Political Preachers
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." —Matthew 7:15
We like to think that our gallant little independent-minded State of South Carolina always has more influence than our size allows. That certainly seems to be true in the present presidential primary season. If you believe their advertisements, we have converted every single one of the Republican “front-runners” into intrepid Horatios at the Bridge, defending our borders against the onslaught of illegal aliens. Indeed, they are boasting mightily as to who is the staunchest “conservative.” Huckabee from the rotten borough of Arkansas has even become so excited by the scent of the slops in the presidential trough that he has sent out minions to claim that, unlike his opponents, he is proud to respect our oppressed Southern flag. (Of course, he is making sure that he has personal deniability on the question and will not have to blatantly lie in the future as McCain did the last time around.)
The flourishing of the Reverend Mr. Huckabee marks the reductio ad absurdum of the latest American manifestation of religion in politics. Remember how this started. Back during the moral breakdown of the 1960s, it seemed to be a good idea to get the churches involved and get some moral input into the political process. That has been a total unmitigated failure—unless you consider bringing power and pelf to a few “religious leaders” to be a sign of success.
It was child’s play for the politicians to bribe and flatter the “leaders” into delivering the votes in exchange for a few bromides about “family values” and “right to life.” The role of Protestant minister, in the less structured denominations, is accompanied by a great deal of temptation for the ego (which perhaps effects Catholics only further up the hierarchy). Their status being somewhat infra dig and, like most Americans, lusting most of all for “respectability,” the “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” leaders were easily seduced by a few nods from Power.
This is an old, old story in American history. It was the fanatical Puritan preachers of New England who created Jefferson’s distaste for clergy in politics. (Any way, Jefferson’s “wall of separation” was meant more to protect the faith from the contamination of politicians than to exclude the faith from the public sphere.) A fundamental cause of the War between the States was Northern preachers screaming hatred and violence against their Southern fellow citizens. (Look into the career of the Rev. Mr. Henry Ward Beecher, a sort of Anglo-Saxon Martin Luther King, Jr., whose moral crusade against slavery was marked by egomania, lying, and sexual predation.)
Such ecclesiastical politicians for decades after the War kept up the Republican demagoguery of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.” They glorified World War I as a noble crusade and foisted on the country the corruption of Prohibition, in defiance of all common sense and State’s rights. So corrupted by politics were the 1960s representatives of the faith that we endured such abominations as "freedom-riding" nuns and the murder of the unborn reduced to a "civil rights" issue. In our own time, the political preachers have served only to lend a facade of piety and morality to a ruling elite without any sense of right and wrong but only manipulative techniques and a self-serving agenda. They bear a disproportionate share of guilt as enablers of the malignant regime of Bush.
(On Saturday, January 19, I will take time away from the honouring of General Lee's 201st birthday and break my vow never to vote again in order to punch a primary ballot for Dr. Paul, with a modest hope.)
Entries(RSS)
Good for you Dr. Wilson on 3 points.
1. You celebrate Lee's Birthday.
2. You have a hope ,albeit modest, in Dr. Paul's being elected. Yes, all the statistics, polls, media, party give him no chance if they mention him at all, but at least we can cast our vote and hope. "When you say a situation or a person is hopeless, you're slamming the door in the face of God." ~Charles L. Allen
3. You recognize the absurdity of Huckabee's campaign.
Just to add to this fine article:
Protestantism in the USA divided in the late 19th Century into two groups, both heirs of New England, yet both antagonistic to each other: (1) Liberal Protestantism (a.k.a "Social Gospel" and called by Catholics "Modernism" and "Liberation Theology") and (2) Evangelicalism (subdivided into simple evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, and Dispensationalists).
#2, in the person of Bryan, wasn't all that happy with World War I. It was #1 that whooped for the "War for Righteousness", as Richard Gamble (Clyde Wilson's student) called it in his outstanding book. Woodrow the Worst was a Liberal Protestant before he was anything else. #2 whooped for Vietnam, the Gulf War, and now Iraq.
This election is all about religion -- more so than any election since 1928, or even 1884. #1 are the useful idiots of the Cultural Marxists, #2 of the
Hamiltonian/Whig/Neocons.
#1 are Hillary Clinton Nurse Ratched and Obama -- both are deeply, deeply Liberal Protestants, to their bones, she a United Methodist, he the United Church of Christ (the direct heir of Puritanism. Indeed, it is not Cultural Marxism or Social Democracy that is the core ideology of these two; it is Liberal Protestantism, as it was Wilson. It's Walter Rauschenbusch and Gustavo Gutiérrez who are seeking the Dimmykrat nomination.
