Monday, May 21, 2007

The Jig is Up: American Evangelicals and Fascist Seduction

This past week, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, announced that, as an individual, he could not, in good conscience, cast a vote for former New York City Mayor and presidential candidate, Rudy Guiliani. Why not? It is because Rudy has been a serial and unrepentant adulterer as well as being staunchly pro-abortion.

Dr. Dobson said, “The jig is up.”

Well, I have something to share that, I believe, goes deeper. While I basically agree with Dr. Dobson, yet it seems to me that Dr. Dobson’s support for President Bush and disdain of Giuliani is based on “moralism” combined with hypernationalism.

What is moralism? Moralism is legalism taken outside of the Church (our leading export, it seems). It judges others solely based on specific behaviors (particularly sexual mores), much like the Pharisees judged others. It typically condemns rather than reaches out. It expects unbelievers to act as righteous as believers (or even more so). In addition to the tendency of feeding self-righteousness, one of the key dangers of moralism is that it can cause us to miss the bigger picture. That’s what I will attempt to share here.

You see, last Tuesday night, a dagger pierced my spirit, and, left me nearly gasping. Regardless of the consequences, I cannot stay silent (for folks at State College Assembly, this is not a huge surprise:)).

Though I’ve touched on this general subject before, this goes beyond what I’ve previously said.

Please take a deep breath before you decide to plunge on.

After coming home from ministry out of town, I chose to stay up and catch the May 15 primary election returns on my home computer. Why? Because two people from our congregation were running for office (and as their pastor I cared deeply about them), and, because I love State College, I was interested in the outcome of the heated State College Area school board race.

Also, because I like to multi-task, I decided to turn the TV in the next room on and listen to the Republican Presidential Debate. Since it was sometimes 5-10 minutes before each election update, I moved back and forth between the two.

I have already forgotten much of the debate, but one moment I will never forget. It was after Dr. Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, asserted that America’s interventionist policies over the past 50 years may have played a role in generating much of the Islamic hatred toward America, including 9/11. He cited, specifically, the American overthrow of the legitimate Iranian government in 1953 and the installation of the new American puppet, the Shah of Iran. He further stated that if other nations (for example, China) were to do to America what we are habitually doing to others, Americans would be rightly incensed.

When he finished, a historic moment occurred. Mayor Giuliani asked the moderator if he could say something. He angrily said to Rep. Paul that he had heard many explanations of 9/11, but never one so absurd. The audience went wild with applause for Giuliani. It was probably the strongest audience reaction of the night. It sounded nearly unanimous.

Now this is important. We must also remember where this debate took place—it took place in the heart of the Bible Belt (South Carolina) where culture is largely dominated by evangelicals, in particular Baptists and, to some degree, Pentecostals (though Pentecostals are strong in the South, they are not as strong in South Carolina, but American Pentecostals are almost universally guilty of what I am about to share).

Mayor Giuliani then asked Rep. Paul to retract his statement, which Paul refused to do, saying that he was simply articulating classic, small-government, non-interventionist Republicanism.

Please remember that what I am about to share has little to do with Mayor Guiliani or Rep. Paul (who has been consistently pro-life), but everything to do with the audience. Furthermore, I am not campaigning for or against any of the candidates. This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul. I don’t know that much about him. For all I know, he might be a horrible presidential candidate.

My comment here is purely based on spiritual dynamics. You see, by knowing the Word, it was instantly obvious to me that Rep. Paul was articulating two key teachings of scripture. One is from Jesus and the other is articulated by the Apostle Paul.

First, Jesus tells us to do unto others as we would have them do (not what they do, but what we would have them do) to us. We call it the ‘Golden Rule.’ You can check it out in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. Second, the Apostle Paul builds on the principles of Jesus’ ‘Golden Rule’ when he tells us the spiritual law of sowing and reaping. That means we must always be careful what we ‘sow’ in life, because we will ‘reap’ the same. That principle applies to giving, blessing, cursing, really everything we do in how we treat others. As they say, what ‘goes around comes around.’ You can check that out in Galatians 6:7.

Without a doubt, most of the audience had heard sermons on these passages or had read them in their Bibles, yet they didn’t seem to recognize them. The clear teaching of scripture apparently sounded foreign and alien to them. The question is how they could be so blind, or as Jesus said, so “dull of hearing”? (Matt. 13:15, KJV)

Okay, I hope you’re still with me. Now, please hear the spiritual dynamic of what I heard on Fox News that night as follows:

Ron Paul (pro-life, anti-Iraq war candidate): America needs to be careful. We should follow the ‘Golden Rule’ and remember the ‘Law of Sowing and Reaping’ by having a “humble foreign policy.”

Rudy Giuliani (pro-abortion, pro-Iraq war candidate): That is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.

Instant Audience Reaction: Wild applause for the pro-abortion, pro-Iraq war, quasi-fascist (I’ll get to this in a moment) candidate.

In effect, they were saying, “Forget the 50 million slaughtered, beheaded and incinerated babies, save my skin, Rudy Baby.” (I truly believe abortion is the modern equivalent of the Ammonite practice of burning up children, offering them to Molech. See Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; 1 Kings 11:7 and Jer. 32:35)

It has been a long time since I’ve been so shocked into stark reality. Oh, yes, I’ve seen the trends, but I didn’t think it was this bad.

The next day it got worse. I checked out two Christian evangelical blogs (here and here) that totally supported Giuliani and trashed Paul. My ‘blink’ reaction was confirmed.

Folks, spiritually speaking, it can hardly get worse than this.

It seems to me that Satan is using the fear of Islamic terrorists (as well as the fear of Hillary Clinton) to deceive Bible-believing American Christians. He is using 9/11 in order to get us to run into an even worse trap—fascism. In fact, he has been so wily as to get us to use the term ‘Islamo-fascism,’ which every historian in the world would laugh at—there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism. There is Islamic fanaticism; there is Islamic terrorism, but fascism is a product of the ancient Roman Empire and has been solely manifested (either in symbolism or in reality) in Western Culture.

