Evangelicals, Ron Paul and War
Is supporting war more important for evangelicals than their social values? Isn’t Ron Paul a social conservative? He opposes abortion, gay marriage and promiscuous sex, he has never been divorced and certainly supports family values, but he believes in limited government. Two of his brothers are ministers. Why then are evangelical leaders now opting for Santorum, and before him Gingrich? The one big area of disagreement with Ron Paul is war; foreign wars and the domestic one against drugs. For this they oppose him. Santorum supports unending war in Afghanistan, backing Israel without limit and a new war against Iran.
Earlier there was a major far leftist candidate who supported all the issues that evangelicals oppose, and was a vocal proponent for expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank and promoting the war on Iraq. He was overjoyed when open homosexuality became allowed in the military, he supports abortion, gay marriage and the leftist agenda for big, intrusive government; power to labor unions as well as expanded, unconstitutional police powers within the U.S. Evangelicals adore him and went all out to support him 2006, when he lost his primary race and ran as an independent for the Senate. He is Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
All this shows how evangelical leaders put support for wars ahead of their social values. Their support includes every new law giving Washington ever greater police powers over American citizens, such as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and the recent National Defense Authorization Act which tear asunder much of the Bill of Rights. Most also supported torture of prisoners of war (with the notable exception of Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship). All this comes with their “social values.”
They loved George Bush. They were major supporters of the two wars against Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. Fear and ignorance of the outside world joins together with a belief that God uniquely favors America. Mostly poorer Southerners they also have strong affinity for the American military and its industrial complex. In addition, author Chris Hedges has written about how they are joined by many Northern blue collar families hurting from new technology, globalization, and poor schools in seeing government as out to undermine their communities and social values. Their solace is to hope for Armageddon. I know many of their leaders from the Reagan era when they joined in supporting his anti-communism, indeed in making his electoral victories possible. While the older ones consider my views against empire and for peace in the Middle East anathema, I find many younger ones much more receptive. Pollster John Zogby also notes that there is a strong divide on issues between evangelicals over 40 and younger ones. Christian economist Gary North wrote some years ago that they numbered about 20 million. He told me also that younger evangelicals were not so enthused with end of the world dreams as their elders. If you think this view excessive see this video of Tom Delay hoping for the end times and others saying that the Anti-Christ is a leader who seeks peace in the Middle East.
This is the dark side to their religious world view. Their fantasy is often sung to uplifting gospel music of a soon-to-come Paradise. Its concomitant message (not openly discussed) is that God will then (brutally) kill the entire human race except for Christians (for many meaning “born again” Christians). The Left Behind book series dwells on how God will eviscerate, torture and kill all non-Christians. Why so many of them dwell on this is not clear. Perhaps it gives meaning to their lives. Or instilling fear is a way to keep them in line under their preachers’ domination. In any case they are cleverly used by the Israeli lobby, imperial neoconservatives and (more profitably) by the military industrial complex.
The Book of Revelation is the integral passion of their foreign policy, their belief that the founding of Israel foretells the imminent Second Coming, conversion or death for Jews and eternal happiness for themselves in Heaven. In their view America, as God’s instrument, should encourage wars and chaos in the Middle East in order to “hurry up” God and His agenda. One of their leaders is John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel. Senator Lieberman is a friend and favored speaker at his events. I have described The Strangest Alliance in History about how each side thinks it is using the other for its own ends.
Evangelicals like to quote a biblical text that God favors those who favor the Jews. However, for them they mean only Jews who make wars and contribute to chaos in the Middle East. Jewish peacemakers are cursed in their view. No tears were shed for Yitzak Rabin who negotiated peace with the Arabs until Israeli fanatics killed him. Indeed Pat Robertson said that Rabin was killed because he was trying to thwart God’s plans.
Herein lies their antipathy to Ron Paul, who in all other respects is a family values conservative. Indeed, most of them are Baptists who used to look upon Catholics with suspicion. Today they would prefer Senator Santorum or Newt Gingrich, both Catholics, to Ron Paul, who is Baptist. Santorum is no libertarian believer in limited government (he would use government to enforce his social values) and urges absolute support for Israel and the military industrial complex. These evangelicals don’t want peace because it would mean postponing Armageddon. That’s why their leaders oppose Ron Paul.
Jon Basil Utley is Associate Publisher of The American Conservative.
Bravo. Posing as a devout man of God, John Hagee promotes endless war in the Middle East, hoping it will bring on The Big Event and destroy the planet. The ghastly Joe Lieberman loves the guy.
“These evangelicals don’t want peace because it would mean postponing Armageddon.”
That’s a bit overblown. Projecting this tenant of elite, CUfI/Pat Robertson, political class Evangelical thought onto any semblance of the “masses” just isn’t accurate. Most neoconservative Evangelicals genuinely believe in the national defense narrative, not a Christian version of end times acceleration.
I’ve been assuming that what the those who aren’t pro-Ron Paul fear losing, if he sould be elected, is their rudimentary, working knowledge of the monetary system.
Members of the media do nothing to dissuade anyone from such a belief, so either I’m wrong or else would-be Paul supporters don’t comprise a voting block large enough to worry about.
If I’m remembering rightly, they booed Ron Paul last go-around as well, at the Family Values Coalition, when he pointed out that Jesus Christ was the Prince of Peace
That about turned my stomach. There’s a sickness in American conservatism. A sickness.
“Is supporting war more important for evangelicals than their social values?”
Short answer: Yes.
The Endless War lobby has successfully managed to propagandize war and all things military as not just an important American value, but the most important one, transcending all others. The people who hate us don’t hate us for our freedoms; they hate us for what has become our ingrained blood lust, to which we have sacrificed our freedoms.
