Downfall: The desire to be respected in the halls of power

Louie Giglio

Concerning the recent dust-up involving Louie  Giglio's withdrawal from the Obama inauguration ceremony, Gary DeMar asks the question I've been hoping someone would ask before I had to ask it myself. Namely, why would a Christian pastor want to speak a "good word" (i.e. benediction) over an event celebrating a godless political agenda?

Christians are riled up that Louie Giglio, pastor of the Passion City Church in Roswell, Georgia, was dumped by Obama’s people to give the benediction at the President’s inauguration ceremony. I’m shocked that more Christians aren’t riled up that Louie Giglio agreed to do it in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe Giglio has a great ministry. This year’s Passion event turned out 60,000 young people who donated more than $3 million to help in the effort to abolish the pernicious sin and crime of slavery.

Why was Giglio dumped? I love this from the Washington Post:

“An evangelical pastor from Atlanta announced Thursday [January 10] that he would not give the benediction at President Obama’s swearing-in ceremony after a sermon he gave on homosexuality in the mid-1990s resurfaced earlier this week.

“In that sermon, the Rev. Louie Giglio called for Christians to ‘firmly respond to the aggressive agenda’ of some in the gay community and warns that widespread gay marriage ‘would run the risk of absolutely undermining the whole order of our society.’”

Resurfaced? Did it come ashore in a bottle? It didn’t “resurface.” Homosexual activists went looking for whatever they could find on Giglio to get him ousted. They knew that if they could find anything he said about homosexuality, he would be gone.

President Obama supports homosexual marriage. He’s pushing for a state-wide acceptance of homosexual marriage in his home state of Illinois.

How can a Christian offer a Christian benediction for a man who represents a worldview that is antithetical to the Christian faith he claims to be a part of and implements policies that could result in divine judgment?

Would the apostle Paul have given a benediction for Nero? Would Peter have done it for Herod? Would Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) have given a benediction for Adolf Hitler?! Niemöller used his pulpit to expose Adolf Hitler’s radical politics even though “[h]e knew every word spoken was reported by Nazi spies and secret agents.”

We are to obey the civil authorities. We are to pray for civil rulers to do the right thing (Rom. 13:4; 1 Pet. 2:13). But we are not required to stand up with them and grace their governments with a benediction. How can a “good word” be given for a civil ruler who supports so many

John the Baptist didn’t attend government functions with Herod and sanction his behavior with a benediction. He spoke out against his sin. He paid a heavy price (Mark 6:14-29).

We shouldn’t be surprised at the way Christians and Christian beliefs are dealt with by this administration. We’ve seen four years of it. Early Christians suffered under the religious oppression, first, of Judaism, and second, Imperial Rome. Ours is a prophetic task not an enabling one.

Nathan didn’t stand with King David and offer a benediction. David would have loved for him to do it. It would have given him religious cover for his sins. Instead, Nathan confronted the powerful king about his sin. Keep in mind that David was an accomplice to murder. Nathan put his life on the line in his prophetic word to the king.

The same is true of the priests who confronted King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:16–23). The king had just “warred against the Philistines, and broke down the wall of Gath and the wall of Jabneh and the wall of Ashdod; and he built cities in the area of Ashdod and among the Philistines” (v. 6). The priests were defenseless, and yet they still confronted the king.

Overstated comparisons with Nero, Hitler, et al. aside, DeMar's point is well taken. The actions of Obama and his administration over the last four years, most notably the suppression of religious freedom through mandates imposed on religious groups via his healthcare law, suggest that the president is, at best, a person of wavering faith more urgently in need of the church's rebuke and correction than its blessing.

Cardinal Dolan

That being said, however, it is possible for a Christian leader to be salt and light while carrying out ceremonial duties at political gatherings. Delivering the benediction at both party conventions this past summer, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, with meticulous pastoral skill, asked God's blessing on the nation and its political process while simultaneously reminding both Democrats and Republicans of the great national sins in which partisans on both sides have been complicit.