What is fascism? Yes, the House of Representatives is adorned with its obvious symbolism on either side of the American flag (see the huge ‘fasces’ and an explanation for kids here), but few people understand it. You can easily google it yourself, but, simply put, fascism is the close cooperation/nexus of government, big business and big media in a totalitarian atmosphere (America is very close to that right now). It was reborn in modern-day Italy, under Mussolini, and then embraced by Hitler’s Germany and Imperial Japan. With fascism, you either blindly love or blindly hate your nation. There is nothing in between.

Mayor Giuiani has been called the fascist candidate. In fact, in the debate, he jokingly thanked another candidate who called him soft on something else. Giuliani said, I want to thank him for “calling him soft on anything.” It was only humorous to those who don’t understand history. As Chris Matthews, the astute pundit from Pennsylvania has noted (no hyperlink here because of the profanity), Rudy Giuliani is popular all over the nation because he cleaned up New York and America wants a “little bit of fascism.” Remember what they said about Mussolini—“At least he made the trains run on time.”

Yes, the saying is right: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I have become totally convinced that American evangelicals are acting like the Christians in Germany before WW2. The danger is not Islamo-fascism, but the totally degenerate, syncretistic (combining holy and unholy) and blasphemous Christo-fascism. This is turning up again like a bad reichsmark.

For those who don’t agree or are angry at me right now, let me ask you this: What would you propose that Christian leaders in Germany should have done when they saw the trends going as they were in the early 1930s? Should they have been silent or strident? When would you have had the courage to stand up against the flow?

Please listen to this Pennsylvania German.

In mid-twentieth century Germany, many Christians were sure Hitler was God's man for the hour, including the leader of a great revival at Penn State almost a hundred years ago, Frank Buchman (founder of both the Moral Rearmament movement [note the name--it has nothing to do with Jesus] and the catalyst later behind Alchoholics Anonymous). Germany's new Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, was admittedly tough, but (1) He was moral—he outlawed abortion, he didn’t smoke or drink or run around with women, and he outlawed pornography as well, and (2) They needed a strong leader to deal with the real and present fear of nation-consuming Russian communism, led by Josef Stalin, and (3) Hitler seemed to honor their Christian heritage, by having the soldiers belt buckles read “Gott Mit Uns (God With Us),” painting crosses on the military vehicles (ever notice in a WW2 movie?). Even military officers wore the ‘iron cross.’

Well, as it turned out, Hitler was not God’s man, but the devil’s man. Germany, the birthplace of the Reformation (America can’t claim that), arguably the ‘greatest’ (in almost every field of science and art) and most intellectual nation in the world in their time, had been deceived.

I’m saying it as clearly as I know how to say it. Christian patriotism in America has crossed the line into clear idolatry. We evangelicals are very close to apostasy, and I can tell you that many of our brothers and sisters around the world can see it. I believe this idolatry—not Sun Myung Moon, not the DaVinci Code, not Hillary Clinton--is our last-days deception. Those other things are bad, but there’s little danger that evangelicals will be deceived by them.

It ain’t deceptive if it ain’t seductive.

Yes, American evangelicals are not only part of the goose-stepping parade of fascism, it seems that we are so impressed with ourselves that we are at the front of the parade. We are too naïve to understand where the parade is headed, but we are sure proud that, after many years of social isolation, some of our number are at the front.

The whole world can see that evangelicals have been the strongest supporters of the current erosion of First Amendment free-speech rights, warrantless searches, and everything else that has chilled open dissent. Again, I’m not making a political or even a constitutional argument, I’m just saying that evangelicals are seen as empowering the gradual movement toward totalitarianism.

The fox has even been invited into the chicken house. Last year, the Global Pastors Network annual meeting (consisting of a few thousand of the leading evangelical pastors/leaders in America) had Rudy Guiliani speak as a “surprise guest” speaker.

Yes, I was surprised. I didn’t think that evangelical leaders could be *that* naïve.

You see, naivete is both the Christian’s greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Jesus said to be as wise as serpents *and* harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16). One without the other is dangerous.

This week I was also reminded of Ezekiel 33:6, where the watchman is required to ‘blow the trumpet’ and sound the alarm, else he will held accountable for the blood of those killed.

I take that very seriously.

If you’re still angry, let me also ask this: Would you rather I sound the trumpet too early and be wrong or not rock the boat and wait until it’s too late? Which would rather my primary loyalty be to--God's Word or a kingdom of this world?

It’s time for American Christians to repent (turn around). Yes, liberals need to repent for selling out the core of the gospel, but conservatives also need to repent of our nationalistic idolatry. Truth will set us free, not leaders that promise us security by means of an endless war and torture. Our rage toward the enemies of America has blinded us. We don’t even recognize God’s Word when we hear it applied to our times. Can it get worse than that? Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice.”

What’s worse, spiritually lost people in America see our hypocrisy when we don’t. No wonder our evangelism efforts have flat-lined. How can we convince them of the Truth of Jesus if we aren’t convinced ourselves (i.e., “What Jesus taught doesn’t work in the ‘real’ world")?

Besides, there’s neither left nor right in God’s eyes, only truth and hypocrisy.

If there is not a turn soon, then the time may have come that I learned about when I was growing up. I was warned that the day may come when I would have to choose between Jesus and America.

Maybe that time is now.

So, as it were I am saying with my small voice to the enemy of our souls (not Mayor Giuliani), “The jig is up.” The Bride of Christ is not your mistress. With God’s help, our hands and our garments will be clean (Rev. 3:4) as we await the coming of Jesus the Messiah, the true Bridegroom.

And as the true Church has always said, “Maranatha.”

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right! We need to wake up and smell the coffee. We may very well be heading in a direction that is not in line with God's will. As for not being able to keep silent, that is what you church members love and admire most about you. We appreciate your courage to take a stand and follow God's will at all times. It is quite obvious to us how much you love the Lord.

Anonymous said...