Cui bono? Call Bibi — he’s got that answer for you.
Excellent article. As a Reformed Christian, I must state that dispensational theology has caused great havoc on the church and the world for the past half-century. Scripture teaches us that the blesssings of Abraham have been transmitted to ALL nations via Christ.
I am greatly upset that the actions of this government have resulted in many believers in Iraq fleeing their country. I grow tired of war. Spot on.
“Evangelicals like to quote a biblical text that God favors those who favor the Jews. ”
This is counterintuitive – to say the least.
Insofar as these people take “the Jews” to be synonymous with “Israel”, you’d think they might have noticed the inverse relationship between rising levels of political, economic and military aid to Israel and the trajectory of America’s economic and strategic decline. Not to mention moral and spiritual rot.
You’ve eloquently expressed my own opinion, better than I could, bravo.
I’m a paleo-conservative, and a Ron Paul fanatic. Yes, I know he’s supposed to be a libertarian according to the media. Sadly, Paul himself identifies mostly with libertarianism. But it’s not an either/or situation. Paleo-cons and paleo-libs are inches apart, and miles apart from the rest. Ron Paul is just as much a Paleo-con as he is libertarian.
I won’t get into the warped logic of many evangelicals. The topic is encyclopedic, and depressing.
Terrific piece Mr. Utley, in a way. Read in conjunction with that other great piece recently by Michael Brendan Dougherty about how evangelicals aren’t just part of the Republican coalition but that they *are* the Republican coalition, it’s terrific, but terrifically depressing.
Lovely to think that for the evangelicals the *more* apocalyptic a President makes things the better.
No wonder they loved Mr. Bush.
Great article. The lack of evangelical support for Ron Paul is a clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of so many Christian conservatives, not mention the degree to which the evangelical- the GOP base, supposedly- has been co-opted by the neocons.
What was interesting to me in this article was the difference in views that appears at the 40 year old mark among evangelicals in that Zogby poll. Ron Paul is getting the majority of his support from under-40s. It’s all suggestive of some pretty big generational gaps in values. It is all very encouraging.
Reagan was called a warmonger by Rothbard ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html )and Reagan is pretty much a conservative model for every conservative. Reagan lived in a crisis, but did not backed up to the red terror at that time.. he supported going overseas because is worse to bring war home. No wonder Ron Paul call his conservative policies a disaster ( http://www.therightscoop.com/ron-paul-reagans-conservative-agenda-was-a-disaster/ ). I quite don’t understand why libertarians started thinking they are conservatives, and conservatives who disagree with their leftist pacifism is neocon…
Also, Ron Paul life is ok, but conservatives do support federal law banning abortion, are in favor of war on drugs and against prostitution and porn, things RP may disagree personally but won’t enforce it. To think christian conservatives disagree on ron paul only because his more-left-than-obama pacifist foreign policy is not getting the big picture.
Bill Maher and a lot of liberals will gain democrat votes for ron paul, and instead of getting a clue they started propagandizing ron paul is uniting the country, ron paul will make conservatives vote for obama, how this is uniting? Conservatives understand well that is better being broke than being dead.
Evangelical should be far more skeptical of foreign interventions and embrace a more humble localist agenda when it comes to domestic legislation regarding morality. I think, unfortunately, that the way that this article, as well as other recent articles on the subject of evangelicals, has been written will do more to alienate than it will to enlighten.
I send born again Christians to this site and hope that they will find an education. Let’s, whenever possible, prefer the rhetoric of persuasion to that of excoriation.
What truly brings despair to my soul is the damage these war-promoting evangelicals do to the cause of Christ. I always wait for RP to ask the self-described Jesus candidate Santorum where in the New Testament is preemptive war is mentioned.
Re: There’s a sickness in American conservatism.
It’s more than that: it would seem that a non-trivial swathe of Christianity in this country has lost all track of Jesus and has been shanghaied by the Devil.
Many generalizations and errors about what Christians believe. I am not sure if all of your statements about the political candidates are true since I have no way of checking your facts.Many things are said of people in politics. Having half truths told of them is part of the campaign propaganda.
As for Ron Paul; he is courageous to speak out for legalizing a drug which seems to be what some people need to cope with their everyday lives and provide some recreation. Like alcohol and gambling they can be addictive.Should the government make them criminals? The government should do the same thing it did with smoking ,, actively campaign the dangers and gather taxes from their use.,
This constant paleocon insistence that the only reason to continue supporting Israel is Christian millenarianism is idiotic. But keep wondering why prominent conservatives don’t care about your anti-war/anti-Israeli Popular Front magazine guys.
Pretty rich to critique Christian conservatives as pro-war only when this magazine has ZERO guiding principles besides anti-interventionism, and in the past repeatedly aligned itself with writers of the Left so long as they shared that view.
“These evangelicals don’t want peace because it would mean postponing Armageddon.”
Pretending that a large portion of Evangelical Christians believe that is like pretending most Jews share Rabbi Yitzak Ginsburg’s views on organ harvesting, or pretending most Muslim’s share Osama bin Laden’s zeal for suicide bombing: not accurate, but emotionally satisfying for those who want an excuse to hate the group in question.
“Support Israel to hasten the Lord’s return” is a minority viewpoint among Christian Zionists, who in turn comprise a minority of Evangelicals as a whole.
As for Pat Robertson, he is to Evangelical Christians what Abe Foxman is to Jews, or Al Sharpton is to Blacks: an often embarrassing self-appointed spokesman.
