Posts Tagged ‘Jerry Falwell Sr.’

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult, pt. 3

August 28, 2021

            The so-called “Moral Majority” and “Religious Right” jumped into politics just as apocalypticism was on the rise, and they used it as a motivational force to fire up their voters.  It also came to drive much of their thinking on political policy, and these notions in turn began to take over Republican thinking in general.  The Antichrist was predicted to be a “world leader,” so Evangelical “prophets” devised an elaborate fantasy whereby the United Nations and its Secretary General would take over the entire world, which would be pretty amazing given the general fecklessness of the organization to date.  (This had the added advantage that it saved them from asking uncomfortable questions about who really is said to be “the most powerful man on Earth,” the Caesar of the 20th Century’s greatest empire, and thus the most logical applicant for the role of “all-powerful world leader” which they were advertising—POTUS.)  Israel plays a major part in the Apocalypse despite the fact that it wasn’t even an independent nation when either Daniel or John wrote, so the Religious Right became Zionists; but the final Battle of Armageddon takes place in Israel, so the Religious Right had to oppose any possibility of peace that might have ensured Israel’s existence.[1]  Instead, since their vision required a nuclear conflagration before Jesus returns, the Religious Right has consistently pushed for more militarism, more war, more international tension, and either pooh-poohed the dangers of World War III (since the Good People will be raptured away to Heaven) or actively sought to encourage it.  No war, no Jesus, so they have to have their war.  The Religious Right thus pushed the Republican Party to become, quite simply, pro-death, pro-war, pro-Armageddon. 

            The same logic drives GOP contempt for diplomacy also drives much of its contempt for climate science.  The Revelation of John depicts a world in famine, with both land and sea in near-total environmental collapse.  Since this disaster for humanity (not to mention nonhumans, since these superlative Christians never mention them) is actually a blessing for the “true believers” who expect to be raptured away into Heaven before things get really bad and then to return with Jesus to rule over the miraculously restored new Earth, they actually welcome all the dire warnings of environmentalists.  They want the Earth to burn with wildfires and drought. They want crops to fail and fish to die.  All of this is simply the fulfillment of their vision of the End Times.

            I cannot emphasize enough how mistaken and self-serving all of this is.  The original apocalyptic writings have two things in common.  First and most obviously, they are all extremely symbolic.  Many of these symbols are traditional, practically a code which is understood by the community but unintelligible to outsiders.  When the original readers of Daniel read a description of a series of kingdoms ending in a divided kingdom (Daniel 2:31-45) they knew to whom it referred:  the kingdoms of the Persians and the Greeks, to Alexander’s empire which was divided at his death, and which they believed would be replaced by the reign of God.  When John’s readers read a description of a beast with seven heads, they knew it meant Rome and the Caesars (Revelation 13:1-10).  They did not expect a literal beast, and for the most part they were not too surprised when the world didn’t end and they had to reinterpret the prophesies.  We can see this in the Gospels, where the more apocalyptic Mark (the first written) was succeeded by others that depicted the Kingdom of God as an ongoing, growing reality, the Church.  The oldest versions of Mark end at the empty tomb; Luke by contrast wrote a sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, where the Kingdom of God is seen being fulfilled not in the end of the world but in the ministry of Paul in Rome.  The end of the world prophecies that most Christians believed were fulfilled as the world they had known did, in fact, end, replaced by a new and unimaginable reality:  the Roman gods thrown down, and worship of the God of Israel spread around the world.  But the end and the new beginning were different than they’d expected, and for the most part they rolled with it.  Today’s Fundamentalists,  with their selective biblical literalism, demand a literal end of the world, while claiming the authority and mission to change how these ancient symbolic writings were understood to fit the political agenda they desire—their dislikes become demons, their ideological targets become the Antichrist, and so on. 

            The second, and essential reality of apocalyptic writings are that they were addressed to the poor and persecuted.  Both the writings of Paul and contemporary nonchristian sources indicate that most (not all) early Christians were from the lower classes—not too surprising given the demographics of the Roman Empire, but apparently noteworthy enough at the time.  The writings of Daniel were addressed to the victims of persecution by Antiochus; the writings of John were addressed to Christian churches in Asia Minor, which were under pressure from social, political and economic powers around them.  They were messages to inspire hope in those who had no earthly reason to hope.  By contrast, today’s White Evangelical community is culturally and politically dominant, a powerful force worldwide and particularly in the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth.  While the original apocalyptic writings were meant to comfort the afflicted and condemn the comfortable, the new apocalyptic writings of Hal Lindsey and Tim LeHaye, Jerry Jenkins and company are meant to comfort the comfortable, and thus often end up afflicting the afflicted.  They are aimed at showing White, middle-class Fundamentalists that they really do know more about science, economics, politics and everything else, and that those people who didn’t believe them will burn in Hell.  They aim to show that weak and poor nations deserve to be weak and poor, while the United States is rich and strong because God has blessed it for being the home to Christian Fundamentalism.  They aim to reinforce the economic status quo; there’s a direct line between the Christian Dominionism of R. J. Rushdoony, the Christian nationalism of Jerry Falwell, and the Prosperity Gospel that tells the poor that if they show their faith by sending money to the TV preacher God will make them rich.  John of Patmos wrote from exile and imprisonment, but today’s apocalyptic writers are well-funded by the rich who want to wrap themselves in this new gospel that protects their wealth from condemnation.[2]