I think Muslims will always hate America because we support Israel. It does not matter if we never intervened in any countries' politics, they would still hate us because we enable Israel to survive. And Muslims will always fight Jews, per the Bible. So it is just the end times coming true.

Nate said...

I am not so sure about Muslims always hating Jews. Before the last 100 years have Muslims always hated Jews?

I must say that I found myself agreeing with Ron Paul with his comments about 9/11. We as Americans love to point at the actions done by others against us but dont like to consider what we have done...sounds a little like a speck and a plank.

Nick Olson said...

Greetings, Pastor Grabill. It's good to be back in the Centre County area after another school year.

As I was reading this excellent piece, I was wondering to myself if the Nationalism you've been speaking of may actually be an effect of a much larger issue in America: Nominal Christianity.

Don't get me wrong. I am by no means trying to deflect blame away from genuine Bible believing, born-again Christians. We certainly have a hand in the problems you speak of. It is not my intent to clear myself or others of any blame.

I'm not familiar with the most recent Barna polls, but when one stops to consider the fact that 70 to 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians when in reality the percentage of born-again Believers may probably be half of that number, if not less.

It is very obvious that we have a very significant amount of people in the country who claim to be Christians, but really are not. I believe that this grave issue is spilling over into Nationalism, among other issues. Nominal Christians who do not truly have Christ number one in their lives (though we all have likely struggled with prioritizing at one time or another), have other priorities ahead of Christ such as the United States, themselves, or their favorite political party. I think the greater solution might be alerting people that a head knowledge of who Christ is and attending church once or twice a year is not Christianity.

Plainly speaking, ignorance of what true Christianity entails leads inevitably to ignorance of how Christians ought to act in various realms including the political one.

Admittedly, Pastor Grabill, I found myself a bit taken aback by some of your claims, but perhaps this was a fault of my own misconceptions about your motives. I sometimes found myself wondering if you felt like all Christians who voted republican or supported a republican candidate openly were guilty of idolatry. I don't think this was your intention now that I've thought about it (you can correct me if I'm wrong). While you have eloquently and rightly pointed out the problems that have resulted from mixing politics with Christianity, I suppose I'm a bit unclear about what you consider to be the right way for us as Christians to responsibly approach politics. Though I think we would both agree that it boils down to Christ and His commands being our top priorities.

I really do feel like there are many well meaning true Christians who abhor labels such as "conservative" or "liberal", "right" or "left", etc. - And who are truly voting the lesser of two evils - completely aware that neither party is perfect nor evil (though both are probably closer to the latter).

I suppose the question I've been asking myself and others now is: If it comes down to Guiliani and Clinton or Obama, can we, as Christians, in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? Should we continue to vote the lesser of two evils in that situation? Would it be worse to not vote at all in such a case?

These are tough questions we are forced to ask ourselves in the coming months.

Forgive me if my thoughts have been a bit scatter-brained so to speak.

I appreciate this blog and your willingness to speak openly about such a controversial topic.

-Nick

Paul said...

Nick, you are most eloquent! Don't let any prof tell you otherwise.:)

I think you are absolutely right about nominal Christianity. There is probably as much nominal Christianity in evangelical circles as there has been in more mainline/liberal circles. Evangelical Christianity is probably much like a lot of the mainline churches in the 1950s. Tip your hat to the cultural/civil religion, but don't take the radical claims of Christ too seriously because "they don't work in the real world."

Regarding the lesser of two evils, someone just asked me about that this week. I don't think it's a sin to not vote for a particular office (I think we probably should vote, in general). Let's use an extreme to make the point--if the choice is literally between Satan and his lead 'principality', I think I'd opt out.

I can't imagine voting for any of the people you've named, for instance, although I can't say that I disagree with any of them 100%. Some may say my standards are way too high. Well, I think if we all did that, there would be true reform, because politicians can't survive without votes.

I'm not even sure if a fully integrous person can function as President of the United States. But, such are the kingdoms of this world.

What I've come to reject is "American exceptionalism," that America is inherently so good that we cannot imagine that we would be capable of the kind of national sin that we have seen other nations commit. Just like for an individual that believes they can do no wrong, that is self-righteous and, in the case of nationalism, idolatrous.

Nick Olson said...

Indeed.

Thanks for your kinds words and for your reply.

-Nick

Anonymous said...

We sometimes forget we are not the only country in the world. God's face shines upon the other countries and continents also. It is no wonder other countries sometimes get frustrated with us Americans.

Anonymous said...

It just makes sense to me that we should vote according to the moral standards of a candidate. If one will lie to his wife, with whom he made a covenant and swore undying love to, do we really think that the oath of office will keep him from lying to us? I think not--Bill Clinton--case in point! The moral standards of a man are what define what the man will be like in tough situations. Can we really vote for someone with so little regard for the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of life? A liar lies, even when in office. A cheater cheats, even when in office. Unfortunately so often we have so little to choose from!

Paul said...

I don't necessarily disagree, Anon, but let me ask you this: As I said, Hitler was perceived as very moral. He didn't drink, smoke, run with women, outlawed abortion and pornography. If one makes their decision solely on personal 'morality', would you have voted for him (remember, he was elected)?

Furthermore, are you just as concerned about a Republican lying as a Democrat lying? Clinton was impeached for lying. Does that standard apply to everyone or only to those who mess around?

flyman said...

A powerful word and one that I believe is true. I wanted it to sink in a while before I responded. The trap I believe is for Christians to put thier trust in government to create change in peoples hearts and minds. For example assume Roe v. Wade is overturned. Does anyone really believe that those already predisposed to terminate the life of the unborn wont seek other alternatives? ie. the morning after pill or a new invention or new medicine. Have we not as Christians conveniently, and lazily I might add, placed our responsibilities on government(Republicans in particular) to change behavior when only Christ and the Holy Spirit can accomplish this task.
I also wanted to address something that Anon brought up. Is not a significant portion of the hatred of America directly related to her support of Isreal? If so, we are clearly reaping what we've sown as a country but clearly we need to support Isreal, which includes Interventionist policies. Does'nt Mr. Paul's statements during the debate exclude this issue and focus more on the what may be minor infractions rather than the true motivation behind the hatred of America by Muslim and Arab nations?