When Bush was president, many liberals had a facile (and mistaken) explaination for the Iraq war: Bush wants personal revenge. “The bastard tried to kill my Pa!” Pat Buchanan dug deeper in his book “Where the Right Went Wrong”, and exposed the role of Richard Perle and other Neocons who had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq since the Clinton years, and who used 9/11 as an opportunity to hijack the Bush administartion and implement their long developed plans.
Similarly, you need to get past the simplistic liberal narrative (“Jesus freaks want Armeggedon!”) if you want to understand 1. Why Paul isn’t winning the evangelical vote 2. Why the Christian Zionists exist, and the religious right follows the foreign policy lead of the interventionist neocons, instead of following the foreign policy lead of the non-interventionist paleocons or libertarians.
First, foreign policy is not the only significant difference between Paul and the other candidates. The candidates also have significant differences on the immigration issue. Santorum’s statements have earned him an A- score from NumbersUSA, while Mitt Romney gets a C+ and the endorsement of prominent restrictionist Kris Kobach, and Paul gets a F. With unemployment as high as it is, and in a state like South Carolina which has an Arizona style immigration enforcement law, this is significant. Furthermore, as Utley admits, “Santorum is no libertarian believer in limited government (he would use government to enforce his social values)”. This is a perfectly legitimate reason for social conservatives to prefer Santorum. He is more likely than the libertarian Paul to crack down on the festering abomination that is the pornography “industry”, which no pre-1960s American leader, left right or center, would have tolerated.
On issue after issue, abortion, gay rights, porn, death penalty, prayer in school, war on Christmas, legalization of marijuana, the alleged need to apologize for 1950s anti-CPUSA blacklists etc. etc. a majority of evangelicals take the conservative position and a majority of Jews take the liberal position. They constitute, in fact, the two extreme poles of the social issues political spectrum. I think evangelicals are vaguely aware of this trend and vaguely useasy about it, vaguely worried that they might be accussed of that worst imaginable sin against PC, anti-semitism. Therefore, they are pathetically eager to take advantage of any opportunity to put themselves on the same side of an issue as a substantial % of American Jews, to prove that they aren’t anti-semites. Support for Israel provides one such opportunity.
Imagine Christianity turned into a murder religion.
I’m a Republican way over 40, but count me as believing Dr. Paul the sanest in the room. Those who booed his obviously truthful statement are making up their own faux religion in support of what their own fallen hearts want already, self-righteously justified by the pretense that their self-manufactured “War Jesus” isn’t just another antichrist.
“He was a murderer from the beginning.”
Christians are instructed to bring about the the return of Christ through spreading the gospel to the whole world, not by promoting a war that will destroy humanity. Armagedden may be the inevitable consequence of the evil behavior of the human race, but to pursue policies to bring about Armageddon is the ultimate evil.
I feel that Christians have fallen away from the teachings of Jesus. They focus too much on the death of Jesus and this translates into a society ruled by death. Despite our beliefs in any religion we should inspire Christians to look more to the life of Jesus for inspiration. I think when Dr. Paul takes over and allows communities their voice back we will see a rebirth of altruism. People will again look locally to their neighbor. Then Jesus’ message of love will shine in our lives.
I also say bravo. This is a gutsy column and its columnist Utley is right on target.
On a side note I just returned from the Midwest where I was spending time with my dying grandfather who is a Roman Catholic. A born again evangelical relative of mine had the nerve to tell me that because of my grandfather’s state of health that he is worried that my grandfather won’t be able to recieve Christ before he dies (implying that my grandfather is hell bound). When I pointed out that my grandfather had been attending mass every Sunday for years then this same relative said that Catholics prayed to Mary and that they needed to accept Christ to be SAVED. I held my tongue, but upon visiting my Grandfather I handed him a scapular and prayed the Our Father and several Hail Mary’s with him. I spoke with a cousin about this born again Christian relatives comments and my cousin said that our relative was an evangelical bigot that once told him that his half brother was automatically going to hell because he was a homosexual. By the way my cousin is a staunch conservative who leans libertarian on social issues (he’s not religious). I guess what I’m saying is that many (not all) evangelical Christian circles are not unlike Wahhabist Sunni circles. They are both fundamentalist with no tolerance for others who do not share their religious beliefs and a taste for the blood of the infidels whoever they may be.
I am an Orthodox Christian and a staunch social conservative and I will be voting for Ron Paul (a Baptist) over two Roman Catholics and a Mormon and the main reason for this is that Ron Paul is the only one supporting a Christian Just War Doctrine and his views on foreign policy are much more in line with traditional Orthodox and or traditional Roman Catholic teaching on how a nation should conduct foreign policy than Santorum, Gingrich or Romney. Also this man is a principled man who will never compromise when it comes to the Constitution. I most definitely have my differences with Paul especially on labor issues (I am a staunch trade unionist) but I have no doubt that you can’t find a more honest man on stage and his views on ending the endless wars, reigning in the Empire, ending NAFTA and GATT and returning to a metals backed currency are what solidly tips my vote in Paul’s favor.
I’ve read about the Evangelicals and their push for Armageddon before. If I were them, I’d back off a bit on that one. God will come when he’s good and ready, not because some Evangelical wishes it. He’ll come when the AntiChrist is about to destroy the world, period. It appears the only way to push up the Lord’s schedule is to get behind the AntiChrist, and that has to be a lose-lose situation that will only anger the Lord. I don’t believe that God will open the pearly gates to anyone who backs the AC.
Just so. Yes, it’s a glaring, even harsh spotlight. Still a spotlight that needs to shine.
I wonder, how to seperate the leaders from the folks in the pews?
Am I asking too much?