#2 is Huckabee. People who say he really isn't Evangelical don't know Evangelicals very well. Aside from some "social conservative" issues ("no Popery", anti-Darwinism, no booze, no dancing, no porn, no abortion, and no homosexuality, and maybe pro home schooling) they really aren't very "conservative". Witness their indifference to divorce, single parent families, and the Pill. Lacking something like Catholic Social Teaching, or a thinker like Ketteler and Leo XIII, or sectarian politicians like Windthorst or Sturzo, they generally supported FDR Dimmykrats -- perhaps part of the Solid South heritage -- up until the late 60s. They remain opposed to the libertarians, as the Ron Paul people have found out. I doubt they're excited about Romney or Giuliani. We'll see if the Neocons can win them over.
Clyde Wilson has focused in on the central issue of '08-- religion. Don't expect the press to have a clue on this.
Dr. Wilson Wrote :"The role of Protestant minister, in the less structured denominations, is accompanied by a great deal of temptation for the ego (which perhaps effects Catholics only further up the hierarchy). Their status being somewhat infra dig and, like most Americans, lusting most of all for “respectability,” the “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” leaders were easily seduced by a few nods from Power."
It is the same for Catholics. Witness all those sillies who signed onto the war effort in Iraq --- Wiegel, Teahouse, Buckley, "conservative"pro life, priests, etc. all the time our Holy Father was saying, " Please, don't be duped"
Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if a U.S. government attack on Iraq would be just. "Certainly not," came the reply. He predicted that "the damage would be greater than the values one wishes to save."
After the war ended, Ratzinger said: "It was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…. It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he elsewhere observed. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’"
Please, please ...Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, editor of the dispensationalist study Bible bearing his name, was a Tennessean and Confederate soldier.
Paul Gottfried is one of the few commentators who correctly divines the difference between dispensationalists (quietist, apolitical, wait for the rapture) and the larger stream of Evangelicals who truly inherited the meddlin' Yankee zeal for making the world over.
Huckabee is a medicine show charlatan, to put it mildly.
Thank you, Dr. Wilson, for punching a ballot for Dr. Paul.
To Rublev's:
John Hagee and Tim LaHaye are two arch-dispensationalists who break your "quietist" definition with their savage pro-Israelism. Indeed, the "quietist" label has not applied to many dispensationalist leaders since Falwell arose and they took up the flag of Christian Zionism. I agree with the latter point on "evangelicals", as affected by Michael Gerson, among others.
#5 you are correct, but Hagee and LaHaye are a mutation of the original dispensational theology. Scofield, Darby, et. al. would have shuddered at the sheer "unspiritualness" of supporting a State and provoking World War III.
A good piece. I haven't seen anyone link the Social Gospel-Civil Rights Christian Left with the Moral Majority-Crusading Christian Right.
This kind of religious entrepreneurship flourishes where each believer is free to reinterpret Scripture for himself. Part of the case for Orthodoxy is the unbroken tradition of the Church going back to the Apostles.
It was grossly unfair that the first four states of the primaries were extremely northern. Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan?!?!? Due their indecision South Carolina has "more influence than their size allows." Due to the Northern nature of the first four primaries, the "onslaught of illegal immigration" has not gotten the attention it should have.
In the future we should work to have the regional diversity of our Nation represented. SOUTHERN border states must get early input.
http://www.culturism.us
This Saturday, 19 January 2008, I will have two privileges: one, of celebrating with my wife our thirty-seventh anniversary, married that date on a snowy day in 1971, and two, of being the master of ceremonies at our annual Lee/Jackson Banquet in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Monday, 21 January 2008, the little school at which I serve will be out in celebration of Southern Heritage Day, with an eye back to the gentlemen being honored on the 19th.
In Louisiana, we will caucus on 22 January for the Republican Party. My wife and I will attend the caucus and vote for the Ron Paul delegates. Later in Febrruary, we will vote in the Republican primary. I, too, have vowed never to vote again; however, this time, I'll take my stand and vote for a man, Dr. Paul, who, for my understanding, embodies the meekness of the beatitudes - meekness having naught to do with weakness but a subjugation of all assets - physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual - to the Christ for His taming, training and teaching. Robert E. Lee was also a meek man; a man whose will was subdued to duty and who therein subdued was capable of courageous and audacious acts. I note that Dr. Paul has said that he should be elected to govern on one promise only: to resist the temptation to use power immorally or unconstitutionally.