Anonymous said...

My point is that the founding fathers said that unless the form of gov. they established was run by moral men, it would not stand. What they're definition of moral was, I don't rightly know, but you can bet it was a bit more conservative than today's definition.

I think we see "the tearing of our moral fabric" in the declining morality in leadership in general! And yes, I probably would have voted for Hitler! How many times have we voted for one thing and gotten another? We can only vote by what we know, but at least we should vote according to what we think we know about a candidate! At least then, we can hold them accountable! Case in point--SC school board!

Who could have predicted what Hitler's either hidden agenda or new agenda would be? Still, we must do all that we can to be responsible voters! And yes, I would be just as bothered by a cheating Republican as a Democrat. We're talking morals here, not political parties! I don't think one party has the market on morality. It is an individual thing!

Paul said...

Good points, Anon, hence my point that we need to be able to go to a deeper level, which requires spiritual discernment.

I'm not saying mine is all that keenly developed, but I'm asking God to help me work on it.

Let me illustrate: I've had the privilege of meeting a number of Christian statesmen around the world, particularly in Africa. A few years ago, I had a meal with one who is very highly esteemed. He far surpasses me in most areas of Christian virtue and leadership, I believe.

In a brief part of the conversation, I mentioned to him that I had voted for President Bush, but there was an unease in my spirit--that somehow I didn't trust him. The statesmen succinctly replied to me, "I knew when he was elected that he is a man of blood."

I've pondered that statement over and over many times. To use the extreme example again, certainly the German people knew Hitler was 'a man of blood' when they elected him, but that's what they wanted.

You see, that's what hit me with the overwhelming response the South Carolina audience gave Giuliani (and others that night). It was clear to me that they wanted blood, and that we are a nation "whose feet are swift to shed blood." (Romans 3:15) There has been no nation involved in more wars in the last 100 years than us.

Some other anon said...

Nate said, "I am not so sure about Muslims always hating Jews. Before the last 100 years have Muslims always hated Jews?"

It's true that the relationship seems to have deteriorated. In Islamic thought, it is a sin against God to resist Muslim domination, and there is a special obligation on all Muslims to be in charge of certain holy places, including Jerusalem. So the tension between Muslims and Jews has been especially intense since the rebirth of Israel as a nation and the Israeli domination of "the Holy land."

But it is not new. I'm sorry to say that this goes all the way back to certain incidents in the life of Muhammed himself. He went from feeling that he was a prophet of the same God that Jews worshipped to feeling that the Jews had to be punished for rejecting him as a prophet. The Qur'an refers to Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" and in Sura 59 documents the turn in Muhammed's policy toward them: "It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!" (English translation of Yusufali)

that other anon again said...

Pastor Paul said, "There has been no nation involved in more wars in the last 100 years than us."

Your reference for this factoid?

Does a nation have to be stable enough to hang around for 100 years to qualify, or can a tribe that has been at war continuously under many national flags qualify? Do the wars have to make the news? Did the conflicts in Somalia and Sudan start when CNN got there? Did the Tutsis and the Hutus always love each other until recently?

America has made mistakes. Our leaders have too often been arrogant and foolish. But their arrogance and foolishness was believing we could use our might to make other people act civilized. To characterize us as a nation whose feet are swift to shed blood is to take recent mistakes and project them as the national character. That is not who we are. As an American living in Africa, I can tell you sir, we may not measure up to scriptural perfection, but America is not to be compared with Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan, the Congo, or many other places I could name. To suggest that we lead the world in bloodlust is somewhere between myopia and idiotic raving.

Turn us back from the edge of fascism if you can, but don't claim we've been fascist killers for 100 years. It isn't true, and it doesn't help your case to show you are as affected by the national mood of self-loathing as by your insights and scriptural guidelines.

Paul said...

Dear Other Anon,

I am not an expert in international affairs, and I may need to stand corrected on what I've said, but let me clarify that my primary object of concern was the Biblebelt audience in attendance Republican Presidential Primary in South Carolina. I did not go into the audience cheering those who advocated torture as a new national policy, but that added to my concern.

I hope that I'm closer to myopia:), but it is true that America spends more on "defense" than all other nations on the planet put together. Regarding the number of national (not tribal) wars or military interventions I may be incorrect, but these are the ones I can remember from the last century and into this (not including the Spanish-American which concluded in 1899):

Boxer Rebellion,
Philippines,
Panama One,
World War One,
World War Two,
Korea,
Bay of Pigs,
Vietnam,
Granada,
Haiti,
Kosovo,
Somalia,
Kuwait,
Panama Two,
Afghanistan, and
Iraq.

Please understand I'm not making any judgements on whether any or all of these are justified or unjustified, but I think I'm factually correct.

If you know of any nation that tops that list, please let me know.

And please don't be angry at me. I'm just trying to get it right, my brother. Where I'm wrong, please correct me.

Regarding self-loathing, is it possible to "examine oneself" (as the Apostle Paul stated) without being self-loathing? I'm pretty hard-core pro-life, and I've said from the pulpit: "Germany killed 6 million Jews and America has killed 50 million babies. How many million more babies would we have to kill to be a bad nation?"

Is that idiotic?

Paul said...

Dear Other Anon,

Let me add one more clarification. Please don't interpret me as saying that America has been fascist (although I hope you might agree with me that it would be good to get rid of fascist symbols in the Congress, on our money, etc., if we don't want to be associated with fascism). I was saying that we have been militaristic.

Or, let me put it this way: Virtually all fascist governments are militaristic, but not all militaristic governments are fasicst.

So, while I'm saying that we have, indeed, been militaristic, I am absolutely *not* saying that we have been fascist. Otherwise, my post would be meaningless. I am fearing that we are heading that way, not that we've been there for 100 years.

Does that help?