Religious celebrities (forgive me for my cynicism) cozying up to presidents is nothing new. Obama has had his share of moderate to left-leaning clerics on the White House guest list, and they have generally served as court theologians for his political agenda. Conversely, the list of "right wing" evangelical clerics who have frequented the White House during the tenures of Republican presidents is infinite, and one would be hard pressed to find any instance of them rebuking their nation's leader in even the mildest tone, much less that of a Nathan or a John the Baptist. The desire to be respected in the halls of power has been, and will continue to be, the downfall of many a Christian leader, regardless of political affiliation, who forgets his first allegiance is to Christ and his kingdom.

IRD: Christianity and the liberal right

Pursuing spiritual ends through secular means is never wise. This is true perhaps now more than ever, as the IRD's Addie Darling observes.

Looking back at the discourse of the past month, I can’t help but wonder if – given the current dialogue- the alignment of traditional Christians with the goals of political parties- particularly the Republican party, will doom any attempt at salvaging a society that values human dignity, the family, and authentic justice. This is not necessarily because the goal of promoting the traditional family or preserving the institution of marriage is an unworthy cause, nor because our culture is too “lost” or depraved to understand the Gospel, but because both parties’ individualist foundations undermine a Christian understanding of the world. While cooperation with political parties is necessary to achieve certain ends, Christians must distance themselves from the heresies of Americanism and radical individualism that infect both parties. Radical individualism undermines the communitarian and cooperative nature of the Church, has given rise to the sexual and social revolutions that have gotten us into this mess, and it won’t get us out of it.

At the core of Christian social teaching- on sex, on economics, on justice, on poverty- is a theory of solidarity with all men- particularly with the weakest and the marginalized who have no one to turn to. Yes we have personal relationships with Christ, sin is an individual action and we are judged as separate persons. However, Christianity is fundamentally a communitarian faith: with the support of the family and the Church, we come together as parts of a body in pursuit of Christ.

Individualism, however, destroys this body. Its isolationism and self-interest sends a message that the individual’s actions do not concern anyone else, and furthermore, that the individual has few-if any- obligations to others. The apologists for modernism preach that so long as one does not directly and significantly impede the ability of others to pursue their own desires, nearly all things are permissible- even at the expense of the community. This divorce of man from community reduces morality to the pursuit of one’s personal pleasure, rather than what is good, and transforms politics into a tool for supporting individual prerogatives. In short: individualism breeds moral relativism and gives public license to nearly all self-centered initiatives.

Gone is an idea that Christ is the vine, and we are the branches; annihilated is the idea that we grow in our own ways and towards our own goals, but we fundamentally are part of the same body. Instead, this view creates a society of princes, lording over their own self-designed kingdom – and anyone who suggests otherwise is a tyrant seeking to impose himself upon others.

It is this rhetoric and set of assumptions that underlies the core of the both the Republican and Democratic Party platforms today, and, as hinted by R. Reno in First Things, if this message does not change, then it will undermine the conservative philosophy that it masquerades as, not to mention orthodox Christian beliefs.

There is no political solution for America's ills

Some sobering, but painfully true, observations from Greg Griffith. . .

For many years I made my living in film, video and other media production. As my studies progressed in college, I found myself more and more dreading the tasks of actually setting up cameras and lights, running power, wrangling a crew, threading a camera, and shooting take after take. Instead, I found myself looking forward to sitting down in the editing suite, stacks of logged footage beside me, and putting it all together with music, graphics, and narration to tell a story. I didn’t stop to think why that was, but by the time I had graduated and was making a living in the industry, I was focused almost entirely on this phase, called “post-production.”

A few years after graduation, with some time and perspective to think about it all, it became clear. My non-production studies in college had centered around film theory, and I had taken an especially keen interest in the early Russian pioneers Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevelod Pudovkin, and a more obscure one named Lev Kuleshev. At the time, I didn’t know why; this was the last area of film I would have predicted I would take an interest in.

Later, it became crystal clear why I had gravitated toward this obscure corner of film theory, and toward the editing phase of production: I was fascinated by the power of montage, and especially juxtaposition. They were the raw elements I preferred to work with, and with which I was most effective - the finished images on film, not what I saw as the monotonous drudgery of production.

So as I’ve watched the American political landscape change over my adult life, I’ve often thrown my hands in the air at what I’ve seen as lost opportunities by Republicans to use visual media - everything from print to commercial television to the web and social media - to emphasize the failings of liberal politicians and their policies.