[1] Mary Jane MacKay (correspondent) and Michael H. Gavshon (producer), “Zion’s Christian Soldiers,” 60 Minutes aired October 6, 2002 (https://www.cbsnews.com/video/zions-christian-soldiers/ transcript https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zions-christian-soldiers/ )

[2] This alliance goes back to the early intellectual fountainhead of the Religious Right, R. J. Rushdoony, who was bankrolled by businessmen opposed to FDR’s New Deal. See Michael J. McVicar, “The Libertarian Theocrats:  the long, strange history of R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism;” September 1, 2007 (https://www.politicalresearch.org/2007/09/01/libertarian-theocrats)

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult (pt. 2)

August 26, 2021

Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority

            While Rushdoony and his Chalcedon Foundation originally acted as a “think tank” rather than a lobbyist or activist organization, another Evangelical organization arose that began as legal/political activists and later added more theological and intellectual argument (much of it drawn from Rushdoony).  In response to the Republican Eisenhower Administration’s efforts to desegregate the South, White Evangelicals had established a network of private schools from kindergarten through college.[1]  In these schools, “race-mixing” was taught to be a sin, a violation of God’s intention in creating people as different races and nations.  The argument was that since segregation was a religious belief, and the Constitution protects freedom of religion, the Feds had to allow the White racist religiously-backed private schools the freedom to discriminate against nonwhites and to teach White supremacy.  Jerry Falwell and the other early leaders of the Religious Right started their political careers fighting to demand that racist schools like Bob Jones University be granted Federal funds and tax exemption, effectively requiring taxpayer support for their racism.  Ultimately, they failed in the case of Bob Jones, which was forced to choose whether it wanted Federal support or racism.  But in the years of legal and political fighting, Falwell and his allies had built a political organization, and they didn’t want to let it falter.  They had developed a taste for political power and activism Evangelicals hadn’t had since their heyday fighting Darwin in the 1920s.  As the segregationist cause faltered and Evangelical leaders realized they couldn’t ride to victory on a White horse, they began searching for another cause.  In the meantime, Republican activist Paul Weyrich had spent years looking for a cause—any cause—that would move Evangelicals to the Republican party.  Six years after the Roe v. Wade decision declaring abortion a Constitutional right, Weyrich, Falwell and others decided to fight abortion and make that a religious doctrine as well as a political weapon.  Prior to this, Protestants generally saw abortion as a “Catholic issue;” the Pope opposed it, but Fundamentalist Protestants followed the Biblical teaching that life begins with the first breath.[2]  As the 1970s were ending and, coincidentally, I was reaching voting age, White Evangelicals were lining up behind the Republican banner to fight abortion.

Celebrating Armageddon

            The 1970s were also a time of the rise of apocalypticism in the popular culture.  Poorly-made movies like A Thief in the Night, depicting the sudden Rapture, the rise of the Antichrist as UN Secretary General, a world government persecuting Evangelicals and so on were hugely influential in Fundamentalist circles, but had little impact beyond them.  Books like Hal Lindsey & Carole Carlson’s The Late, Great Planet Earth broke into the pop culture, feeding into Cold War anxieties about nuclear annihilation.  The End of Days has always been an effective trope for Evangelical preachers, ever since “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” was preached by Jonathan Edwards in Colonial New England; as the end of the world became a technological and political possibility, such notions moved from sermons and revivals to widespread secular worry.  So as White Evangelicals were beginning to move into the Republican party and become more powerful politically than they had been in decades, they were also becoming more apocalyptic.  For all the language of Falwell and others about the importance of preserving the physical, political United States as a bulwark against atheist Communism and a launching-pad for evangelism, millions of Evangelicals (and others) were increasingly convinced that neither the United States, nor anything else was likely to survive more than a few years.  For Evangelicals, this fear of nuclear annihilation was countered with the hope of apocalyptic writings in the Book of Daniel, the Revelation of John and other biblical texts, so that the destruction of the world became not just something God would ultimately overcome, but actually an essential part of God’s redemptive work.  Just as God had destroyed the world through water in Noah’s time so that a cleaner, less sinful world could be established, so soon, very soon God would destroy the world again, this time through nuclear fire, and Jesus would finally be able to return and create a new Kingdom of God that would last for all time.

            Rushdoony’s son-in-law, Gary North took over the leadership at the Chalcedon Foundation, pushing it in a more activist and more apocalyptic direction.  He earned the derisive nickname “Scary Gary” for his repeated dire predictions of some coming catastrophe, most notably Y2K, each of which was just around the corner and would lead to the collapse of civilization.  His political goal was that the U.S. Constitution should be scrapped and replaced with a Christian theocracy, and that the churches should be ready to step in and provide vital services such as education and all social welfare when government collapsed.  The only government structure that would remain (or be rebuilt) after whatever disaster he was predicting at the time occurred would be a bare minimal libertarianism.  In many ways, he combines Ayn Rand with the very sort of religious “mystery” that she so much despised.  This differs from Rushdoony’s original vision in that it makes the Church central even over the family, and it pushes political activism and campaigning to advance towards this Christian libertarian utopia rather than relying on the grace of God. 

to be continued….