Perhaps, focus on the New Testament other than Revelations. The Gospels have a good message which speaks to the brotherhood of man. Jesus spoke of and to the leaders, identifying their error & hypocrisy.
His message is true & relevant today.
Ben Nagle wrote:
“Let’s, whenever possible, prefer the rhetoric of persuasion to that of excoriation.”
Well given the only other option would seem to be marginalization which can seem nasty, that’s a nice thought, Ben. But the problem is what you’d really have to try persuading them of.
It wouldn’t after all merely be that the policies they prefer have or will result in bad consequences: They *like* bad consequences. They are evidence of the nearness of their “End Times.” By definition they can’t wait for Christ to come down and boil your bowels until you explode.
Instead it would have to be that their entire worldview (indeed cosmos-view) is wrong and … particularly impossible … that no, they aren’t different from everyone else and aren’t special and chosen to be spared from being broiled.
If they haven’t been persuaded since Mencken’s time (and indeed have gotten worse), despite essentially being left alone to consider what more nonsense science has made of their beliefs, what’s the hope?
I support Dr. Ron Paul without reservation. He is the only candidate who understands America’s financial, economic, and moral dilemma. He is also a constitutionalist. Therefore, he does not believe the federal government has any constitutional mandate to fight the drug war, pornography, etc., etc. These are issues to be addressed by each state. Having a sound currency will radically curtail America’s adventurism. As of now, America is a bankrupt country. Once the American dollar loses reserve currency status, hyperin-
flation will set in. As a German, I know what that means.
As far as the Iraq and Afganistan wars are concerned, they should never have been fought: The elimination of Osama bin Laden was an issue that should have been addressed exclusively by the CIA; the Iraq war was fought against the advice of 16 US agencies who stated that Iraq is not one of America’s strategic interests, Mr. Bush withheld this information from Congress. Also, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Messrs. Bush and Cheney wanted this war to gain control of Iraq’s oil resources, most of which have not yet been fully developed.
The book of Revelation is primarily a historical book that prepared the Christians of that day for cataclysmic events that culminated in 70 A.D. Reformed scholars believe, and I agree, that Nero was the Antichrist. The unfulfilled prophecies of the book of Revelation primarily refer to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of animal sacrifices is totally off the wall. How can animal sacrifices become a substitute for the perfect sacrifice: the Lord Jesus Christ? While the Jews remain the apple of God’s eye, there is only one way to become a Christian for Jews and Gentiles alike: salvation through Jesus Christ.
Sadly, dispensational theology has done unspeakable harm to the cause of Christianity.
I grew up around an eclectic group of evangelicals. You might, on the rarest of occasions, stumble upon a straw man who supports Israel in hopes of ringing in the second coming. However, this view is highly irregular. The majority of evangelicals, when asked why they support Israel, lay out a sort of David vs. Goliath scenario. They believe that without our assistance the small nation of Israel will be crushed by all the surrounding larger countries who want its land and want to see the Jews dead. They believe that their view is not one of fire and brimstone, but one of compassion and kindness.
Those of us who hope for a more realist or perhaps even noninterventionist foreign policy should seek to understand those we hope to persuade. You will convince a lot more people with this kind of argument (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2003/oct/06/00017/) opposing the invasion of Iraq then you will with this sort of ungenerous interpretation of what motivates those with whom you disagree.
Movement conservatives need a place where they can recieve an education in an alternative, less militaristic tradition of American foreign policy. This might be it.
The scariest part of the US political landscape is the realization that most Republicans, including the evangelical hordes, are not in fact true conservatives.
Excellent article, Jon. Cliff Kiracofe, my old friend and former colleague on Senator Helms’s staff, has written an excellent history of the founding of the “Dispensationalist” Christian view in England and its export to America, where it caught on and produced the Hagees of today’s world.
Dark Crusade: Christian Zionism and US Foreign Policy (International Library of Political Studies) [Paperback]
Well worth reading for understanding and more.
The problem with the American evangelicals is that they love the American Empire more that Jesus Christ.
Evangelicals don’t “love” wars, They did defend the middle east conflict with gusto when leftists derided it as a quest for oil or an imperialistic killing spree. They saw a moral mandate in removing a tyrant and helping to establish something that resembling a democracy. That was always in contrast to the libertarians’ stance against nation building.
Faith always had an integral role in shaping civil rights, immigration and wars. Is there a military lore or triumph that’s completely devoid of religious context, or vice versa? The cross, the prayers, the hymnals? It always struck me as curious how some people are genuinely perplexed that many Christians are pro military.Or why the (democrat) black church and Latino Catholics favor traditional marriage. Or that mainstream Christians actually support amnesty.
The best way for Ron Paul to attract the evangelicals is to point out that Islamic fanatics won’t accept freedom by any means, including occupations that dismantle oppressive regimes. The dubious “Arab Spring” is instructive in that regard. He needs to abandon the divisive “It’s all our fault” or the naive assumption that fanatics will turn to peace when we act in good faith.
Should evangelicals support a candidate who printed racist newsletters and accepted donations from known bigots? Someone who bought into kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories? He’s as flawed as other candidates out there, and he’s not even the best libertarian candidate out there. I don’t care it’s Ron Paul or Sarah Palin, blind devotion to one politician doesn’t pay off.
“Evangelicals” are all over the map – from the megachurch types just looking for a place to raise their kids, to pseudo-intellectuals dissecting every line of scripture. I don’t think it’s safe to generalize their beliefs, if for no other reason than so many christians are easily manipulated to believe the topic of the week.