Never has this frustration been more intense than the past few weeks, in particular the horrific failing of the Obama administration in the Benghazi consulate attack. I thought that a particularly effective TV ad or Facebook image would be a juxtaposition of our dead ambassador and Navy SEALS, beside Barack Obama partying the following night in Las Vegas with Beyonce and Jay-Z and their tower of champagne bottles.

How, I thought, could any reasonable person, with any moral grounding, look at that image and consider that situation for over two seconds without being repulsed? How could anyone who had drunk in even a sip of the disgusting actions of our president even entertain the notion of re-electing him?

My answer didn’t come immediately, but it came soon enough. The answer is this:

- There are millions of voters who can’t tell you that Benghazi is in Libya, can’t tell you that our ambassador was murdered there, can’t even point to Libya on a map.

- There are millions of voters who, while perhaps being able to tell you that our ambassador was killed in some sort of attack, are wholly ignorant of the administration’s fecklessness and perhaps traitorous culpability in all of it.

- But the most important answer is this: There are millions of voters who can be sat down, and have it explained to them exactly what happened, and fully comprehend the disgusting failures of leadership and morality of the Obama administration… they can look at the photos of the men who died fighting in Benghazi and have at least some understanding of their honor and courage and sacrifice, and look at the photos of Barack Obama partying with Beyonce and Jay-Z beside a champagne tower… and they prefer the champagne tower. They prefer the depravity of Barack and Beyonce and Jay-Z to the honor and courage and sacrifice of the men who died in Benghazi.

And combined, those millions of voters outnumber the ones who cannot conceive of preferring depravity over honor.

We could run the same exercise using other questions of morality - photos of partial-birth abortions, for example, or the indignity of the poverty and insecurity that results from socialism - and we would get the same results.

The sad fact is that there now appear to be more voters in America who prefer the soullessness of socialism to the ethic of self-sufficiency, and the depravity of celebrity to the example of honor.

In other words, we are no longer a nation of people united by their common sense of right and wrong, of why government exists and what it is for, yet bickering over the minutiae of how to implement it all. We are in fact a nation of people divided by our wildly different senses of what is moral, and what it means to be an American.

So show them all the ugly pictures you like. They don’t care. They’re not repulsed, because they don’t share our values, our morals, our ethics, or our appreciation of this country.

. . . and Elizabeth Scalia.

Is it a tragic thing that what we had is gone and won’t be coming back? Well, yes, because while it lasted it was the most remarkable engine for human freedom, ingenuity, and opportunity the modern world had ever known. But along with all of the goods we manufactured and skyscrapers we erected, we cultivated immense pride—a pride that overfocused us on the material rather than the spiritual aspects of prosperity (to do for others) and freedom (to live for others) and military might (to defend ourselves and others). When we overtipped the scales and became weighed down with McMansions we neither needed (with our 2.5 children) nor could really afford, when we began to manipulate the stock market, when we began to make war with drones and shrug off human life as “collateral damage” we justified it by saying we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen; exceptional and indispensible.

Like Moses, we let pride overcome our mission. The conservatives—obsessing on greatness—refused to acknowledge any weakness. But there is always weakness; not admitting mistakes is the greatest of them. By refusing to cede error or suggest moderation, the right allowed the left to grab on to moral arguments so few were making—about greed, and selfishness, and triumphalism—and to pervert them through the filter of secular statism, until limited taxation, individual accomplishment, and strategic military defense became caricatured as great moral evils, and most other matters became relative. In a great irony, the secularists who warned of encroaching theocracy just a few years ago claimed that the government’s way was the godly way and golly, the people were all right with that, because theological nuance just complicates things, anyway.

And that is how the GOP lost and the Democrats won; through pride and error. Our job at this point is not to save the nation. The nation is tumbling precisely the way the philosophers said it would when it became over-reliant on government. Our job, now is to save each other; to help spiritually strengthen each other for all that is yet to come.