Anonymous said...

Pastor Paul. Let me once again commend you on your insight and your forthrightness. I think the overwhelming support for this piece is indeed an indication that christians are beginning to wake up. We need to hear these things and I for one would rather get the early alarm that may be wrong than wait until it is too late.

Let me speak for a moment as a naturalized American. I have lived outside of this country and had the priviledge of traveling to every continent except Australia. The world both loves and hates America for many reasons. It is not just muslims. American culture is prevasive all over the world to the detriment of local cultures. Many of those who say they dislike the American government or American would, if they had a choice, leave their lives behind to come to America because we as a nation have suceeded in selling our Utopia to the world.

America is also deeply resented (hate is probably too strong a word in many places)for our big brother knows best and do it my way or you will be sorry foreign policy. The west with America in the lead has long belived herself to be the cure for all that ails the world.

As a historian and political scientist by training I have encountered very few conflicts even including world war II where the U.S. has not played a major role. It always surprises me when Americans who are mostly unaware of the true foreign policy of this country expess dismay about being hated. Pastor talks about the 50 million babies killed within our borders by abortion, but did you know that America as matter of foreign policy is also exporting and funding abortions outside this country?

American foreign policy has never being about exporting democracy or getting people to be civilized (what is that anyway)it has ALWAYS being about domination.

Let me end with these obeservations; We love to bring down people and we love to point the finger at other peoples weaknesses. Bill Clinton was a lying cheat and so are other "christian" and "republican" and "conservative" -I think you get my point- politicians. The game of politics is dirty everywhere it is played and we as christians need great discernment to vote for the person that God can use. That person is not always the person who says all the things christains want to hear. That person is also not always a Christian either!

that other anon again said...

Pastor Paul,

That Other Anon guy is a real troublemaker. I know because I sleep in his jammies. Thanks for your kind responses and clarifications. I want to make a few clarifications of my own.

First, I did not disagree with your initial post. You are right to sound the warning note you have sounded.

Second, I responded to what seemed to me to be an irrational direction in the comments that followed the initial post. I believe you will strengthen your argument by tempering it.

Third, I don't want to be angry with you and I'm sorry I sounded angry. I don't want to hear unsupported factoids from the pulpit, even if it's an internet pulpit. I don't want the kind of preaching you represent, with which I strongly identify, to lose credibility. And I don't want the country of my birth to be unfairly maligned. If I could tell you more of my story you would understand the passion that spilled out when I read that quote.

Finally, I ask you to consider whether it may be a bit over the top to judge the national temperament by those who would actually show up to be in the studio audience of a televised Republican primary debate in South Carolina. (I would ask whether you noticed any wearing white hoods, but that would be going too far.)

Keep the faith, brother.

PS-- You might want to look at http://www.historyguy.com/War_list.html

Paul said...

Thank you, Other Anon, for your kind comments.

Thank you for the link. I did briefly check the list and it looks like I forgot 4 or 5 that should have been added to the list. In my brief perusal, I didn't find any nation with any more wars than we. Is that correct as far as you know?

BTW, I read recently about Christians in Vietnam that were arrested for speaking disparagingly about their nation. I wonder, sometimes, if nationalism/patriotism is sometimes much like the Ephesians shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." With us, it's the Goddess of (or "Lady" or "Statue of") of Liberty.

If you go against that goddess worship flow, look out! No?

David Rogers said...

Paul,

Thanks for your courage and clear, biblical insight on this crucial issue. I have linked this post on my blog.

Blessings,

David

Paul said...

Thank you, David. Your affirmation means a lot to me. I think God is speaking to many faithful, biblical evangelicals on a number of fronts, and I am very encouraged by that. There are many who have not bowed a knee to Baal, praise God.

Bart Barber said...

Hi,

First-time reader. Found you through David's post. Couldn't disagree with you more.

In 1944 George Orwell wrote an articled entitled simply "What Is Fascism?" Therein he opined:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else. . . . All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."

Now I'll have to add to George's list a manner in which the word has been entirely misused.

Steve Sensenig said...

Here via David Rogers (thanks, David, for this link!)

This is excellent, and right in line with what I've been thinking lately.

Personally, I am liking Ron Paul as a candidate, and your post confirms what I have been seeing/reading of him.

I know you weren't expressing support for anyone in this post, but I just wanted to thank you for pointing out what Rep. Paul said and the similarities with the message of Jesus.

This post made me feel a lot less alone in my views. Thanks!

Paul said...

Bart, thank you for taking the time to post. Maybe you can help me here.

1. Could the same reasoning be used for the word "Christianity"? Due to its ubiquitous misapplications, is that word also a meaningless word?
2. If the word 'fascism' is meaningless, then what do fasces (fascist) symbols mean?
3. If one renders the word 'fascism' meaningless, what word do you believe best describes the totalitarian reigns of Mussolini and Hitler?
4. Using your answer to number 3 above, when should the Christians have sounded a warning in Germany, or does your critique of the word render everything else I said meaningless?

Anonymous said...

It's going to take me a while to digest all that you have said--but right now, by-and-large, it resonates with my own observations and fears. I am a Southern Baptist pastor (well, at least partially, as the church I serve divides our missions support between the SBC and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship), and I have seen the same thing happen in the South in small ways, and last year, in one BIG way. Secretary of State Condi Rice was a surprize guest speaker at the Southern Baptist Convention. I understand she claims to be Presbyterian, but is pro-abortion; yet she was welcomed onto the stage (should I say the semi-pulpit?) as if she were royalty, and recieved numerous standing ovations from the roughly 10,000 messengers. And I believe the longest and most sustained one was when she said spoke of "going after" terrorists whereveer they might be. And I'm pretty sure she didn't mean to go after them with humility and the love of Christ. Blessings,

John Fariss

Paul said...

Thank you, John.

Maybe I can top that. I was present when Senator Arlen Specter got a standing ovation at an Assemblies of God college. Though I was a board member of the school, I was one of the few that stayed seated.