That said, the ‘pro-armageddon’/pro-israel types certainly exist – I met with them for many years as a fundamentalist, non-denominational, dispensationalist christian. What is more important is how many of them there are – and I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that.
“It always struck me as curious how some people are genuinely perplexed that many Christians are pro military”
Maybe those people own a Bible and read the Sermon on the Mount?
Hey people, lets not be so PC! Almost every evangelical I’ve met is a flaming screwball, and when it comes to the military/war dangerous screwballs to boot. Apparently family values go right out the window when attacking perceived threats from abroad. Most fanatically support attacking Iran, even though it would potentially cause a lot of radiation pollution. Also they think blowing up the dome of the rock is a good idea, so Israel can build a new temple and bring about the second coming. These peoples perceptions of Christianity are extremely infantile and their theology hopelessly muddled. Unfortunately they are a fairly large voting block. Lets hope for the best.
Mr. Mueller hit the nail on the head in his earlier comment. The premillennial dispensationalism so often associated with American evangelicals assigns a scripturally unwarranted importance to the modern nation-state of Israel and, therefore, strongly influences evangelical views on foreign policy in the Middle East. I would go so far to say that premillennialism or “Left Behind-ism” is a heretical doctrine of fairly recent invention which I sincerely hope is completely discredited and abandoned within my lifetime to the great benefit of the Christians worldwide.
As far as I am aware, there is no standard evangelical line on soteriology. Case in point, look at this article by N.T. Wright in Christianity Today(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html). It is written by an evangelical Anglican in an evangelical magazine and, quite clearly, opposes dispensationalism.
All that I am trying to say here is, please, at the very least, attempt to understand those you disagree with and. Then, after some reflection, figure out how to convince them of the truth. Avoid, whenever possible,
There is like a whole generation of kids that grew up in that tradition that is going to be looking for answers that do not include war or statism. This could be one of the places they go.
Sorry about the long didactic comments. This is, I swear, the last one.
Cheers,
PC Ben
Jon Basil Utley, on evangelicals: “The one big area of disagreement with Ron Paul is war.”
As is true of most voters, there’s no evidence that evangelicals understand Paul’s proposed changes to the monetary system, much less that they agree or disagree with them.
Utley’s ideal version of Ron Paul–the person who’d make the best goat for article–is the one about whom nothing is known except that he’s against the war. I have the sneaking suspicion that that’s exactly the version that Utley drafted into service, here, and clothed as a candidate. Now that I think of it, I don’t even know whether his evangelicals are evangelicals.
Oh, and as for Utley’s mention of the presumably well-educated, especially in matters monetary, Pat Robertson: he could be the exception that proves Utley’s rule.
Ron Paul has a very simplistic and idealistic view of how the country should be governed economically, militarily, and socially. His pure market philosophy is not unlike Ayn Rand and her idolizer, Alan Greenspan whose discredited policies underscore the danger of lack of regulation.
While Paul is consistent in his message and raises important points for discussion, his die hard supporters, who are not the economic elite, have ask themselves how they would honestly fare in such an government with no safety net, no minimum wage, very little policing, and ceding US influence throughout the world to Russia and China.
This is not to say the current system doesn’t have problems – it clearly does. But Paul’s philosophy, while perhaps relevant before the industrial revolution, requires far more critical and objective analysis. What would happen if we discarded the Fed, went back to gold standard, pulled out the military everywhere, and drastically reduced or eliminated all federal agencies? Again, this is 2012, not 1812 – the world is far different.
I was disturbed to see a crowd that doubtless had many Evangelicals booing one of the central teachings of Christianity … and, indeed, of every moral system.
These fools should think long and hard about something else that Jesus said, in Matthew 7:21-23: ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
They might also consider that Matthew 7:1-2 is essentially a limited government, even libertarian message: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
@John Gruskos
“Santorum’s statements have earned him an A- score from NumbersUSA, while Mitt Romney gets a C+ and the endorsement of prominent restrictionist Kris Kobach, and Paul gets a F.”
I’m active on NumbersUSA and am voting for Paul above Santorum and Romney. This presidential primary has revealed to me that Numbers’ ratings are too dependent on the statements of those who will say anything to be elected to be worth much.
But it’s not just Evangelicals.who idealize Zionism. It’s also anti-Jewish Catholics like Bill Buckley (in his book on Anti-Semitism).
Because, you see, that”s really what idealization of Zionism is. It’s anti-Jewish.
Idealization of Zionism by anti-Jewish Christians is based upon a belief that the Covenant has been taken away from Jews and given as an exclusive monopoly to Christians. But these anti-Jewish Christians (like Bill Buckley) don’t want to appear anti-semitic), so what they very sneakily do is replace the eschatological Yahwistic covenant with a real estate transaction deriving from the Balfour Declaration.
Bill Buckley and his fellow Zionophiles, in other words, have immanentized the eschaton.
It’s a convenient way for such anti-Jewish Christians (like Buckley) to avoid appearing anti-semitic while simultaneously denying that the eschatological Yahwistic covenant has continued in being notwithstanding a second, Christian covenant.
And incidentally, Rocky R is completely off-base in comparing Ayn Rand to Alan Greenspan. I am absolutely not a Randian, but PLEASE, if you’re going to criticize her (and I do), criticize her for the right reasons. Whatever his youthful attachment to Rand, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan had absolutely nothing in common with Rand, who rendered apocalyptic devotion to the gold standard.
And yeah, some of Ron Paul’s ideas are screwy. But nowhere near as screwy as blowing up other peoples’ countries.