[1] Randall Balmer, “The Real Origins of the Religious Right;” Politico May 27, 2014 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/)

[2] See Bob Allen, “Evangelicals and Abortion:  Chicken or Egg?” Baptist Global News November 6, 2012 (https://baptistnews.com/article/evangelicals-and-abortion-chicken-or-egg/#.YQrGtR1Onb4); also David Roach, “How Southern Baptists Became Pro-Life;” Baptist Press January   16, 2015 (https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/how-southern-baptists-became-pro-life/) and Neil Carter, “What does the Bible say about Abortion?” Patheos October 23, 2016 (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/10/23/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion/)

What the Right Gets Wrong: about Idolatry

January 4, 2021

What the Right Gets Wrong:  about Idolatry

I the Lord your God am a jealous God

—-Exodus 20:2

            What is “idolatry”?  The Religious Right would say that such things as Santeria and Voodoo are idolatrous.  They combine Christian and non-Christian religious practices into one religion.  In the case of Santeria, more common in my native Florida, they sometimes quite explicitly rename and rebaptize the orisha of Yoruba sorcery as Catholic saints.  Although in the days of slavery there was an attempt to make the religion seem Christian to outsiders, its emphasis on animal sacrifice, spirit possession and other traditional African practices show that it is far different from the Catholicism of the Cuban plantation owners and masters. 

            Many in the Religious Right consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be idolatrous as well.  Both religions use images of Christ and the saints in worship, and Catholicism in particular has a strong emphasis on the saints as intermediaries who can receive prayers, intercede with God on behalf of the faithful, and even perform miracles to aid those who call on them.  All of this is abhorrent to Evangelical Protestants, and as a child I was often warned to be wary of those idolatrous Catholics.  Today however the Religious Right includes both Catholic and Protestant and they often set aside their theological differences in favor of political cooperation.

            Catholics and Orthodox, and maybe some followers of Voodoo and Santeria, would say that these saints or spirits are lesser beings than the Creator, even servants, and therefore it is no disloyalty to the Creator to pray to them.  Fundamentalist Protestants, on the other hand, reject all this imagery and iconography and ritual and prayer to intercessory powers, saying they are violations of the majesty of the One God.  God will surely smite such false worship, for the LORD is a jealous God.

            But many of the largest, richest Protestant churches, and the most powerful and celebrated preachers, are themselves idolaters.  The foremost example in the 20th Century was the Christian Nationalists.  In the 1930s a particularly odious example arose, the “German Christians.”  They sought to combine their primarily Lutheran heritage with the militarism and nationalism of Adolf Hitler. To them, any church that dissented from the rising political regime of the Nazi party was not only threatening the unity of the nation; it was rebelling against God, who established all nations and leaders and had chosen their nation to dominate all others as the foundation for the new Kingdom of God, the Holy Roman Empire reborn.  Not all Christians agreed with this mixing of nationalism and Christianity, however, and in 1934 a gathering of Reformed, Lutheran and United church leaders met in Barmen, Germany, where they approved and issued The Theological Declaration of Barmen.  Relying explicitly on Scripture for each of its main points, it argued that not only was this Christian nationalism theologically wrong, but that it was heresy.  In seeking to give the Church explicit political power, and in seeking greater union between Church and State, the German Christians were actually demoting the Church and turning it into an organ of the State (Barmen Declaration II, 5).  The Church should obey the Gospel alone, and not be swayed by allegiance to political movements (Barmen II, 3).  The declaration culminates with the final anathema, “We reject the false doctrine, as though the church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans” (Barmen II, 6).  While the German Christians argued that the Nazi state was a Christian nation and thus the protector of the Church, those now known as the Confessing Churches argued that this pretense really meant replacing Jesus with the State as the center of concern.  The Church was being seen and being used as a means to an end, that end being the unity and strength of the State, and in particular the strength of the ruling political authorities of the State. 

            The Religious Right would say that this happened in a foreign land; while those Europeans were easily deceived, the United States is a blessed nation, a Shining City on a Hill, and could never be lured into idolatry.  Or, they might go further and say the Germans were corrupted because they were socialists; after all, Socialism is right there in the name “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”  Sure, they fought Communists, first on the streets of Germany and then across Europe; but really they were Socialists just like Stalin and Hugo Chavez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  all Socialists, all exactly the same.  The Religious Right, on the other hand, are all Capitalists and thus love Freedom and are Good and Right—again, it’s there in the name “Right Wing.” 