Dr. Wilson, it indeed seems to me that the great temptation, particularly in our Southern climes is "the lust for respectability," and not only among preachers. I could, as could, I am sure, many who frequent these fora, cite many examples; but one recent one stays with me. Some friends and I manned a booth at a recent fair. We had a display on the 1864 Red River Campaign and had facsimilies of most of the Confederate flags associated with that campaign. The event was attended by serveral thousand people with our booth begin but one of about fifty dealing with different aspects of Louisiana history. We noticed that the "respectable citizens" of our community gave our booth, very tastefully done and well organized, a wide berth, some of them, in a less PC era, having been members of organizations associated with Confederate matters. In one case, about which we all still laugh, a husband pull away from his wife, both obviously walking past us, only to tell us in a whisper, "We appreciate what y'all are doing." It was as if we were untouchables with whom he still had some lingering affinity but did not want to be seen with us. Not respectable are we!
As to the Church and the state, I stand where I was taught as a youngster by my old pastor, Moses Eli Mercer: the Church should not bow to the state, for that is idolatry; the Church should not become the state, for that is blasphemy against our Lord; the Church should, however, inform society by bringing the Gospel and thereby inculcating that society with the values of the Christ which will then hopefully be reflected in the statutes and policies of that society's polity. Brother Mose, as we called him, insisted that statutes reflect values; they never create values. He was not a dispensationalist. He, in fact, embraced and taught that which I have come to understand to be an orthodox eschatology.
The state is indeed trying to reclaim the divine, using such words as "sacred" and "hallowed," and setting up such "christ" figures as Lincoln and King, dying for the "sins" of the people, each respectively with a temple and a holiday.
While most evangelical Christians have escaped the idolatry of Molach, abhoring abortion, they have run straight into the arms of Mars, the god of war.
Huckabee is naught but an Elmer Gantry. He is in many ways not unlike that other man from Hope. In some respects he is worse. The other man, to my knowledge, is still a slave to his male hormones. Huckabee, having lost weight, has apparently overcome the sin of gluttony, a sin of the flesh, and has replaced it with pride, a sin of the spirit. He would through the power of the general (federal) government make us all go on a diet and ban smoking to expand the war on poverty and to the war on drugs to the war on all compulsions, except one - the will to power!
I always look forward to Dr. Wilson's articles and Mr. Peters posts, as well.
Great article as always, Prof. Wilson.
"The role of Protestant minister, in the less structured denominations, is accompanied by a great deal of temptation for the ego (which perhaps effects Catholics only further up the hierarchy). Their status being somewhat infra dig and, like most Americans, lusting most of all for “respectability,” the “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” leaders were easily seduced by a few nods from Power."
The poster boy for such self-aggrandizing ministers has to be the former nationally prominente evangelist Rev. Ted Haggard. For years he operated out of a modest church in Colorado, but by offering his services as a paid shill for the Republican Party when George W. Bush came into office, he almost overnight became a nationally recognized "Christian Leader" sought out by the news media, despite having no credentials as a leading authority on anything.
Its not surprising that he turned out to be a total fraud, a pervert and drug addict.
A local political pundit or commentator in his home state has called John McCain - the un-dead still - walking around---wanting to be president, arms and hands out............ 'i will be your president my friends and of mexico too which is here now upon us...thanks to me...i will be or my name ain't John McUnDead...i survived Nam...'
"Aside from some “social conservative” issues"
"No booze" is not only inhumane; it is completely P.C. and unconservative.
Prof Wilson, your articles are by far my favorite at Chronicles. I always look forward to your insights. (esp from a Southern viewpoint - I am not Southern, but I am a quite sympathetic midwesterner)
Too bad we dont see more of you over at lewrockwell.com either!
As a southerner from the delta swamps of southeast Georgia I can only take great pride in Dr. Wilson's insight and commentary.
The only gretaer honor would be Dr. Wilson on the Paul ticket. Ummm.... Paul/ Wilson 2008. I like it.
Actually there is some historical question as to whether or not Scofield actually served in the CSA. It seems he wasn't above puffing his resume.
See Canfield, Joseph. The Incredible Scofield and His Book
Maybe Beecher was inspired by Marse Tomcat's tender ministrations with the fair Sally? Then again, at least the objects of Beecher's lust weren't chattel.
Jefferson was a Jacobin dilettante utterly without honor. And by honor I mean the sort embodied by General Lee. The squire of Monticello was the Bill Clinton of the founding. I'm sure they would have enjoyed each other's company, and perhaps they will yet.