My theory is that human beings are attracted to power, but the shame is that we (including me) American Christians know so little of the transforming power of God in our midst that political power has become our 'brass shields.'

Bart Barber said...

1. My point was not that the word is meaningless in all uses, but that it is abused in your use of it. Orwell's words call for people to use the term circumspectly to rehabilitate its usefulness. A better question for you to ask would be, "Do people ever use the word 'Christianity' in a manner that is meaningless? To which I would reply, "Yes. There's a group based in Salt Lake City that serves as a very real example."

2. The origin of a word is not the be-all-end-all controlling factor in its meaning. Awful, for example, has come to mean practically the opposite of its constituent parts and its original sense. You have indicated that the fasces are ensconced in the Capitol building itself, yet you explicitly argue in your post and comments that the USA has not been/is not yet fascist. So, whatever fascist rightfully means, by your own line of argumentation, the display of fasces has no more to do with being fascist than Jesus' ride on a donkey makes him a Democrat.

3. Fascism is indeed a great description of the totalitarian reigns of Mussolini and Hitler. Of course, you beg the question here. The elements that made Italy and German fascist states are not at all present in the USA today. The existence of your blog post, the adulation you have received for it, and the fact that you have absolutely nothing to fear (exception rational rebuke) for posting it, disprove your thesis entirely. Go visit our brethren in Cub@ and encourage them to post something like this about their government. Find out what happens to people down there who say this kind of thing about F1del. That, my friend, is fascism.

4. Personally, I think a good many of the genuine Christians in Germany did sound a warning. The insipid effects of a state church combined with a generous dose of lethal liberalism in the churches had been at work for more than a generation in Germany by the 1930s. Churches full of lost people tend to act just like large groups of lost people.

Paul said...

Thank you, Bart. You are most articulate.

I actually hope that you are more right than I, but I fear not.

My central impetus, as I stated, was trying to put a rational argument on what I sensed in my spirit that evening. That is not to say that what I felt is beyond rational critique. Indeed, I believe what I felt is confirmed by the Word, our ultimate standard as evangelicals.

I do believe I perceive some of the constituent elements/seeds of fascism beginning in our nation. Such movements are not normally top-down, but rather invited by the populace. That's what I think I'm seeing, particularly when the initial reaction to Ron Paul was to label him a nut case, when he was simply applying Biblical principles to the real world.

The iconography (in multiple places--including the Lincoln Memorial, military emblems, currency, etc.) puzzles me, just like when I walked into an Episcopal church in Wilmington, Delaware years ago and saw swastikas all over the floor. I inquired as to why they were there, but didn't get a reasonable or satisfactory answer. Indeed, why shouldn't people like Colson, Land, Kennedy, Dobson, et. al., ask for the removal of the fasces?

My guess is that they, like most of us, don't even see them, and don't see many other things either. Things are often hidden in plain sight.

As I've expressed, I am surprised by the amount of support that I've received from believers from this post. It's almost a paradox: Does the support disprove my point (since many feel free to agree), or prove my point (since many are sensing the same thing I've been sensing)? I guess it can be seen either way.

Again, Bart, I hope that you are right and I am wrong, but I do believe our excessive admiration for America probably became idolatrous quite a while ago, even before the hyperpatriotic reaction to 9/11.

Blessings to you, my brother!

Paul said...

Bart, I failed to mention...

Back in 1955, Milton Mayer wrote a book entitled, "They Thought They Were Free, The Germans 1933-45." (University of Chicago Press)

Your blogger profile says that you are a historian. Are you familiar with this book, and if so, could you critique the central thesis--that an entire nation was convinced they were "free," but weren't? Mayer argues that the German people simply thought the government was appropriately responding to each crisis that arose.

Hopefully, we never end up there.

Strider said...

I too would like to think that we are very far from the thesis of this post but unfortunately I think it is dead on.
For Bart who speaks eloquantly against this post here is my reasoning and my dare for you:
Go into any Southern Baptist Church of your choice and declare that our intervention into Iraq was immoral and that you will be voting for Hillary this next election. See if as the deacons tie you up and drag you out back the choir will not be singing, 'There's room ON the cross for you.' Freedom? Not in my father's church.

Bart Barber said...

Paul (and Strider, to some degree),

I am not familiar with the book—1930s German history is not my area. I'm not ignorant of the milieu, but neither have I read every related work.

I would encourage all to take my comments strictly as what they are—an objection to the invocation of fascism in this discussion. Post a simple discussion of the juxtaposition of American Christianity and American Politics, and you and I might have a very different conversation. I do not doubt that we would disagree at points, but I would be glad to acknowledge that in some areas you simply have your opinion and I have mine. "I don't like it when churches..." or "I think churches ought to..." are, by their very nature, subjective statements that deserve some measure of courteous acceptance.

But to announce the impending rise of fascism in the USA is simply untenable.

Paul said...

Thank you, Bart, for your continued engagement.

I think I understand your critique of my interpretation of what I felt.

If you have had the time to review the video in question, could you give me your interpretation of the audience reaction to Giuliani? Please be as comprehensive as possible (assume the audience is aware of Giuliani's stand on abortion and gay rights; assume the audience understands the basics of the teachings of Christ) and please tell me, if you will, what your spirit discerns from the reaction.

Again, my concern is deeper than the audience backing the most "moral" candidate. What do you think is the best interpretation of their wild applause? What were they saying to the candidates and to the world?

In fact, I think it would be good to invite anyone reading this to give their interpretation (not political, but spiritual).

Bart Barber said...

Paul,

I will gladly do so. I think that the audience took Paul's statements as insulting to the USA, and applauded Giuliani as someone who expressed, at that moment, precisely the kind of defense that they would like to have uttered themselves. I think you correctly deduce that the applause has to do with love of country.

It is possible, however, to love the nation without doing so idolatrously and without courting fascism. One need not be indifferent or hostile to the welfare of the nation in order to avoid an idolatrous love of country. Your post, in fact, demonstrates a concern for the nation and quite a high level of engagement with its decisions, yet does that make you idolatrous? Of course not.