            And because they are capitalists and capitalism is Good, many of them embrace a theology known as “The Prosperity Gospel.”  According to this theology, which has roots in the “power of positive thinking” of Norman Vincent Peale and more recently in such preachers as Jim Bakker, God wants all the faithful followers of his son Jesus to have “every good and perfect gift” (James 1:17).  Whatever you ask for, if you believe, you will receive (Matthew 7:7; Mark 11:24).  And so on, and never mind where the Bible hints that these are spiritual blessings (Luke 11:13); God knows you want nice clothes and a minivan and a good job and early retirement and three square meals plus a day, and God is good and wants you to have whatever you ask.  So just believe in God and Jesus, as the preacher tells you and describes them, and you will get all the worldly goodies you desire.  Believe in God and Jesus SO THAT you can get all the worldly goodies.  In the Prosperity Gospel, in the version of Christianity taught by chair of the spiritual advisory board serving Donald Trump, God and Jesus are there waiting for you to show up with your spiritual ATM card to withdraw cold, hard cash to buy everything you desire; or, if your credit runs out, it’s because you didn’t believe hard enough or obey your preacher closely enough.  Just as your worldly job is a means to an end, that end being your paycheck, so too does the Prosperity Gospel proclaim that if you work for God, He will give you an even bigger paycheck, and all this faith is the means by which you can attain worldly prosperity. 

            In Catholicism, we pray to the saints and to the Virgin Mother, who prays to the Father for us, who saves us from our sins, and that is called “idolatry” by the Evangelical Protestants.  In Evangelical Protestantism you pray directly to the Father through Jesus, and the Father will give you miracles and magic and fulfill your wishes for comfort and profit and even for power over others, and somehow that isn’t idolatry?  One prays to something that is not God to reach what is God; the other prays to God like a letter to Santa, making God the tool and prosperity the goal.  But of course, that’s Capitalism and therefore Good and therefore holy.  Right?

            No!  Idolatry is not whether you have an empty cross or one with the crucified Christ.  It is not whether you have no pictures in your church, or only pictures of Jesus, or pictures of all the saints.  Idolatry is when you make the ultimate reality, God, a tool of your own tiny ambitions.  As Kierkegaard put it:

If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes rest upon the image of an idol—where, then, is there more truth?  The one prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol.[1]

            Idolatry is, in a way, the natural default for the human-deity relationship.  It is the childish (in Kierkegaard’s terms, “esthetic”) understanding.  God is to be understood and used; God acts and thinks just like us, and can be flattered like us, grows cross like us, kicks ass like we imagine we would do if we were gods, and showers money, political control, fame, military might and everything else we imagine as “good” on those who please Him.  And since most of us live in a patriarchal culture, we imagine God as an older, rather stern male ruler.  We want, as Kierkegaard said, a direct relationship to God, one that is straightforward, where we know the rules and know how to work the rules to get what we want, like a teenager who knows that if he or she just gets good grades and isn’t arrested for drinking then Dad will give them a car next birthday.  What we don’t want is what Kierkegaard says is true worship:  to love God, to know that God is beyond all comprehension, to orient all one’s own personal ambitions and values around that idea of being utterly transparent in the presence of God, who wants to be in that relationship despite the fact that literally nothing one could do could possibly “earn” one a spot in Heaven.     The Prosperity Gospel is not “gospel” at all, in any meaningful sense.  It is not “gospel” in the sense of being a message about Jesus, who said that if you follow his way you’ll end up like him, serving God and loving unconditionally, with no place to lay your head, carrying your cross.  It is not “good news,” but just the old “works righteousness,” the old magical thinking, the old drudgery, where you do everything to try to follow the rules laid down by your taskmaster the preacher in the name of the boss in Heaven and, if you’re good, you’ll get a raise and maybe even a Christmas bonus.  And in the sense that we use “gospel” to mean “truth,” it is most assuredly not gospel.  It is just a way to make the rich comfortable since they can measure their virtue the way we measure our value to the company by our paycheck; and it is a way to humiliate the poor in the same way, while pacifying them that if they just obey their human taskmasters who claim to speak in God’s name, they too can earn a promotion.  It is idolatry, pure and simple. 

            The truth be told, however, idolatry is not confined to the so-called “Prosperity Gospel.”  It is central to the entire so-called “Religious Right.”[2]  Jerry Falwell Sr. described the USA as the last bastion for Christian mission and for worldwide evangelism.[3]  Without the United States, God would have no earthly basis for spreading the Gospel or for any of the other missions to feed the poor, bring medicine and other good works done by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Thus it is the duty of every Christian to support the U.S. military and American efforts to fight Communism everywhere.  While God may be able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here (Matthew 3:9) apparently God needs the U.S. Army, Navy and all the rest to guard and spread His kingdom.  And in exchange for doing the good work of God, God will give the U.S. security and prosperity.  What hubris!  No longer are Christians to regard themselves as mere unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10); instead we can expect a payoff in this life.  If the U.S. government fights legalize marijuana, fights pornography, upholds traditional heterosexual marriage and enforces other purity and behavioral laws, it can expect God’s blessing.  However, doing that stuff Jesus talked so much about—-feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and so on (Matthew 25:31-46; see also Amos chapters 1-8, Micah 3, Isaiah 3:14, Isaiah 5:8, Ezekiel 18:5-9, Luke 16:19-31, and the Epistle of James)—that would be too expensive, that would be “socialism” and take away from spending on the all-important military, and would reduce the poor person’s dependence upon the churches and thus might reduce their control.  What hubris!  What arrogance!  The Jesus who tells his followers to put away their swords, and assures them that he could call upon twelve legions of angels (Matthew 26:52-53), but who tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) needs the USA to carry out his purposes; and the God who could do all this needs the nation so much that He is willing to bargain with its leaders that if they’ll enforce this strict moral code (much of which is nowhere in the Bible) while leaving the private sector to decide whether or how to care for the poor (though the prophets said rulers would be judged by how the poor were treated) then God will provide worldly success and prosperity to the nation.  This is little more than the Prosperity Gospel for nations instead of for individuals; and it is just as idolatrous. 