FOX NEWS reportedly deleted Ron Paul’s key debate response from the last debate in a LIVE REBROADCAST they recently aired. How is it a LIVE REBROADCAST if you splice out that which you don’t want the voting public to hear? Like Ron Paul or not, this should disturb you in my humble opinion.
CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability.
Do you have any, sir? There’s always the question as to whether or not…
(LAUGHTER)
… you are, in fact, viable. Your differences with the Republicans on the — with the rest of the Republi-cans on this stage has raised questions about whether or not you can actually win the Republican nomi-nation, sir.
PAUL: Well, we’ve only had two little primaries so far. So it’s pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate.
But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I’ve ever said, every vote I’ve ever taken against the Constitution, you know, I’m a strict constitutionalist.
Are you suggesting the Republicans should write me off because I’m a strict constitutionalist? I’m the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in govern-ment than anybody else.
(APPLAUSE)
So you’re suggesting that I’m not electable and the Republicans don’t want me because I’m a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party?
PAUL: Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn’t even want us to be in NATO and you’re saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can’t afford?
Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Mushar-raf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here?
(APPLAUSE)
And you’re saying that this isn’t appealing to Republicans? Where did this come about? I think this is the Republican message. I defend the platform. It used to say we’d (inaudible) the Department of Education. It doesn’t say that now.
We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size of the Department of Education, so where have we gone? I think we’ve lost our way. And then the insinuation that I am less Republican because of that?
HUME: Congressman, thank you very much.
In response, the official Ron Paul 2008 Campaign blog asks,
“…how could any semi-reputable news source cut a presidential candidate’s answer in a debate? And how could a network that hundreds of thousands of conservatives trust delete the most forcefully conservative, Constitutionalist, anti-statist answer that any candidate gave that night?”
Well said, Professor Wilson. It'll take a wee tad longer for the primaries to reach Georgia, but I know who I'M voting for (hint: his last name is the same as my Christian one).
Recently, I've found that random acquaintances out here on the Left Coast are Ron Paul supporters-- a Seventh day Adventist who owns a piano store, a Vietnamese immigrant who is an evangelical Christian, an American of Chinese descent who's an agnostic...
Something seems to be building, with the Paul campaign, and it seems to transcend traditional religious/ethnic/regional distinctions.
Oh, and yes, my wife and I will be voting for Dr. Paul in the February 5 California primary (I'm an atheist raised in the Midwest and married into a Chinese immigrant family out here on the Coast).
Welcome, aboard, Dr. Wilson -- maybe your "modest hope" will prove to be justified. The times they are a' changin'.
Dave M. in Sacramento
Thanks for the kind comments, you all.
While we are on the subject: for anyone who may be tempted down the line to vote for a Republican Mormon as better than a Democrat. Get the film "September Dawn," and take a look at the psychopathic cult known as the "Latter Day Saints." A criminal conscpiracy that in any civilised country would have been broken up long ago.
Mr Peters, as an Arkansan, I must say that what you have said about Huckabee is exactly what I would have said in a nutshell, though not exactly in those words. Sin of the spirit and will to power, indeed!
The current crop of mountebanks, rantipoles and humbugs currently known as candidates reminds me of the old saying that anyone who gets too involved with politics is crazier than a pet raccoon and should be kept away from healthy people.
Mr. Paul included.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
True Southerners, Stop race-baiting McCain in SC AGAIN. John McCain was blatantly racist in the SC debate, read it here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1084.html
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Clyde, Glad you saw past those glib little fake radio ads. Of course, it's not all that hard to recognize the early reincarnation of Jimmah Carter, the GOP version. I am busy cleaning up the aftermath of that ridiculous little stunt among the ranks in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southern Heritage supporters, etc. What a fraud!
btw, if anyone has proof of my Thompson theory, please send it to me: He is a McCain operative. The American Conservative Union rates him as 4 points more Liberal than McCain, but he's pretending, as actors do, to be to the right---just enough to syphon off enough votes from Romney and Huckabee to keep McCain from suffering an embarrassing defeat. He will undoubtedly be Fuhrer McCain's nomination for Vice Emperor. Whoever said the neocons were in a sinking ship sure missed the mark on that one.
Dr. Wilson,
There is a good essay over at http://www.ilanamercer.com on these "High Priests of Pomposity." She twists these twits into the knotheads that they are and seems to enjoy it almost as much as you.