Interestingly I, as a Christian, am going to vote for Obama if Paul is not a nominee. How come Christian can be pro war is hard to comprehend. To stop the war is by far the biggest “family value” that a Christian should have. Stopping unnecessary war with Iran should be an overriding priority single issue vote over anything else. If not Paul why would I want to vote for candidate who already promised war with Iran ?
Excellent article. I am an evangelical Christian and live in Texas and I find that Mr. Utley is, unfortunately, quite right. This belief is pervasive. In my own non-denominational church most of my fellow Christians have some variation of this millenialism as their core doctrine. Israel has to be supported no matter how many Christians living in the West Bank are suffering. No matter that there is a very large peace movement in Israel itself. It doesn’t matter that Christ has told us to spread the Gospel to all nations including the Arab world. Where does this war lust come from? It baffles me. It is a very important belief system that threatens our freedoms and will lead to “perpetual war”, national bankruptcy.
Cary once i was having dinner with Fr. Samuel Haddad (Haddad is a very arab name if you don’t know) and we saw a protestant couple I knew. They asked if he was Catholic
“I’m Orthodox,” he said.
“That’s Jewish isn’t it?”
“No like the Greeks, the Russians, some of the Arabs.”
“Oh no! Not the Arabs, the Arabs aren’t Orthodox!”
The evangellicals don’t care about West bank Christians because they don’t believe they exist.
This article is full of ignorance and half-truths. As an evangelical, I do believe in supporting Israel and the Jewish people. But to believe that we support endless wars or hope to create chaos in the Middle East so the Apocalypse will ensue is just stupid. To print it is vicious propagandizing.
I think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is dangerous and puts America at risk. In a world of nuclear weapons, irrational Islamists, and other real threats, we must have a strong, assertive defense. That doesn’t mean that we should engage in the nation building we’ve seen over the last several years or that we shouldn’t retrench and re-prioritize our military posture. But we should re-establish a strong foreign policy and maintain an assertive posture in the world. With all the bad actors on the world stage, the one strong good nation must lead.
“His pure market philosophy is not unlike Ayn Rand and her idolizer, Alan Greenspan whose discredited policies underscore the danger of lack of regulation.”
I hear many leftists with this perception. I think you may want to look into the Austrian School’s relationship with Greenspan and the concept of central banking before you make such sweeping statements.
“I, as a Christian, am going to vote for Obama if Paul is not a nominee. How come Christian can be pro war is hard to comprehend.”
How someone can view Obama as not pro war is similarly hard to comprehend. Please look at Obama a bit more objectively.
@Scott. One of the biggest evangelical churches in the country is in the Washington area, Mclean Bible Church and it’s mission statement is simple, impact secular Washington with the message of Jesus Christ. That’s it. Go to the website “Mcleanbible.org” and you can see what they stand for, what they teach. You can view recent sermons, Yesterday’s Sunday January 22 will show beyond doubt that this is one group of evangelicals, again right in Washington itself whose sole focus is in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I share the concern so many of you with evangelicals who focus on politics, who focus on secular issues. But be aware that there are churches like Mclean that understand the command that Jesus gave “go into the world and preach the gospel” and are devoting all their resources to doing it.
Most evangelicals I know who do not support Paul, cite as their primary hurdle his support for repealing DADT, and his position on DOMA, rather his foreign policy positions.
So he loses some for not being a neocon on middle east foreign policy, but he loses at least as many for his stance on a litmus test social issue.
Earlier in this thread the kindly Ben Nagle posited that we should be considerate of evangelicals and try to persuade them of their errant ways.
I on the other hand was dubious given my sense that one would have to persuade them to essentially change their entire view of the cosmos.
Evangelical Ed Groover has now written in saying: “With all the bad actors on the world stage, the one strong good nation must lead.”
And given that Ed isn’t even an “End Times” evangelical based on this one line of his alone I stand by my dubiousness:
After all, only *one* “good” nation in all the whole-wide world? *All* the hundreds of others “bad”? (But gee, how happy the coincidence that Ed and most Evangelicals happen to live in the one good one!)
“Leading” all the others—or really “forcing” all the others? After all by definition they *are* all “bad,” and if not forcing them then why all the talk about our need to be militarily “strong” and to have an “assertive” stance in the world?
And, (regardless), “leading” them where exactly? Into … “to each his own”?
No, of course couldn’t be that because otherwise we wouldn’t need to be “leading” at all.
And thus of *course* it would have to be in the direction where the Bible says people should go. And that at the very least would have to mean something like “accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God,” or etc. at a minimum.
But just what exactly is the basis upon which “we” are in the position to tell others how to live and what to believe, *and* that all those *billions* of other non-Christian, non-Evangelicals are going to accept?
Oh, that’s right, again it’s the Bible and what that supposedly tells us about our superior position, and that’s right again, it doesn’t *matter* if all those billions of other accept that superiority or not, that’s what our “strong” and “assertive” military should be for.
Like I say, how do you persuade someone who—by definition—is guided not by reason but by what is, after all, its very antithesis which is “faith”?
Find a different Bible?
There can’t possibly ever be any consensus amongst evangelicals and protestants because they are all following their own (often biased and uninformed) interpretations of the Bible. What Utley is writing about here is the inevitable: one’s own private beliefs — held for whatever reason — are read into the Bible, and what “Christianity” is defined as is whatever has the majority support of the day.
Traditionally, Christians have looked to the Church for final guidance, NOT to the Bible, and NOT to private interpretation. This is called Catholicism. I invite any evangelicals / protestants posting here to start seriously considering coming back to the Church and Christianity as it has been traditionally practiced since the Ascension. This is a good place to start: http://chnetwork.org/converts/.