            We don’t have to take my word, or Niebuhr’s word for the claim that nationalism is a form of idolatry, a betrayal of true and faithful religion.  The prophet Jeremiah dealt with much the same thing, in the final days of the kingdom of Judah (Jer. 7).  His book, which seems to have been dictated by him directly to his scribe Baruch, describes the sins of the rich and powerful as they plotted and blundered their way to destruction by the Babylonian army.  There was plenty of straight-up idolatry, the sort that literalists denounce, with people praying to the Baals even at shrines set up in the temple of YHWH.  But along with this, Jeremiah condemns as equally bad the social sins, such as oppressing the resident immigrant and the poor, stealing, perjury, and adultery.  But the people who did these things felt safe and had no desire to repent, because the temple of YHWH was there in the city and God needed that temple, the last one left after the ravages of the Assyrian and Babylonian armies.  Speaking to the faithful church-goers, the people entering the Temple to worship the true God, Jeremiah says, “Do not trust in these deceptive words:  ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’” (Jer. 7:4).  Only if you repent of your sins, Jeremiah tells them, can you or the nation be saved.  But they did not repent, either of their crimes against the poor or of their combining of worship of YHWH with foreign deities.  And in the end, God allowed the city called by God’s name, the throne of David, and the Temple built by Solomon to honor the one true God to be destroyed—undoubtedly to the astonishment of those firm believers in Israelite exceptionalism, convinced as they were that God needed them and their nation and that thus they could bargain with God.  They were sure that if they agreed to offer sacrifices in the Temple then the LORD would simply look the other way while they robbed and oppressed the poor.  And as the prophet Amos made clear, it is not just the one who breaks the law to rob the poor who will be punished; even the powerful ones who creates unjust laws and profit from them are damned (Amos 2:8). 

            The one who denies food to the poor, or beats up a gay person, or imprisons an immigrant, or despises a different race, or burns down a mosque so that God will see and be pleased and reward them is exactly the same spirit as the one who cuts out a child’s heart as a gift to some god or demon so the sun will come up and the crops be plentiful.  It is human sacrifice, nothing more:  I will sacrifice this other person’s liberty, dignity, even their life so that some powerful spirit being will grant me power and success.  Falwell’s claim that feeding the hungry is a sin if done by a governmental agency but a virtue when done by individuals or churches is, at best, nonsense:  what else is the government for, except to carry out large-scale projects that many people need but that no one individual can achieve alone?  More likely it is not so much confusion and nonsense as it is that old-fashioned sinful evasion of God’s will, pronouncing human precepts as the divine will (Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:6-8, among others).  It is wrong, Falwell says, to allow a government to do God’s work of justice and care; it is holy to stop the government and leave it to your own will—if you decide to get around to it.  This is idolatry in its purest meaning:  self-worship.  The true worship of the true God is much harder and more troubling:  to care for those God cares for, the poor, the immigrant, the one without family to help (Psalm 146:9, James 1:27 etc.); and to do it knowing that no matter how much you give, it does not earn you anything extra (Matthew 20:1-16) since everything you have was a gift from the start. 


[1] Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, v. 1; edited and translated, with introduction and notes by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1992) p. 201

[2] For a more detailed yet accessible discussion of this, see James Comey, “Reinhold Niebuhr and Jerry Falwell:  the Christian in Politics;” https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/1116/ (The College of William and Mary, 1982), pp. 78-115

[3] Comey, p. 60

Things the Right Gets Wrong, pt. 2: Abortion

April 1, 2020

THINGS THE RIGHT GETS WRONG….about abortion!

 

I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

——-Rev. W. A. Criswell, Pastor First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, 1973

 

 

White American Evangelicals say that Donald J. Trump is the most, even the only Christian candidate for President of the United States. When asked why, they don’t generally point to his strict adherence to the Ten Commandments; after all, they themselves attribute Christly titles to him such as “Chosen One” or “King of Israel,” and he gladly accepts this idolatrous praise. He never attends church, preferring to spend the Lord’s Day on one of his privately-owned golf courses where the U.S. government pays him many times his official salary as President every time he swings. He’s boasted of his adulteries and how he gets a special thrill out of sleeping with the wives of his friends. His life has been defined by his covetousness. He lies and slanders with the impunity of a crumb-covered toddler denying he’s eaten a cookie. Nor do his followers cite Trump’s strict adherence to that central statement of Christian ethics, the Sermon on the Mount. While Jesus said to love the poor, Trump has repeatedly committed charity fraud, taking money meant for children with cancer, for veterans, for anyone. When Jesus says, “Love your enemies,” Trump says, “When someone attacks me, I always attack back…except 100x more. This has nothing to do with a tirade but rather, a way of life!”—- a “way of life” much more like the Satanic Bible than the Gospels: “if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!” (Book of Satan III, 7). When Jesus councils humility and urges his followers to “take the lowest seat,” Trump literally shoves world leaders out of his way so that he can be in the front of the picture. Trump has even said that he’s never sinned, he’s never had to ask for forgiveness—-denying a central teaching of Christianity and arguably the central tenet of Evangelicalism. All of this and more, Evangelicals say, is simply irrelevant. What they care about, what proves that Donald John Trump is the greatest defender of Christianity ever and that “going against him” is a sin against God. is that he’s appointed judges who opposed abortion. Nothing else—-not slander, not incitement to violence, not calling for violence against his opponents or peaceful protestors or even people found innocent of any crime, not corruption, not any possible charge one could make——can possibly match the great good he’s done by appointing “pro-life” judges.