Lord Karth,
In a sane society, politics would matter slightly less than, say, remembering your twice-yearly trip to the dentist.
This is not, alas, an altogether sane society.
I could make a long list of subjects on which I do not completely agree with Dr. Paul (or Dr, Wilson, or, no doubt, even you). But I’m confident that I would be comfortable with Dr. Paul or Dr. Wilson (or you) as a next-door neighbor. Our disagreements, deep as they may be, are disagreements among civilized men.
President Ron Paul would act as a civilized man: he would not lunge about the planet seeking imaginary demons to destroy, and he would make some effort to live up to his oath of office.
None of us think he would be Savior of the world, or even of this country, and certainly not of ourselves as individuals and individual families: the whole point of his candidacy is that civilization is not created or sustained by the state.
And, while none of us is deluded about the fact that he is a “long shot,” his candidacy does provide an opportunity to publicly re-affirm certain obvious truths about the nature of man and human society. What is especially cheering is that he is garnering a lot of support on the college campuses: some of the kids seem to be seeing through the decadence of this society. The Paul candidacy may be a small sign that the wonderful “progressivism” of the last century has become passé among many of the brighter kids and that they are returning to a more mature understanding of human nature.
So, we’ll all try not to get, as you say, “too involved with politics”: personally, I’m busy enough homeschooling my kids, helping them learn classical Greek, modern Chinese, etc. But we also do not want to pass up the chance to light our own little candle and do our part to returning some sense of sanity to our native land.
All the best,
Dave
Well said, Dave
NON-SEQUITUR - stand a'back... non-sequitur... incoming...
i'm reminded about a romantic neil diamond lyric about a sVeet little Voman coming of age...
'girl you'll be woman soon...soon you'll need a man.'
in today's Vorld it may have gone: 'girl you'll be a woman soon...with science you Could be a man!'
that's what I tell my nephew - with science he could be a man. i kid. he could beat me Up... i put the estrogen pills in his soup when he's not looking. let me stay down here... only G-d knows if and when i should go Up there...
Sid Cundiff @ 2
I come from a long line of ministers back to the first War for Independence, so I have heard a good bit about the history of evangelicalism in this country. To be honest, I cannot connect anything you say with the first-hand accounts I know, oral or written.
For example, one of my ancestors, born in the Shenandoah, ran a number of sing schools in the high South, including Alabama and Georgia, where he died. A number of his songs would be familiar to a majority of Americans. (Indeed, owing to Southern-themed movies like Oh Brother, Where art Thou, perhaps to all Americans.) He is identifiably evangelical right back to the end of the second War for Independence, and he never in his life left the South.
"Hamiltonians"? Please, these people were rural poor. These were people who held revivals under oak and pine.
The pedigree of my people was German Baptist, Presbyterian, and Missionary Baptist -- all very evangelical, and all Southern (including those who made it to the Far West where I was born).
I admire them. The second War for Independence ruined them, but instead of whining, they leaned on the everlasting arms and sacrificed the little they had for the everlasting salvation of their neighbors.
Because of such selflessness, evangelical Christianity swept the country. But once this movement became the predominant religious group, it became the natural destination of ambitious men to get ahead. This is the same old story that has afflicted man since his fall. All things in this world eventually become corrupt, no matter how pure the roots.
A fundamental fact: evangelicals hate FDR. He was the Enemy and in many evangelical circles was loudly called antichrist.
The term "evangelical" is not even capitalized. There was never an organization called "Evangelicalism." This is a mistake common to Roman Catholics, as if all Christian groups were centrally organized like Rome. I never could understand how one could live here for years and years but remain unaware of fundamental facts about old America, as if one were carefully keeping up his sense of foreignness over and against the natives.
The term among evangelicals is used as a synonym for "orthodox" and reckoned an outpost of belief in a sea of unbelief. As I noted above, serious changes have indeed occurred: when dispensationalism was introduced from another, foreign religion and another region (yet reformed eschatology remains in the mainstream); when evangelicals reversed their hard and fast rule to stay out of "worldly" politics; and when prominent politicians, such as Chuck Colson, announced their conversion to Christ (and so popularized the Biblical phrase "born again").
Nonetheless, the orthodox country core in evangelicalism still exists, and it is fundamentally against the court party of the heirs to Hamilton.
It is because of the success of winning souls to Christ that those of a different spirit have decided to call themselves what they are not. Unlike Roman Catholicism, salvation is not a matter of joining an organization.
Indeed there is no "*E*vangelical" organization to join. And as one seeks worldly success, it is at the expense of the eternal.