Truth be told, there is no political solution to America's ills. The difference between the two candidates was never as stark as some would have had us believe. Political standard bearers are generally a reflection of the respective depravities of their constituencies. Barack Obama, perhaps moreso than anyone before him, embodies the selfish, greedy, grievance-mongering culture of the left. Mitt Romney, right down to the fact that he belongs to a religious cult that is largely the product of a syncretism between shallow cultural Christianity and American exceptionalism, definitively embodies the similar shortcomings of the right.

The sobering reality we must all face is that we are inevitably prone to embrace, and even exalt, the candidate who best exemplifies our fallenness in the manner most palatable to our prejudices. We are all fallen, depraved human beings whose vision is clouded by sin. Consequently, we would all be bound for hell were it not for the saving grace of God, who beckons us to repent of our idolatry and look to him as our only true Source of hope.

"The strange composite voice of many million singing souls"

My article at Examiner.com yesterday linked the sanctimonious liberalism of former President Jimmy Carter with the legacy of William Jennings Bryan, the perennially unsuccessful presidential aspirant of a bygone era. The image of Bryan that endures nearly a century after his death is that of a bombastic, self-righteous, and intellectually shallow "fundamentalist" crusading against such "progressive" ideas as evolution and scientific inquiry. This Bryan of popular folklore was largely the creation of journalist H.L. Mencken, who covered the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in which Bryan led the prosecution against a Tennessee biology teacher charged with (and ultimately convicted of) violating a state statute against the teaching of evolution in the classroom. The 1960 film based on the trial, Inherit the Wind, portrayed Bryan (through a character named Matthew Harrison Brady) almost precisely as he had been described in Mencken's less than objective reporting.

The real William Jennings Bryan, however, could not be so easily pigeonholed as a backward-thinking rube. More than any other political figure of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, he paved the way for the shift in the Democratic party away from laissez-faire capitalism to economic populism and the big government liberalism ultimately enshrined in FDR's New Deal. In other words, the man so vilified by present-day liberals for his unswerving commitment to religious "fundamentalism" was himself a liberal, and a passionate one at that.

That is not to say, of course, that Bryan's religious faith was a mere sidelight. On the contrary, it was the fuel that ignited his passion for the causes he championed. In the epilogue of his 2006 biography, A Godly Hero, Michael Kazin summarizes Bryan's legacy.

The rhetoric of shared responsibility sounds rather hollow today, except when it is tethered to a war of self-defense against terrorists. Yet a century ago, those who spoke about collective sin and collective redemption occupied the mainstream. They took their place in a long narrative of reform that included the abolitionists, early temperance agitators (who battled poverty as much as saloons), the Knights of Labor, and the Populist insurgency -- all led by men and women whose faith motivated their activism. From William Lloyd Garrison to Sojourner Truth to Frances Willard and Edward Bellamy, nineteenth-century progressives never advanced without a moral awakening entangled with notions about what the Lord would have them do.

To inspire another such upheaval was Bryan's fondest desire. His record was impressive, particularly for someone who held no office during most of his career. Starting with the campaign of 1896, the Democrats ceased being the more conservative of the two major parties -- with the fateful exception of their support for Jim Crow. Bryan was the leading proponent of three constitutional amendments -- for the income tax, the popular election of senators, and prohibition. He also did much to place on the national agenda a variety of other significant reforms: insured bank deposits, government-owned railroads, publicly financed campaigns, and a reliable method for preventing war. None of these became law during his lifetime -- he had better luck with statewide curbs on the teaching of Darwinism. But it was certainly not for lack of promotion or resolve. "With the exception of the men have occupied the White House," wrote William Gibbs McAdoo in 1931, "Bryan . . . had more to do with the shaping of the public policies of the last forty years than any other American citizen."

It is probably fortunate that he was never elected president. As Bryan demonstrated while secretary of state, he relished confrontations over principle and abhorred compromise. If he had captured the White House, that trait would have made it difficult for him to rally an enduring majority in what would have been a nation rent by angry divisions of class, region, and party.

But neither was he a classic demagogue, burning to seize power and vengeful toward anyone who opposed him. Unlike Tom Watson, Huey Long, George Wallace, and others of their ilk, Bryan never appealed to the violent or authoritarian impulses of his fellow citizens. He was satisfied to feed a grassroots hunger for changes in the American social order, which he believed would have profound moral implications. Bryan's oratory infused the idea of a welfare state with passionate intensity. If the Golden Rule was too simple a prescription, it was certainly superior to impersonal bureaucracy or strong-man rule.

