussion I’ve previously blogged about here.  McVety advocates for government defunding of what many citizens would consider offensive material … notably this recent film.

His argument is: why should taxpayers fund this type of film?

He may have a point (though I tend towards a more libertarian viewpoint), but what I am more concerned about is the tone and approach of McVety as “evangelical spokesman”. 

First of all, who elected McVety as the evangelical pope?  And who says he gets to go on camera or on the front page of the Globe as representing evangelicals?  Obviously, the producers of The Hour and editors of the Globe are looking to create provocative material that increases viewership/readership, so kudos to them for doing their job.  And it is true that McVety appears in media interviews as president of CFAC, which is not a religious organization (though their website indicates a faith motivation).  But at the same time he is president of Canada Christian College, and defines himself as an evangelical.  The media spin, of course, is that he is speaking for all Canadian evangelicals.

The problem here is that faith is being defined in the public eye by someone who presents his case with anger, reinforcing narrow and untrue stereotypes of faith, and who lives in a moralistic, black-and-white world.  Unengaged, and unengaging.

This is what I find offensive.