May the madness end through the work of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
God bless,
Tele
Sorry, one more to help: http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php. R.J. Stove, who writes for TAC has a very good story: http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/atheist-converts/item/96-atheist-convert-rj-stove.
God bless,
Tele
American Christians remain resolutely firm on the idea that marriage should be a disposable institution reserved for heterosexuals.
American Christians remain resolutely firm on the idea that a relatively dangerous drug should be widely available and socially approved of, even used in religious ceremonies, whereas a relatively safe drug should be met with the use of violence.
American Christians remain resolutely firm on the idea that 1-inch embryos are the cutest things in the universe, but fully formed human beings below the equator should be killed by the dozens of thousands.
In short, American Christians are resolutely firm in being the world’s largest hypocrites.
Telemachus:
Wow! Several leaps of logic there.
The Bible (like any book) means what it means. If one distorts what the text says (what you call “reading into”), that person is wrong. Period. There is not inevitable confusion. God working through history will sort it out.
You want The Church (meaning Rome) as our final authority? Thank you, no. Today, for reasons of its own, it wears a smiley face but not too long ago it was burning my Protestant forefathers at the stake. God doesn’t change and neither does the Bible. We may argue over interpretation but it doesn’t say one thing in 1600 and something different in 2012.
I can’t get around the technicality that Afghanistan and Iraq are not genuine wars –certainly not in the sunken aircraft carriers sense. The fact is evangelicals haven’t had to pay much of a price for their support of endless halfway sort of wars.
There is a similar lack of consequences in the drug war. Why would an evangelical prude care about the drug war? How many evangelicals know which end of a bong to light? Their social group isn’t often affected by prohibition.
First of all, thank you, herbert j in regards to Rome. That’s what I was thinking.
Second of all, I am saddened by the gross caricature of evangelicals in what I believed was a thoughtful magazine. Yes, there are a few whack-a-doodles out there. (You do realize that a lot of people will not support Ron Paul because they think his supporters are close-minded, pushy, rude and arrogant and they want no part of that.)
The author has demonstrated a lack of understanding of history, like why Christians have an infinity with Israel that has nothing to do with the present and/or the end times, as well as a misunderstanding of Christian soteriology. The view you speak of exists but it is a minority view and not considered orthodox.
Why not just articulate your views without disparaging those who disagree with you? The first way may win Paul some support, the second just confirms what many already suspect about this supporters.
Fred:
Although the appellation is distasteful to me, I qualify as an “evangelical” . Not only do I not know which end of a “bong” to light, I do not know nor care what on earth you are talking about.
My opposition to the drug war and our Afghanistan/Iraq adventures is primarily theological. The omnipotent Messianic State promises salvation to all (at a price) whether the recipients are grateful or not. They are lords of creation who can outlaw a plant if they so choose.
@ Fred – The fact is evangelicals haven’t had to pay much of a price for their support of endless halfway sort of wars.
I don’t understand this statement. Don’t evangelicals pay taxes? Isn’t it true that a large part of the military consists of the more religious, conservative type?
@Fred – Why would an evangelical prude care about the drug war?
My guess on the answer to that question is that it is Christians in large part that are involved in picking up the pieces of lives destroyed by drug abuse and they believe, rightly or not, that legalizing it will result in more addiction and therefore more ruined lives.
I recommend “Why Christian Zionism is nothing short of outright heresy”, by Craig Nielson
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/the-evangelist-lobby.html
With all the bad actors on the world stage, the one strong good nation must lead
There is a marked difference between leading, and forcing others along.
Nothing wrong with leading by example.
You want The Church (meaning Rome) as our final authority? Thank you, no. Today, for reasons of its own, it wears a smiley face but not too long ago it was burning my Protestant forefathers at the stake. God doesn’t change and neither does the Bible. We may argue over interpretation but it doesn’t say one thing in 1600 and something different in 2012.
Wow, speaking of logical leaps, let’s take one – how can you argue over interpretation if the Bible says the same thing in 1600 as it does in 2012? If it says the same thing, shouldn’t the interpretations be the same, and therefore no reason to argue? Also, why 1600? Why not 600? Did the Bible say something different in 600?
Since 2001, reports are that the defense budget has gone up around 80%.
Boy, if the defense budget has gone up that much, no wonder there seem to be so many people just itching to use it — or at least justifying this kind of increase.
And, apparently, given the divergent views expressed in this comment thread, the reasons are various.
Truth be told America won’t balance the budget without cuts in the defense budget, and as long as we are getting into new wars all the time, the politics are against that: “There’s a war going on, don’t you know.”
Mitt Romney’s the ultimate evangelical. The nation whose troops he’d like to command is at war, and what has he taught his offspring to do at such a time?
I would like to clear us a bit of confusion here. The reason that the big evangelist like Hagee support Israel so fervently might have nothing at all to do with the “end times.’c The big time evangelists support of Israel might simply be just a matter of dollar and cents
These these evangelists have to rely on television to spread their potentially very lucrative message well beyond their own locales. To do this they have to rely on cable companies that are owned by non -evangelists who just almost uniformly rabidly support Israel. People like Hagee quickly realize that they would lose loose a major source of funding if they were to antagonize these cable owners by being any less than fervent supporters of Israel..
Support of Israel has another benefit which is especially important when you consider how these big time evangelists pay themselves in salaries. This largesse is also enjoyed by their their often very extended families. Support of Israel might be a major factor in making them virtually impervious to IRS audits of their egregious activities. Time and again the local (never national) media investigates their most outrageous activities. Time after time, the government suddenly becomes very reluctant to pursue these media charges.(The one major exception seems to have been Jim and Tammy Fae Baker. Jim Baker is back on TV and will probably be far more careful as regards tax matters in the future) ).