Whatever he achieved depended on the power and durability of his voice and the romantic tenor of his words. Every other progressive giant -- TR, Woodrow Wilson, Robert La Follette, Jane Addams, Booker T. Washington, and the radical Eugene Debs -- was a gifted orator. But each had to worry about operating an institution -- whether a local one such as Hull House or Tuskegee Institute, a state, or the entire federal government. But Bryan could devote decades to honing the art of preaching both for God and for the welfare of the common white American.

That rhetoric and the new style of politics it helped to create may be his most enduring legacy. "Um, um, um. Look at all those folks -- you'd think William Jennings Bryan was speakin','" jokes a character in To Kill a Mockingbird as her Alabama town fills up for a dramatic trial. After the stirring contest of 1896, most presidential candidates learned to engage in an aggressively affable, go-to-the-people campaign to demonstrate that theirs was a cause of and for the common people. For over half a century, every subsequent Democratic nominee, with the exception of the hapless Alton Parker and John W. Davis, played the happy populist warrior -- cracking jokes, beaming for the cameras, flaying the corporate rich before audiences of the insecure. Even after its party's candidates stopped bashing "economic royalists," Democrats tried their best to appear friendly, optimistic, and visionary. John Scopes, of all people, regretted that Bryan hadn't survived into the age of television, when "he could have projected his personality to millions" and had a good chance of being elected president. For Americans with a sense of history, Bryan remains a paragon of eloquence for "a lazy-tonged people." And unlike contemporary candidates for high office, he wrote every word that he spoke, except when he was quoting someone else.

The triumph of the ever-accessible, always loquacious political style helps reassure ordinary citizens as well as to mobilize partisan crowds. As the federal government grew in size and complexity, Americans hankered for leaders who could make the enterprise of governing seem more personal and comprehensible. The electorate struck an implicit bargain with the political class: "If we can no longer understand or control much of what you do, at least give us men and women at the top who can comfort us and, on occasion, provide a thrill." This was as true for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as it was for Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy.

Yet Bryan was a great Christian liberal, and to neglect the content of his prophecies sells both his career and American political history short. Vachel Lindsay wrote in 1915:

When Bryan speaks, the sky is ours,
The wheat, the forests, and the flowers,
And who is here to say us nay?
Fled are the ancient tyrant powers.
When Bryan speaks, then, I rejoice.
His is the strange composite voice
Of many million singing souls
Who make world-brotherhood their choice.

Critics from Mencken onward failed to appreciate what drew millions of Americans to Bryan and that our own era of nonstop satire and twenty-four-hour commerce manifestly lacks: the yearning for a society run by and for ordinary  people who lead virtuous lives. As everyone who heard him could attest, Bryan made significant public issues sound urgent, dramatic, and clear, and he encouraged citizens to challenge the motives and interests of the most powerful people in the land. That is a quality absent among our recent leaders, for all their promises to leave no man, woman, or child behind. Bryan's sincerity, warmth, and passion for a better world won the hearts of people who cared for no other public figure in his day. We should take their reasons seriously before we decide to mistrust them.

Sad but true observations on evangelicalism from David French

David French reflects on the waning cultural influence of evangelicals, even as their political influence has continued to rise. It is a sobering analysis, sad but true.

. . . During my years in the pews, I’ve witnessed a moral collapse — and a corresponding collapse in positive influence over the real lives not just of our fellow congregants but also of our fellow citizens in need. Of course it’s difficult to present a compelling witness when our own practices and lifestyle are often indistinguishable from the larger culture, but the problems get more specific. Here are three:

1. We are more focused on meeting the material needs of the poor than their spiritual needs. Spend much time in the evangelical community, and you’ll soon learn that the old-fashioned Gospel-focused mission trip is largely a thing of the past. Now, you go build schools. Now, you go dig water wells. Now, you repair houses. These are worthy goals, all, but service projects by themselves don’t change hearts and minds, they often make (frequently) self-inflicted misery more bearable. Service must be accompanied by intentional, vocal evangelism and discipling.