But what if this is not true? What if this vilest of sins, abortion, is in fact not a sin at all? What if the entire controversy was simply created by Republican politicians, and right-wing clergy wishing political power, as a club with which to beat up Democrats, to whip up conservative voters, and to relieve the would-be righteous of the burden of actually fulfilling all that stuff about forgiving enemies and giving to the poor? If that is true, then not only is the Evangelical adulation of Donald Trump unfounded, but it is actually blasphemous, idolatrous; in vain do they worship, teaching as divine commandments what are only human teachings (Mark 7:7).

I want to start by saying that this is aimed at Protestant Fundamentalists and other so-called “biblical literalists.” Roman Catholic teaching is not “literalism” and has never claimed to be. Catholics say there was a Church well before there was a Bible, and that the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church is a second source of divine revelation alongside the Bible. In fact, prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962) Catholics were generally discouraged from reading the Bible itself, since laypeople required the Church (through its priests or at least the missal) to interpret it correctly. Catholic teaching on abortion has changed over time, as the judges in Roe v. Wade themselves noted; it was never solely based on the Bible, which hasn’t changed, but also on Catholic philosophical and theological teachings, on changing scientific understanding of reproduction, and on papal authority. Of course, if you are Catholic and it is part of your faith that even early-term abortion is a sin, you should follow that teaching; for whatever is not of faith, is sin. But good Catholics like Charles and Daniel Carroll, leaders of the American Revolution and early Constitutional debates, might not have believed this, since many prominent Doctors of the Church (including St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas) held that the fetus did not gain a human soul until at least forty days after conception. Early-term abortion might have required penance in the medieval Church, but it wasn’t murder. Only as the biology of reproduction was more fully understood did the Church settle on conception as the moment of ensoulment, in the 1800s. Given that history, the Supreme Court asks in its Roe v. Wade decision, how can we impose one religion’s view on the nation? And not only one religion’s view, but one part of one religion, and only one part of the historical view of that one part of that one religion? Catholics should follow their faith, and they have every right to try to persuade others to follow their faith and their moral teachings. But as I said, they are not pretending this is the “literal, uninterpreted, direct Word of God.”

The Protestant “Religious Right,” as established by Rousas Rushdoony, Jerry Falwell Sr., Pat Robertson, W.A. Criswell, Phyllis Schafley and many others, do claim to be Biblical literalists, defending the original faith which every true Christian must embrace. Furthermore, they claim that since this is a Christian, and even a Protestant Christian nation, any true American must oppose abortion because our Founding Fathers established this nation to follow God’s law.   But what if that is not true? What if literally none of that is true? What if the Founding Fathers did not oppose abortion, what if this “Christian nation” allowed abortion for the first century of its existence, what if the Bible itself allows abortion, and what if the Religious Right was not even founded to fight abortion and did not oppose abortion when the Roe v. Wade ruling was originally pronounced?

Let’s work backwards through history. The Religious Right (as we understand generally understand it) was originally founded to defend segregation: specifically, the right of private Protestant Christian schools to exclude black students based on their claim that the “clear, literal truth of the Bible” mandated that the races should remain separate. Their argument was that God created the various races and nationalities and assigned each to live in different parts of the world; if God had wanted them to all live together He wouldn’t have confused their language at the Tower of Babel and scattered them across the earth. When the Brown v. Board of Education ruling came down, requiring desegregation of public schools, white Protestant Christian racists began establishing private religious schools where they could keep minority children out based not on the now-debunked “separate but equal” argument, but because it was their religion. One of the more prominent of these was Bob Jones University. The U.S. government threatened Bob Jones with loss of tax-exempt status and all federal support if they did not allow non-white students to enroll and take classes with the same rights as every white student.

Protestant conservatives fought the Federal government for years to protect the tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University and other overtly racist institutions claiming religious backing for their discrimination. In the end, they lost, and Bob Jones was forced to at least officially cease discrimination on the basis of race. However, by that time a number of Protestant pastors and activists had organized and campaigned, legally and politically, for years, and had built a strong grass-roots organization which we today would call the “Religious Right.” At the same time Paul Weyrich, a Republican activist, had been working for years to lure Evangelicals away from the Democratic party and into the Republican camp. Now there was this network of politically involved and ambitious Evangelical clergy, if only they could stay together. After the final court ruling against Bob Jones, there was a conference call between a number of these Evangelical activists, to plan their next move. They had an organization, and at least the beginning of a movement. Fighting on behalf of segregationist religious institutions had brought Evangelicals into politics more forcefully than they had been since the disaster of the Scopes Monkey Trial. They didn’t want to lose that momentum, and that chance to reclaim political and cultural leadership of the nation. They needed a cause, something that they could rally around and could rally their congregations around. Some anonymous voice suggested, “What about abortion?”

