In the old days he would have worn purple and fine linen |
There was an interesting article in The New York Times
this morning about political strategist David Lane who is attempting to
organize a force of approximately 300,000 “Evangelicals” on behalf of the
Republican party. Read below:
DES
MOINES — One afternoon last week, David Lane watched from the sidelines as a
roomful of Iowa evangelical pastors applauded a defense of religious liberty by
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. That night, he gazed out from the stage as the
pastors surrounded Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana in a prayer circle.
For
Mr. Lane, a onetime Bible salesman and self-described former “wild man,”
connecting the pastors with two likely presidential candidates was more than a
good day’s work. It was part of what he sees as his mission, which is to make
evangelical Christians a decisive power in the Republican Party. “An army,” he
said. “That’s the goal.”
And
Mr. Lane is positioning himself as a field marshal. A fast-talking and
born-again veteran of conservative politics with experience in Washington,
Texas and California, Mr. Lane, 60, travels the country trying to persuade
evangelical clergy members to become politically active. . . .
But
close observers of evangelicals and their political involvement say Mr. Lane is
emblematic of a new generation of evangelical leaders who draw local support or
exert influence through niche issues or their own networks.
My intention is not to write about the political side of
this, but the religious—just what is an “Evangelical” and do these people fit
the bill or are they counterfeit disciples.
So, what is an “Evangelical?” Evangelical comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον,
which means “good news” and specifically the news of a victory. The Greek
word for Gospel is εὐαγγέλιον because it is the Good News of God’s Victory in
Christ, the Victory of Christ over sin and death which is the authentication of
his message of the Kingdom of God. A
true evangelical announces the Good News of the Kingdom of God, the central
message of Jesus which he handed on to his disciples to be preached to the four
corners of the earth until the end of time.
Jesus spoke constantly of this Kingdom—it was his mission, his raison d’etre for coming into this
world. He was faithful to this mission
to death and because he was faithful he was, we Christians believe, raised from
the dead and given the place at God’s right hand as a validation of his
mission. But we make a huge mistake by
conflating this message of the kingdom into some “pie in the sky when you die”
and robbing it of its true import for our life in this world.
Heaven was not a particular pre-occupation of Jesus and his
preaching. He didn’t talk about it very
much. As a Pharisee himself, Jesus was
not so focused on heaven as he was on the Resurrection at the end time. Like other Pharisees (and unlike the
Sadducee’s) Jesus believed that the
faithful would be raised at a final judgment to eternal life and the sinners to
an eternal punishment. He didn’t talk
much about what happened between death and final-day resurrection. He did, of course, mention that Lazurus (the
poor fellow whose sores the dogs used to lick while he lay at the rich man’s
gate, not his friend from Bethany) was carried to the bosom of Abraham while
the rich man was in hell where he “was in torment.” And he does promise the repentant thief on
the cross that “this day you will be with me in paradise.” That is about it for what Jesus says about
life after death and before the resurrection.
But he has plenty to say about the Kingdom of God and he makes it very
clear that the Kingdom of God is not some post-mortem picnic in a celestial
park but a commitment to here-and-now fidelity to God—to live lives of
conformity to God’s Kingship. What does
that a life of subjugation to that kingship look like? Well, there is a lot about forgiving others
even as we ask God to forgive us; something I recall that the measure with
which we measure forgiveness out will be used to measure forgiveness to
us. And there is that passage about
leaving your gift at the altar and being reconciled with anyone who has a bone
to pick with you before you return and offer your gift. There is quite a bit actually about “the poor
having the good news preached to them.”
And there is something about I was hungry and you gave me to eat; a
stranger and you welcomed me (migrants like this one); in prison and you
ministered to me, sick and you visited me.
These last seems to be particularly important as they constitute the
“final exam” by which our eternal destiny is determined. I definitely remember something about you
can’t serve God and wealth. And there is
that line about “love your enemies; pray for your persecutors.” Hmmm, but did Jesus know about ISIS? Would he really have said that if had? Maybe we need to do a more critical edition
of the gospels, don’t you think? You
know, take out some of these “inconvenient truths?” (Apologies to Al
Gore.) I think that we are not supposed
to store up wealth where moths devour and rust corrodes—or even in bigger and
bigger barns—lest we be called to account this very night. And of course there is that thing about
turning the other cheek? Does that mean
I can’t shoot the SOB? The NRA says I
can.
This kingdom of God is, as St Paul sums it up, a matter of integrity,
of peace, and of the joy that comes from the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:17) I am choosing integrity but some translations
say “justice,” some say “righteousness.”