So, essentially, what is the difference between your political enthusiasm expressed in this post and the political enthusiasm of the people in the video (presuming that any of them are Christians, which I am willing to presume)? What is the difference between those who applauded for Ron Paul and those who applauded for Giuliani? I submit that the difference is simply between people who have differing ideas about what is the right thing for our nation to do.

Personally, I don't know that the Golden Rule requires isolationism. What the citizen of Iraq views as meddling, the citizen of Kuwait views as help in a time of desperate need (to wit, precisely the Gulf War that Ron Paul is referring to when he speaks of the USA bombing Iraq for ten years). And that's not to mention the way the peaceful citizen of Israel views it. No sir, "Do unto others..." does not mean pulling the blinds while your neighbor is mugged for fear of offending the mugger. If the Golden Rule can be applied meaningfully to geopolitics, I think it will often require that we do just the sort of thing that Ron Paul is decrying.

The relevance of the preceding paragraph is simply this: Your thesis only holds if one is convinced that your persuasion about what the USA ought to do with regard to foreign policy is the clear-cut, 100%, one-and-only righteous Christian view. I would never, never, ever post suggesting that my viewpoint on these issues is the only righteous Christian view. What I would ask of you is the acknowledgement that good, faithful, nonidolatrous, Christian people have, without endorsing fascism, rightly come to different conclusions about the proper God-honoring actions our nation ought to take in the world.

Paul said...

Thank you, Bart. I most certainly do agree with your last sentence, and do certainly agree that there is more than one application of the Golden Rule, as debate currently rages about what is appropriate in Darfur, for instance.

I would offer that I might be more sensitized to what I felt I heard that night, due to the fact that I had already come to the conclusion that many, if not most, evangelical's love of country had reached an idolatrous level (I did 10 posts on that in February).

The personal irony for me is that when I post such things, I feel all alone and convince myself that I have some modicum of courage in doing so, only to find out, little by little, that I am certainly not alone among evangelical believers in my perspective. The latest example I hope to post in a day or two--it's about the Gospel Coalition meeting in Chicago (Piper, Carson, et. al.), that openly speaks of nationalistic idolatry. These are men that are acutely attuned, I believe to the evangelical zeitgeist, if I may juxtapose those two terms. Here's the link: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/05/gospel_coalitio.html

Let me say how I love America. I love America as David Rogers loves Spain, as Reinhard Bonnke loves Africa. I love it as a mission field to which I have been sent by God. It is not my home--heaven is. That's where my primary citizenship lies.

I agree with Cal Thomas and many others who believe that evangelicals largely sold our birthright in the last 30 years and have precious little to show for it (Culture war soup, anyone?)

So, as I listened to the debate, I heard a crowd ready to finally plunge over the precipice, whose pride would not allow them to reflect on what was being said. I can understand how others would hear it differently, and I appreciate your contribution, Bart.

Again, I hope you are right and not me--that we are nowhere close to the precipice--that Niagara Falls is 100 miles away, not 100 yards.

Maybe someday someone will say of me--he loved God, although his offerings to the Lord were odd--bowls of tripe.:)

Anonymous said...

In a way, this has been my experience with the church in the past 10 years. In came dominionism, "revelatory" leadership styles and heavy trends toward "group-think" the result being if you question the latest wind of doctrine - there have been many, conveneniently coinciding with the latest charismatic book release -equal with being deceived or demonic. We've become "bobble heads" marching to the beat of our leader's drums without reference to biblical revelation. The problem with "evangelicals" I think, is that we follow or leader's in the pulpit as if they were God - we neither know our God, or his word and have no more reference to truth than the latest fads that are running our churches, Lord forbid "disunity". If we are trending toward facism we've received training for it in our churches - especially the charismatic ones. That is our problem.

Anonymous said...

Hey,

This is interesting stuff. I wonder if it ties in with some of the things written about the last human government on earth (If you believe the bible talks about such things; I do.) Given that context, what I read in the word seems to indicate there will be a LOT of governmental coercion happening at the end of the current age and that it may well be, if the "woman" in the Revelation is a symbol of some sort of ecclesiastical power, that much of visible church will climb on board with it. History does seem to indicate that whenever church and state unite they turn on dissenters of all stripes. It appears in such times that followers of Jesus who point out what's happening get supressed in much the same way as all other "enemies" of the state, often in the name of God. This could be a good time to study the Revelation of Jesus to John, maybe take a look at Matthew Ch. 24.

Paul said...

Bingo, Anon! Matthew 24:6 specifically says that when we see such events beginning to come to pass we should not fear (as the world does).

I think evangelical believers should be as wary of the world and as urgent in evangelism as premillenialists (which I am), as global thinking as postmillenialists, and as undogmatic about eschatology as amillenialists.

My biggest concern is that premillenialists are acting like America is the coming Kingdom ("if we return to the 'values' of the founders").

In the Not-Mincing-Words Dept., Exhibit 1: That's a total sellout of what we 'say' we believe.

And, when what we say we believe doesn't match the way we act, then we need to look for a cause.

I believe the diagnosis is simple, (just as it was in ancient Israel): Idolatry.

Ted said...

Paul,

I got to this post through David Rogers' blog and I know neither of you. I thank you for your post and am in agreement with you.

I have believed and preached for many years that much of the evangelical church in North America has compromised her prophetic voice for the crumbs that fall from the politicians' table.

Anonymous said...

not Sun Myung Moon, not the DaVinci Code, not Hillary Clinton--is our last-days deception. Those other things are bad, but there’s little danger that evangelicals will be deceived by them.

I think that statement is wrong in that it has ALREADY happened. The religious right in the USA ALREADY has been deceived by Moon. Moon claimed, in so many words, that his job as "messiah" was to raise up the Christian "right" for political power in America. He outspent anyone, including Scaife, funding and prodding conservatism into his image over the last 30 years, a hard right, theocratic leaning, homophobic, authoritarian, and yes, I would say, a fascist movement. That is who Moon is.