Up until then, abortion had been a Catholic issue. Protestants opposed sex out of wedlock, but had no theological stance against abortion per se. The legal opposition to abortion in the USA was primarily driven by the anti-sex campaign of Anthony Comstock, a moralistic zealot who fought birth control, pornography, sex toys and anything else he considered “obscene.” Thus the opposition to abortion was moral, not theological; the feeling among anti-abortionists was that anything that made sex easier was immoral, unless the sex was necessary for married procreation. Prominent Evangelical leaders, such as W. A. Criswell, were at least moderately pro-choice, as was the Southern Baptist Convention overall. Politically, even vigorous conservatives like Barry Goldwater could be found in leadership positions in Planned Parenthood. But some six years after the Roe v. Wade ruling, Protestant Fundamentalists began working to convince other Evangelical clergy and congregations that abortion was not only an invitation to free love, but a sin against God, and that the clear and unvarnished Scripture said so.

And that is where we are now. Abortion was once almost entirely a Catholic issue; but for purely political reasons, white Protestant Evangelical leaders decided to create a new sin, to make it the centerpiece of their moral teaching and political organizing, and to use that issue to bring White Evangelicalism into the Republican fold. Once abortion would have been a personal matter for Protestants, a decision each individual made after consulting God in prayer and their doctor in the clinic. Now, it has become a shibboleth for all would-be religious conservatives, and even for irreligious conservatives. A businessman can be convicted of thousands of acts of fraud, can boast of his adulteries, can do business with known criminals, can brag about bribing politicians, can brag about his history of sexual assault and improprieties even with underage beauty-pageant contestants, can reject the words of Jesus about forgiving others and the words of Paul about the need for repentance, and can still win 80% or more of white Evangelical votes. So long as that politician opposes abortion and gay rights, there is literally no other sin he can commit that would strike Evangelicals as disqualifying. And while there are certainly Scriptures in the Torah and in Paul that oppose homosexuality, there is, I repeat, nothing in the Bible that condemns abortion.

It could be argued that in the 1970s the culture was becoming excessively libertine. Drug use, promiscuity, and general frivolity were praised everywhere, or so it seemed. Even “conservative” mainstream entertainment suggested that the society was falling apart, from the “Dirty Harry” and other movies where the “good guys” upholding law-and-order must turn vigilante against their incompetent and feckless bosses, to cop shows as diverse as “Kojak” and “Barney Miller” showing how all the police offices were shabby, with antiquated equipment, the cops themselves overworked, and generally showing a legal and law enforcement system underfunded and on the verge of collapse. It isn’t surprising that the message of the Religious Right found a sympathetic audience. The nation was struggling economically, the social fabric was frayed, we had seen riots and assassinations and domestic terrorism left and right, and millions of Americans expected a nuclear apocalypse in their lifetimes. Leaders such as Jerry Falwell Sr. and Pat Robinson spoke to this situation and urged America to reform itself morally. As a college student in the 1970s I shared some of those concerns, if not the near-panic that others felt.

But over time, worries about all these other excesses, and concerns about proclaiming the Gospel, seem to have slipped into the shadow of the one great monstrosity, Abortion. A billionaire playboy who indulged in virtually every excess of the 1970s, and who said he’d never had a sin to repent despite his life of drug-fueled sex parties, was not only accepted but is now praised in literally messianic terms. When nonbelievers look at the words of Jesus written in the Bible, about forgiving and loving and caring for the poor and humble, and then look at the modern Nero to whom Evangelicals make obeisance, the Gospel itself is discredited (Romans 2:24). Preaching and calling the nation to repentance has been replaced by power-politics, and as a result the desire for a gentle Shepherd had been replaced by a longing for a “strong man” who will protect his followers and humiliate their opponents. And what is most striking to me is that the Right seems largely unaware of how their message and values have changed, and how recent all those changes are.

The actual Biblical backing for this literalist anti-abortionist stance is surprisingly weak. As W. A. Criswell noted, the Genesis account of Creation states that Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils (Gen. 2:7). The Hebrew understanding of the nature of human life was that it was a living body; it did not preexist the body, and when it died and went to Sheol it was largely devoid of personality. The Psalms regularly depict the afterlife as a gloomy place regardless of whether one was “good” or “evil” (see Ps 6:5, 115:17 as examples). That is why Christians preached “the resurrection of the dead,” which was “to Greeks foolishness.” To the Greeks, and specifically to Platonism which was the dominant philosophy of the time, souls were immortal: they existed before birth, existed after death and were reborn into bodies according to their deeds and personalities (see Phaedo). Much Christian thinking about souls owes more to this pagan philosophy than to Hebrew understanding, because it was the common way of thought among so many early Christians. In this regard the Sadducees, who denied all notion of an afterlife, were more “fundamentalist” than were their Pharisee rivals, because the Sadducees rejected all Scripture except the Torah, and rejected the notion of an afterlife (Luke 20:27-33, Acts 23:8).   Much of the later debate about “ensoulment” depends on this Platonic metaphysic that Christians inherited from their culture, their previous lives as pagans, and from Neoplatonic philosophy which influenced important Christian theologians such as Origen and Augustine.  The original Christian teaching was much more in line with the Hebrew understanding:  that the dead are dead, and our hope in in a resurrection of the body, when both body and its animating soul will be restored to life by God, rather than in a soul that either was floating around in Heaven waiting to be born or which floats around after death waiting to be reborn.