Conversion is a matter of the heart; for where the heart is...
Mr. Cundiff at #2
Your words:
"#2 is Huckabee. People who say he really isn’t Evangelical don’t know Evangelicals very well. Aside from some “social conservative” issues (”no Popery”, anti-Darwinism, no booze, no dancing, no porn, no abortion, and no homosexuality, and maybe pro home schooling) they really aren’t very “conservative”. Witness their indifference to divorce, single parent families, and the Pill. Lacking something like Catholic Social Teaching, or a thinker like Ketteler and Leo XIII, or sectarian politicians like Windthorst or Sturzo, they generally supported FDR Dimmykrats — perhaps part of the Solid South heritage — up until the late 60s. They remain opposed to the libertarians, as the Ron Paul people have found out. I doubt they’re excited about Romney or Giuliani. We’ll see if the Neocons can win them over."
I cannot speak for any Protestants, and I will speak about only those Protestants whom I know and about whom I know given that I am one, have trained in their colleges, have taught in their colleges, have served in various capacities in their local congregations, and have attended, over my lifetime, probably two hundred of their local congregations - namely Southern Baptist.
I frankly do not believe on matters of divorce, single parent families and the Pill, as well as FDR and the Democrats, that you would find in a cross section of the laity in Southern Baptist congregations to be much different opinion than you would find of Catholics in the South. I think that you would also find that Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics in the South have about the same degree of duplicity pursuant to what they believe and what they actually practice.
I have met very few Southern Baptist pastors and evangelists who are indifferent to divorce, single parent families or even the Pill, whereby they would not likely take a position against the Pill per se but against the promiscuity that it engenders and the undermining of the family which it brings about. I personally know of no congregation which would call a pastor who was indifferent to those things, not claiming for a moment that such congregations do not exist. I just finished serving on a pastor search committee, and I know the hard questions which were asked.
Two elements among Southern Baptist disturb me; and these, from my perspective, go to the heart of the problem with Huckabee: the steady rise of dispensationalism and its radicalization withing Baptist congregations, with Huckabee riding this wave; and the loss of a historical perspective on Baptist polity, with Huckabee playing to this ignorance. Not all Southern Baptist embrace dispensationalsim, but the majority do. Not all Baptist are ignorant of their own polity; but the majority are. If this thrall and ignorance could be broken, then Huckabee would have little appeal. Regrettably, that is not the case.
Sirs,
As a Protestant convert to Catholicism ( uh, excuse me, Roman Catholic...as if there is any other. You don't see this term until after 1517. ) I am confounded by the utter ignorance of some Protestants, e.g., posting 31's silly salvation barb about those heretic Romans finding salvation through "joining an oganization..." Such only discredits an otherwise well versed response.
My personal observation is regardless of denominational affiliation there are far too many adherents that don't adhere. It is my sincere prayer that orthodox Evangelicals and Catholics take to heart the slow demise of our culture and seek common ground in her defense. This infighting benefits only our adversaries in the culturekampf.
As for apologetics, let us refrain at this time and join forces acknowledging a common foe.
Dr. Wilson,
I greatly respect your writings and perspectives. But a recent comment posted above I must comment on. I am a practicing Mormon. Yes, I have strong reservations about voting for Mitt Romney (I will not be casting my ballot for him). And yes, I acknowledge that many traditional Christians, including evangelicals, are very wary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is much history here, which I will not delve into. (I have wondered whether early Mormons represented the Yankee culture and perspective, and I wonder how much provocation of southern gentility came to pass.)
But I seriously question your recommendation of the film "September Dawn." Recommending this to investigate Mormonism is akin to recommending Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton's latest words to investigate the League of the South. If I want the truth about the League on the South, I would be wise to go to the source. If I want the truth about Mormonism, I should go to the source, not a manipulative Hollywoodized film version, which takes quite a bit of subjective license with a tragic historical event. The Church has made an effort of late to be more open, including with respect to controversial elements such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I would hope that a similar openness might be showed by others, rather than a close-minded approach.
Mormons may have a history and theology somewhat independent of Protestantism, but values and even theology are quite compatible, actually. A paleoconservative Mormon (granted, that term may constitute a contradiction to some) bears more than a faint resemblance to a southern paleoconservative in mannerisms, habits, lifestyle, and relations.