It’s as if local district attorneys and state attorney generals have been told by higher ups to ignore the recurring charges. (The same thing happens when the FBI goes after members of the Israeli/ Russian mafia too aggressively . Word quickly goes out that too aggressive investigations can be consider anti- Semitic and hence “career shortening.” )
It this seems farfetched consider the fact that when an evangelist like Ted Pike starts to be considered an enemy of Israel, his financial affairs are quickly put under a microscope by the IRS. This is done despite his making far less money than the big time evangelists simply because he is not allowed on any cable television channel because of his vocal opposition to Israeli policies.
I still wonder why the late Jerry Falwell was never audited by the IRS for that free private jet plane he got from the Israelis. John Hagee seems to have inherited this very same plane gratis.
I’d like to see the Libertarian and Paleocon wings of the Republican Party join forces and launch a real insurgency, the way the Tea Party did. I feel like I see too much discussion and too little action. Ron Paul’s candidacy will eventually end; he will probably not run as an independent; and then what will we be left with? We will be (almost) back to Square One without a real plan.
I’d love to see or hear some genuine and concrete strategies — a plan for a real street fight. The other side fights dirty, so ours shouldn’t be ashamed to use some really bare-knuckle tactics.
I expand on this a little in another comment, posted here:
theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/01/17/an-un-compassionate-view-of-ron-paul
There, I wrote:
“We’re at a critical time in American history, possibly on the cusp of disaster. The old, traditional, staid methods — and going along to get along — are insufficient. You can’t always win people over with logic. Nor is it always necessary, though it is preferable. Failing this, there are tactics that a determined minority can use to force at least part of its agenda down the throat of an ossified, unresponsive body politic. I believe we need to start examining these.”
And to put the icing on the Republican cake the Evangelicals have baked, as well as to show that it’s way way too late to go trying to “persuade” them of anything, here’s a little chunk of the sort of wisdom they’ve now managed to implant in a Resolution the Republican National Committee passed just the other day in New Orleans:
“Whereas, Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest recorded deed as reported in the Old Testament … and
Whereas, God has never rescinded his grant of said lands….”
And yet instead of seeking to marginalize these folks and limit the harm they do we should somehow try to persuade them?
Of what? How do you persuade people of the realities of the modern age when they don’t want to even see the passing of the 13th Century?
TL;DR Version: Evangelicals aren’t thinking about how the government uses war to take away our freedoms. This is no different than any other group that “supports the wars”.
I am a pre-Tribulationist, pre-Millenialist Rapture Bunny, and everything I’ve ever been taught is that there is no prerequisite for Christ’s catching up of His Church. That is, Israel does not even have to exist as a nation for the Rapture Event to happen. So, no, I don’t think that Christians of my ilk are pushing for war in the Middle East simply to hurry along the End Times.
Support for Israel, from what I see, is based on two beliefs: 1. That Israel is our only trustworthy friend in a whacked-out region, and 2. America benefits from being friendly to Israel, based on God’s promise to Abraham.
The problem that I see is that evangelicals are stupid with regard to the “help” that we give to Israel. The U.S. Gov’t treats Israel, not as an independent and sovereign nation, but as a puppet. The more “help” that our gov’t gives to Israel, the less free, and the less secure, that nation is. In addition, the Israeli gov’t itself is a socialist one; when we give resources and political support to that government, we are participating in the oppression of the Israelis. If one has a friend that is a drug addict, is procuring more drugs for the friend an act of friendship, or rather villainy?
I support Ron Paul; I’ve given more money to his campaign than I have to every other candidate combined. I talk with people in my sphere of influence, trying to gently persuade them to see the rightness of his positions. If he doesn’t get the GOP nomination, I’m writing in his name in the general election. Not because I worship him, but because he has become the repository of liberty’s ideas.
As recently as two years ago, I was still (mostly) a neo-con. I had learned about Austrian Economics, and was devouring everything I could find to learn about it, but I rejected as “naive” the anti-war stance of the Austrian writings. “Don’t people know that there are others out there that want to kill us?” I’d argue. The primary argument that changed my mind was someone pointing out that war is always used by gov’t to kill liberty. Every time we come out of a war, we have less liberty than what we had before we entered it.
If you listen (as I did) to talk radio show hosts like Limbaugh, you get the idea that the gov’t grabs power by trading goodies (welfare checks, etc.) in exchange for political power. Some of this surely goes on, but the main tool used by gov’t to pry our liberties from us is to engage in war, because during wartime, the people who should know better, and be on their guard against government intrusions, turn off their brains, instead. They assume falsely two things: 1. That the abrogations of liberty are necessary for “security”, and 2. That the abrogations of liberty are only temporary.
We are now in a perpetual war. What’s the end game? Under what conditions can we declare victory? I submit that there are none, and we therefore must expect a continual erosion of liberty going forward.
Ummmm, doesn’t anybody read Deuteronomy and the Prophets any more? Even the “evangelicals”? G-d didn’t GIVE the Land to the Israelites, He LEASED it on condition of good behavior, and with the explicit threat of turning off the water and kicking out the tenants if they misbehaved. The First and Second exiles were instances of G-d exercising this option.
The eventual GOP nominee will certainly be worse on war and peace in the Middle East than Obama.
Will this magazine or anyone writing for it endorse Obama?
Pshaw.
“These evangelicals don’t want peace because it would mean postponing Armageddon.”
That is not how I see it. I think that they want for the USA to protect and keep Israel in peace so as delay the 2nd coming as long as possible. They believe that if we let up Israels enemies will be on her in short order signalling the end.