2. We go on sinning so that grace may abound. The secular stereotype of the modern evangelical — as a judgmental moralizer — is so wrong as to be laughable. Everywhere you go, preachers reject this model entirely, emphasizing, for example, “divorce recovery,” therapy, and treatment for the consequences of sin. Again, these are worthy things, but Christ and the Apostle Paul also emphasized holiness and discipline. How often has your church actually disciplined adulterers? How often have you intervened in the life of a friend before they made devastating mistakes? Our desire to be liked trumps all, and suffering is the result.

3. We church-shop, seeking to meet our needs rather than serving the church. This echoes Douthat’s point above. Church-switching is pernicious. Not only does the church “market” breed selfishness, it also makes pastors market-oriented. As you survey church after church, each doing things their own way, ask yourself, which of these church institutions will still be present and viable in 50 years? Or 100 years? Or 1,000? Evangelicals often look askance at Catholics, but which of our churches has even lasted since the Reformation? We cannot build institutions when our focus is on building the self.

I once heard it said that following the social and political disruptions of the 1960s and early 1970s, religious conservatives decided that they had to win elections, while secular leftists decided to win the culture — and both groups succeeded. So now here we are, enjoying unprecedented influence on presidential outcomes even as our cultural foundation rots away beneath our feet. Not even the best presidential candidate will fix the family, nor will our most generous service project save a soul.

[Jesus said,] "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

(Mark 8:36-38 ESV)

The "sorry people," then and now

Recently, while watching an episode of the classic western Bonanza, I was reminded of just how far our society has not come since the innocent days of early television. For both its genre and its era, Bonanza was about as socially progressive as a program could be. That does not mean, however, that it would get high marks from today's political and cultural elites. This particular episode was a case in point. Hoss, the physically imposing but bighearted middle brother of the Carwright clan, helps a diminutive ne'er-do-well named Jock get a job as an assistant tax assessor. Thrilled at the prospect of making a decent living for the first time in his life, Jock dives into his new job with gusto, wildly over-assessing local properties, beginning with the Cartwrights' beloved Pondersosa ranch. 

As might be expected, the over-zealous taxman's activities send the townsfolk into a rage. Things come to a head when the women of Virginia City chase Jock back to his run-down home and are dissuaded from lynching him only out of sympathy for his pregnant wife.

Seeking to prevent any further damage, the Cartwrights hold a family conference. Since he feels the whole situation is his fault, Hoss offers to handle it himself. Ben, the wise patriarch, discourages this and says the family should work things out together. "The trouble with Jock is, he's one of the sorry people," Ben observes. That, of course, is a line which could never pass muster in today's hyper-sensitive media culture. 

The "sorry people," as Ben explains, are people who are content to be shiftless and idle. "The main trouble with the sorry people, though," Ben continues, "is if someone throws a little prosperity their way or a little authority . . . they become obnoxious."

Ultimately, the Cartwrights outsmart this pitiful soul by exploiting his weakness for gambling. They trick him into betting "two years' salary" on a horse they know will lose but Jock is convinced will win. After the inevitable happens, Ben tells Jock that since "two years' salary" was a non-specific amount, Jock will owe him nothing if he quits his job and returns home to his wife and newborn baby.

The problem this episode would pose for today's political and cultural elites, most notably the current occupant of the White House, is that it would hit too close to home. Who are today's "sorry people" if not those who have accomplished next to nothing but believe they are entitled to everything? It is not altogether cynical to say that these are sorry times for our nation because the "sorry people" have been given authority and have, characteristically, become quite obnoxious.

The Friday Funnies: The presumptuous Richard Land

I'm not endorsing a presidential candidate here (at least not until the general election), but I find this piece of religio-political news somewhat amusing. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has written an "open letter" to Newt Gingrich, asking him to come clean about his past infidelities. If the former House Speaker doesn't do so, says Land, he will risk losing the support of "evangelical women."