Mormons, early in their history, were continually victimized by the Yankee Leviathan more than any other religious grouping, even after moving away hundreds of miles to mind their own business. One may recall one of the twin pillars of barbarism the Republican party was founded upon to eradicate was polygamy. And the Yankee Leviathan put plenty of elbow grease to making sure that Mormon polygamists would be prosecuted, jailed, etc., unapologetically splitting up families.
This is not to disparage the far greater trespasses on the Confederacy.
I would be glad to answer any questions about Mormonism to the best of my ability, should anyone be curious. But please, consistent with the southern gentility, limit the diatribes.
Tim Manning, Jr. wrote:
btw, if anyone has proof of my Thompson theory, please send it to me: He is a McCain operative. The American Conservative Union rates him as 4 points more Liberal than McCain, but he’s pretending, as actors do, to be to the right ...
That sounded off to me, so I Googled around and came up with the following:
http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/mschuyler/2008/jan/16/mccain_is_a_better_conservative_than_most
The ratings given at the link show Thompson 4 points MORE conservative than McCain, not four points less. These are ratings based on Thompson's Senate years, and there were no major immigration votes in that time. Today, I would have to think the gap is even wider.
If Mr. Manning can document his claim, I would be glad to see it. Personally, I am quite weary of the anti-Thompson disinformation campaign.
Mr. Reeve, thanks for your temperate and reasoned comment.
@32: Southern Baptists are often associated with covenant-theology evangelical Christians because of the alleged ties of both to the "Religious Right" in America, and although I could never embrace nor love Baptist theology, I believe this is an unfair association. I have known many Southern Baptists and I can affirm that you are correct: both instances and views of--to name just one critical example--divorce are far stricter than the average mainline Protestant (or cafeteria Catholic for that matter). And most of them are thoroughly pious without being slushy--which, by and large, covenant-evangelicals are not (they are in general either slushy or not particularly reverent). (And before I sound too judgmental, I must admit that I am not quite so reverent as I ought to be.)
Moreover, although I was baptized a Catholic as an infant, I did not grow up with much solid deep theology and particularly in secondary school had a couple of forays into the evangelical-covenant world. Mr. Cundiff's remarks are some of the few he has made that I cannot disagree with. Evangelical-covenant theology is actually a pretty good parallel to the American "conservative" (i.e., G.O.P.) movement in general: either one takes particular issues that might be considered solidly Christian or conservative and overlays them on a general philosophy and worldview that they don't fully understand is decidedly anti-Christian and leftist.
charlemagne @ 33:
To quibble, and politely:
The reason the term may not appear till 1517 is that before then, "catholic" meant the whole Church, from East to West, not merely the ancient diocese of Rome.
For the Reformeers of the Church, the term was ever "Rome" not "Roman Catholicism", since their whole point was that "Rome" had ceased being catholic, but had indulged in heresy and so had become sectarian.
Even today, Catholic is used in its historical, general sense.
I cringe when my Roman Catholic friends insist "I'm not a Christian, I'm Catholic." The reason is that they are using the term to mean sect, which is exactly what the term does not mean.
Respectfully yours,
PcH
Chris Reeve @ 34:
I just took Dr. Wilson's recommendation and rented the movie.
I don't see why historical facts should be suppressed. Such fear of free discussion only makes the Mormon religion look worse.
The historical facts of polygamy, confidence-games, treasure-hunting, wanton violence, tons of golden plates hidden under a single bed, magic glasses for reading Egyptian pictographs, the aborted arrest of Joseph Smith on criminal charges, and the revenge murders at Mountain Meadows with the "providential" reward of property are all things well known and are to be discussed, not concealed.
PcH @ 39:
Perhaps you misunderstand me.
I don't have a problem confronting the facts, the historical data. I have a problem when the primary source of information comes from a source other than the originator. Just think if we took Herod's word over Jesus', or Korah's word over Moses. I take issue when sensitive issues are discussed irreverently, even profanely, without a semblance of respect.
Transcendent religious figures and movements always sparked controversy and were generally rejected by the populous. Such was the case with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. If God were to restore another dispensation in our day, why would the pattern be any different?
Again, I don't have a problem with the history. I have a problem with a disrespectful representation and unfair characterization of that history. I imagine many Catholics and Protestants would share my feelings in this respect.
If Joseph Smith is to be discussed as a palpable fraud, for instance (and he is understandably viewed as that by many, including, I would venture, by you), cover the other angle, that he viewed is a prophet as well, and that he even did the works of a prophet. All I ask is a calmed, reasoned perspective.
By the way, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is viewed as an act of rebellion against ecclesiastical authority, rather than submission to it. It was not sanctioned by the Church, nor Brigham Young, as the film may attest. The actual historical record indicates this was a rebellion against the Mormon culture and tradition and teachings.