This righteousness or justice means that we have aligned ourselves to
the Divine Will. We are obedient to God,
our hearts (wills) are surrendered to him.
Can we honestly say that we are righteous when we have more of this
world’s goods than we can use while others of his children lack for their basic
needs? (Some radicals call this “income
inequality.) Is there righteousness in
God’s sight when so many of his children have no grounds for hope for a decent
life? When life is structured to exclude
them from a future in which they can realize their God-given potential.
Real evangelicals are not those who cry out Lord, Lord, or who say “We
ate and drank with you (think Holy Communion) and you taught in our streets (we
went to Church every Sunday and listened to the sermons).” Real evangelicals are those who see in the
systemic injustice in our society and are determined to set right that which
our collective sinfulness has set wrong.
And you know, God bless David Lane and army of Republican activists, but
they just don’t get it. You are not a
genuine evangelical if you are keeping the stranger in our midst from making a
home. You are not a genuine evangelical
if you are dividing your world into “us” and “them.” You are not a genuine evangelical if you
support the 5% rich who control 80% of the world’s wealth when 60% of the
Lazaruses of this world are undernourished.
You are not a genuine evangelical if you believe we can use violence to
rid this world of violence. I would love
to see evangelical leadership our nation—genuine evangelicals—but frankly I
don’t see anyone in either party who fits the bill—or even comes close.
Let’s continue on with some more excerpts from the same article
Bob
Perry, the wealthy Texas home builder and Republican donor, who later funded
the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry in 2004, gave Mr. Lane
$3,000 of seed money to get started in Washington, where Mr. Lane began working
for Carl Channell in support of President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” defense
system. Oh yeah, I
remember the Swift Vote Veterans—they spread lies to accomplish their
agenda? Evangelicals? I don’t think so. Children of the Father of Lies, maybe.
After
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey made a good impression at a Republican event
later that year, Mr. Lane offered him the chance to join primary state pastors
on a “Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II” tour to California, London and Rome.
“They
turned it down,” said Mr. Lane, who smiled when asked if he thought that was a
mistake.
Instead,
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, jumped at the opportunity, subbing
former Nazi concentration camps and Oskar Schindler’s former factory in Poland
for the stop in Rome. Well Christie is
a Catholic, Huckabee has long shown his bigotry against Catholics, thus scratch
Rome. We don’t want to be associated
with that Roman anti-Christ—even some of his own followers are saying he’s a
commie.
Last
month, Mr. Lane took 60 members of the Republican National Committee to
Jerusalem at a cost, he said, of about $500,000. A trip to Israel with Mr.
Jindal is planned for July.
Missing
from his travel manifests and events are the Republican Party’s establishment
candidates. While Mr. Lane is technically neutral at this point, he clearly is
no fan of the more moderate wing of his party. He said he tried to rescue the
2008 and 2012 tickets by advocating Mr. Huckabee for vice president.
“If
the Lord were to call 1,000 pastors in America — 1,000 — and they ended up with
an average of 300 volunteers per campaign in 2016, that would be 300,000
grass-root, precinct-level, evangelical conservatives coming from the bottom
up,” he said to the ballroom full of pastors. “It would change America.”
I’m sure it
would change America, but not for the better.
I am not saying that David Lane and his “evangelical” army are frauds; I
am sure they are sincere in their beliefs.
I am only saying that they are not evangelicals because their agenda is
inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God. Like so many they have made god in their own
image and likeness, and to their convenience; a deity that shares their view of
the world, rather than tailoring their view of the world to the revelation that
God has given us in Jesus Christ. Lane
is right, we need to bring our Christian faith to bear on our political life;
he is only wrong in what he determines to be Christian faith.
"As a Pharisee himself, Jesus was not so focused on heaven as he was on the Resurrection at the end time."
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get the idea that Jesus was a Pharisee?
This would be covered in any academic course on the four gospels. You might check it out in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary which is the best of Catholic commentaries on the Bible or in John Myer's Jesus: A Marginal Jew Almost any serious commentary on the New Testament will explain that 1st century Judaism was broken into two major theological camps: Pharisees and Saducees. The former believed in the Resurrection of the Dead, in Angels and other supernatural beings; the Saducees--representing the older orthodoxy in Judaism--did not. Pharisees were associated with rural and non-Jerusalem people; Saducees tended to be represented in the priestly class and the more sophisticated urban population
ReplyDelete