Not only did he spend billions on the Washington Times to give backbone to hard right politics, support Korea, and supply himself with face/influence around the world, but he started front groups like the American Freedom Coalition to rally the theocratic, nationalistic right. Robert Grant, the pres of the AFC who Moon referred to as one of his "three musketeers", said the AFC was created to bring the Christian "right" together for political power. Moon also bailed out Falwell, funded and worked with Tim Lahaye. He also bailed out Richard Viguerie, another one who played major role in the rise of the religious right.

The head of the Christian Coalition presented Moon with an award for his "family values".

Read that here and see some of Moon's "family values" in action here. (stick around for the last half of the video it gets interesting.)

IN 1989 U.S. News and World Report stated that by then virtually every conservative organization in Washington DC was tied to Moon including the Heritage Foundation.

I could go on, my point is - don't sell what Moon did short - and I do mean "DID". Anyone who has serioulsy studied Moon knows he has as much to do with the direction of the political Christian movement than anyone, in many ways, he has lead it.

The aforementioned AFC, 300,000 strong, and an org Doug Wead said was one of the two most powerful conservative organizations in the country, printed 30 million voter guides, free of charge for Bush in 1988. (A Moon operative pioneered these voter "scorecards" years before.) So you had Moon printing up and distributing the voting orders for the Christians all over the country - pushing the religious into politics. (Moon's ultimate plan is to gather the religious under his organization either via the United Nations or using his own organization - don't laugh, he is before the UN now making proposals to thecratize that org via his agents, the Philippines.)

There is much more to this. But my point is, don't sell Moon short when it comes to molding the Chritian right, the theocratic evangelicals, into who they are today, politically. The fact is, he has already done it. Looking around for what he may do is silly. Do you think that is the way this is/was going to happen? That a few alert Christians would see the deceptions and not be fooled - that you would see it as it happens? No, I believe you won't/haven't/didn't see it till long after it happened.

Moon knew he had been successful here by the early 90s while most didn't know he was still alive. Moon has moved on to his plans for the planet with what is the culmination of his life's plot, the Universal Peace Federation. He is winning there also because people do not see, just as the Christian right did not see how they were working with him to bring his vision the last 25 years.

Nationalism.

Oh, did I mention that non citizen Moon did this with billions from overseas, much of it swindled from the Japanese and, according to his daughter in law and followers, smuggled into the country by his "missionaries."

Paul said...

Wow, Anon. You may be right--I was focused on the fruit; Moon is apparently part of the root.

I would think most in the religous right would 'merely' see him as a bed fellow and an opportunist. You apparently see it as deeper and more spiritually nefarious.

Wow, I have a lot to chew on. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

I know it sounds nuts but if you look closely, you will see it. Moon now has a former RCC Archbishop, Milingo, under his thumb. Milingo calls Moon the messiah and is now doing Moon's bidding to subvert the RCC pushing for married priests. Milingo, Moon's pawn or should I say Bishop, will have a gathering in Rome in December. When they met last year Milingo - claiming at the time not know much about Moon's "religion" - dawned Moon's vestments and performed Moon's two main rituals, the Holy Wine and Blessing ceremonies.

Moon as you know has promoted that Christian churches tear down their crosses. I’ve see video of Moon’s top “priest” burying a cross in Israel – under Moon’s flag.

I think the UN can use some changes, married priests are OK by me, and for all I know Jesus doesn’t care for the cross, but to have people support Moon in these efforts to I find abhorrent. IMO, people misunderstand who Moon is, what his plans are and how he is going about reaching them. In the 70s people all thought "Well, I will never follow him." People think they will have to vote for him. Conservatives think they are just using his money. That is not how it works. Moon intends to absorb, meld, and influence the religious - sure he'd like you to be a full fledged follower but he does not need or intend this.

Oddly, after spending billion promoting what they are against; Moon now has democrats sending him greetings while he promotes the UPF. (Neil Bush traveled with Moon to the Philippines and Taiwan promoting it also.) But now after kicking them for 30 years, dems are sending Moon greetings. Astounding but after years of mainstreaming by the right, people just do not see.


people laugh...
You know, Moon said years ago his enemies the American government and people would bow before him. Anyone who read that laughed, right? Well, Moon was crowned in the Dirksen building in 2004, complete with bowing congressman. Get that?

Moon was quoted in a 1978 congressional investigation naming six countries "God" was bringing together for the “final battle." Moon said his organization would play a role in this 'final battle".

The six countries he named are the exact same six now involved in the "six way talks". I have known for a few years he is involved in those talks, he now openly brags about being so, AND HE IS.

You may not like the source but I know this article is documented. It is about the Republican Party working with Moon to promote the wall tearing down...through the Faith Based Initiative. During this tour in 2001, Moon handed out gold watches to grow the crowds, had his people promote the Faith Based Initiative to the preachers and promoted himself as the messiah to mostly black churches. This is one reason why some of us call it the "Faith Based Vote Buying Scheme"... read about it here.

I leave you with a quote which sums much of this up. It is from the staunchly conservative, highly recruited first editor of the Washington Times. I suggest you watch the whole video – it has three former editors of Moon’s media speaking.

This is what happened to our nation, and is now happening to the world.

Quoting James Whelan:


"They (the Moonies) are subverting our political system. They're doing it through front organizations--most of them disguised--and through their funding of independent organizations--through the placement of volunteers in the inner sanctums of hard-pressed organizations. In every instance--in every instance--those who attend their conferences, those who accept their money or their volunteers, delude themselves that there is no loss of virtue because the Moonies have not proselytized. That misses the central, crucial point: the Moonies are a political movement in religious clothing. Moon seeks power, not the salvation of souls. To achieve that, he needs religious fanatics as his palace guard and shock troops. But more importantly, he needs secular conscripts--seduced by money, free trips, free services, seemingly endless bounty and booty--in order to give him respectability and, with it, that image of influence which translates as power."