God save us all from “Christian” nitwits. How many of these evangelical “stalwart conservatives” and have told me to my face that we must support the candidate which supports Israel because god is on their side and the Book of Revelations makes it clear that those that side with Israel will be on the winning side. I cannot tell you how comfortably I sleep at night knowing that the future of my country is the hands of such voters! Voters such as this will support Mr. (Rev.) Hickaboob because he is an evangelical Christian or McAmnesty because he supports the “war on terror” which Israel supports that as well. That we will soon be worshiping EN ESPANGOL under El Presidente Hickaboob be damned, for he is a bible believing Christian. In my mind, these Israeli lap dog evangelicals are as big an enemy of my country as neo-cons, for they merely replace Trotsky’s ideology with one of Judeomania formulated on their interpretation of Revelations. Either way, their true allegiance is to something other than the US Constitution. And these evangelical nit wits are the same that had the audacity to accuse Kennedy then and Catholics today of having allegiance to Rome. As for my own Catholic faith, I found that the Church left me a good many years ago with its despicable left wing and anti-American policies. The active aiding and abetting of illegal immigration was the final straw.
What is richly ironic is that the conservative pundits forever rail that liberal Dems want to introduce the nanny state because they believe the average American is not smart enough to govern himself. The conservative pundit always has supreme faith in the ability of Joe average to decide for himself. Well, in my view, given the choices that Joe average keeps making on either side of the aisle, the Dems may have a point.
Some interesting thoughts
In his review of Frank Conner’s book “The South Under Siege 1830-2000” William Scott writes :
“The word “puritanical” long ago entered the language as a reflection of their domineering, self-righteous temperament. Joining them to the south, English midland Quakers settled Pennsylvania and the Delaware Valley, bringing to America the Society of Friends and its universalist dogma. (The synthesis of these two groups created a real case of attitude: We believe in the brotherhood of mankind—and if you don’t agree, we will kill you.)”
The Puritan settlers got help from the Emigrant Aid Society who sent rifles in crates marked “books” and “Bibles”. This was at the request of an abolitionist preacher by the name of Henry Beecher. Information found at the Kansas Historical Society website {http://www.kshs.org/portraits/beecher_bibles.htm} states:
“He (Henry W. Beecher) believed that the Sharps Rifle was a truly moral agency, and that there was more moral power in one of those instruments, so far as the slaveholders of Kansas were concerned, than in a hundred Bibles. You might just as well. . . read the Bible to Buffaloes as to those fellows who follow Atchison and Stringfellow; buy they have a supreme respect for the logic that is embodied in Sharp’s rifle”
Beecher’s Bibles found their way into the hands of John Brown and his followers who believed in killing for “the brotherhood of mankind”. Brown later led an attempt to start a slave uprising in Virginia. He was backed by a group of wealthy New Englanders known as “the secret six”.
One of the “secret six” members was Franklin Sanborn. Information found at the following University of Missouri School of Law web address //www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/johnbrown/secretsixdetails.html} states that Sanborn described John Brown as: “an unmixed Puritan breed,”
Another member of the “secret six” was Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, who was the husband of Julia Ward Howe. Julia Howe penned the now famous “Battle Hymn of the Republic” set to the tune of “John Brown’s Body”. She too felt it was morally right to abolish slavery by killing Southerners when she penned the lyrics:
“He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword”
The Battle Hymn of the Republic is sung in many churches today, but it is doubtful that many worshipers know the true meaning about the song, or the actual beliefs of its author
"I cringe when my Roman Catholic friends insist “I’m not a Christian, I’m Catholic.” The reason is that they are using the term to mean sect, which is exactly what the term does not mean."
Yes, this whole idea of boasting about ones religion makes me cringe. Most of the saints could only boast of being great sinners. With a few exeptions, like Ignatius of Antioch, the early martyres always tried to avoid persecution until they simply could no longer avoid it without betraying Christ . Polycarp was a great example of this and we see it again and again throughout the ages -- St. John Fisher, St. Thomas Moore, St Edmund Campion etc.. The ones who too readily presented themselves voluntarily or boastfully as Believers and Followers of Christ, usually ended up like St. Peter with a Cock crowing in the back ground as they were being humiliated in such a manner that took them deeper into the ultimate truth that without Him we can do nothing. No serious Christian today would be running for President unless like Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul, he was simply speaking as a lonely voice in the wilderness.