The Torah did not have an idea of life prior to birth, and its concern was primarily for God’s blessing in this life. The famous Biblical quote, “Choose life,” had nothing to do with abortion; it is an admonition to obey the Torah so that God will grant you, the adult hearing these words, a long life (Deut 30:15-20). Exodus 21:22-25 states that if two men are fighting and accidentally injure a pregnant woman so that she miscarries, this is treated as a civil crime against the woman’s husband, not as a murder; only if there is injury to the woman is there punishment of “life for life.” Later Christian attempts to interpret this as not referring to the woman’s injury but only to the child’s does not fit the original Hebrew or the history of Jewish interpretation. It also does not fit with Numbers 5:11-31, which actually requires abortion in the case of suspected but unproven adultery. And while there are passages in the Prophets and the Psalms about how God knew me before I was born, while I was being made and so on, these are mostly poetry and intended as imagery and praise rather than scientific statements of the biology of personhood. Anyone who thinks the Bible does not use imagery or metaphor needs to explain how God walked through the Garden, sat on His throne in Heaven, or wrestled with Leviathan. The straightforward passages must guide our understanding of the less straightforward; and in this case, the Torah indicates that the fetus is not the same as an adult life. It is special, it is precious from the moment of conception; it is even said to be a blessing from God. But the Torah puts it in the hands of the parents, and does not tell the government to impose its will on the family.

I am not saying that abortion is morally permissible. I am not saying abortion is impermissible, either. I am saying that it is a moral decision, and requires the consideration of philosophers as well as religious and legal experts. It is not as straightforward as it is depicted by The Right, who did not even care much about it until it became a convenient club with which to beat The Left and a convenient flag to rally around. If it is recognized as a serious issue, nothing more or less, then people of good will can debate it and seek moral consensus. But today, people of insincere political ambition treat it as the highest commandment, outweighing everything the Bible and human moral reason has to say about racism, sexism, social justice, feeding the hungry, providing clean air and water for our children and their children’s children, or providing a sound economy, or peace, or anything else. Every sin, every incompetence, every corruption, every blasphemy has been forgiven by The Right so long as the corrupt, blasphemous, stupid, mentally unstable and unrepentant sinner is a president willing to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Literally all morality, all political reason, and all religion has been overturned and buried beneath the one commandment: Thou Shalt Not Allow a Woman to Choose to Abort a Pregnancy, for Woman is Too Immature, Unstable and Wicked to Make Choices On Her Own. Millions of the so-called Party of Lincoln are ready to require rape and child molestation victims to have their attackers’ babies, which is the very definition of sexual slavery. These people say it is morally necessary to require a woman to risk her health and her life, to give up nine months of her life to make whatever sacrifice she must to try to ensure a healthy pregnancy, and will gladly shame her if her pregnancy is outside of wedlock regardless of the circumstances——but if we require a rich man to pay even one percent more in taxes so that we can feed, cloth and shelter that baby once it is born, as Jesus commanded us to do, then that is said to be immoral, to be exploitation of the poor persecuted rich person, as a punishment for being rich, and even slavery. Making a woman give up at least most of a year and then endure greater pain than most men will ever know—-that is good and righteous; but making a man obey the express word of God to clothe, feed and shelter the poor, even when he can do it with the money he was going to pay for a tenth yacht—-that is horrible, unthinkable, slavery! How truly Isaiah prophesied of this generation: they set aside the word of God and replace it with the commandments of men.

Recognizing that abortion is a moral issue, as is taxation, adultery, political corruption, hunger, the environment and the rest would mean that we could consider all the moral duties and moral values in this issue. It would mean that we would not allow ourselves to treat the rights of women who are born and persons according to the Constitution matter less than future persons who are not considered persons under the Constitution. It is possible to argue that abortion is morally wrong without resorting the idolatry of the so-called “pro-life movement.” Granted, that would mean having to actually argue, which means listening to both sides, offering reasons the other side can understand, and striving for compromise that preserves values both sides respect instead of relying on legal force, murdering doctors and other attempts to replace civility with power and oppression.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

 

Abelfatah, Rund. “‘Throughline” Traces Evangelicals’ History on the Abortion Issue.” NPR June 20, 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734303135/throughline-traces-evangelicals-history-on-the-abortion-issue

 

Balmer, Randall. “The Real Origins of the Religious Right.” Politico. May 27, 2014: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133.

 

Ravitz, Jessica. “The Surprising History of Abortion in the United States.” CNN. June 27, 2016: https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html