“Mr. Speaker, if you want to get large numbers of Evangelicals, particularly women, to vote for you, you must address the issue of your marital past in a way that allays the fears of Evangelical women,” he wrote this week. “You must address this issue of your marital past directly and transparently and ask folks to forgive you and give you their trust and their vote”

Gingrich has been married three times. The failure of his first two marriages was reportedly a function of extramarital affairs — indeed he cheated on his second wife with his current wife, Callista Gingrich.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, Land said that Gingrich needs to address his misdeeds and ask for forgiveness.

“Evangelicals, by definition, are a forgiving people,” Land told TheDC. “Confession, redemption, forgiveness is part of our theological DNA. But, it helps when you ask people to forgive you.”

Land claims to have conducted over 200 informal focus groups with Southern Baptists across the country. According to Land, evangelical men are willing to forgive, but evangelical women are extremely concerned.

Land is encouraging Gingrich to give a speech addressing “once and for all” his past transgressions.

There are a number of dynamics at work here which make Dr. Land's "open letter" utterly ridiculous. To begin with, Gingrich already confessed his past transgressions in an interview with respected evangelical leader James Dobson in 2007. Perhaps Land missed that interview because he was too busy condemning Rudy Giuliani's infidelities and making excuses for Mitt Romney. Some will dismiss Gingrich's confession as a strategic political ploy (although he ultimately decided not to run for president in 2008). That is a legitimate question, but he appears to have been acting on his own initiative at the time. Critics would have a much stronger case for political pandering this time around if Gingrich meekly gave in to the demand of a self-proclaimed "evangelical leader" in order to allay the fears of "evangelical women."

Secondly, and more importantly from a non-partisan, strictly religious perspective, Gingrich converted to Catholicism in 2009. The Roman Catholic Church has a very thorough and sacramental process for reconciliation of a penitent. Whatever one thinks of Gingrich's politics or his motives in publicly confessing his sins, it would be scandalously beyond the bounds of Christian charity to question his sincerity in submitting to a process of ecclesiastical and pastoral discipline which, in his case, took a decade to complete. Having received absolution from no less an authority than the pope, it is hardly necessary for Gingrich to do additional penance at the behest of the interim pastor of a Baptist church in Tennessee.

Finally, and somewhat lightheartedly, there is the question of Dr. Land's presumptuousness. Focus group data aside, who is he to speak for "evangelical women?" Well, to quote that imminent theologian Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say, about that."

They don't make movies like this anymore

It's been a long time since Hollywood had any real Hope (Bob, that is).

The Friday Funnies: One more laugh at the expense of Mitch Daniels

Sorry, but this one was just too funny to pass up!

Nancy Pelosi, (D) for Disgrace

If Nancy Pelosi (D) is concerned about the lack of civility in the current national conversation, she ought to consider leading by example. Her latest tirade, as Wesley J. Smith points out, is both shameless and historically dishonest.

Nancy Pelosi has now darkly warned that the agitated current political mood–which, if anything, she unloosed by likening Town Hall Obamacare protesters to Nazis and thugs–could result in violence. Her allusion is to the assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. From the story:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.

Here’s the thing: Moscone and Milk weren’t murdered because Dan White was set off by a poisonous political atmosphere. Rather, they were murdered because Moscone refused to reappoint White to the Board of Supervisors after he quit in a fit of pique. He murdered Milk–not because he was gay, as the legend now has it–but because he had been White’s friend, and then–overheard by White–strongly advised Moscone to refuse the reappointment request because of White’s instability. In other words, White murdered Milk because White felt personally betrayed, not because of the political atmosphere.

There is, of course, nothing unusual about left-wing politicians revising history in order to create heroes and martyrs for their pet causes. But Pelosi has taken this dubious tactic to a new level, exploiting a tragedy from another era in a not so subtle attempt to silence debate in the present day. Her conduct is beneath contempt and demonstrates yet again that the Speaker of the House is a national disgrace.

O'Grady on Honduras: Why is the U.S. Not Supporting the Rule of Law?

Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady wonders what has happened to reason when it comes to the situation in Honduras. Why is the U.S. throwing its support behind a legally ousted wannabe dictator who is a stooge of Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro?

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.

Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."

Hondurans have good cause for calling on divine intervention: Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom. Ruling the debate on Mr. Zelaya's behavior is Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is now the reigning international authority on "democracy."

Mr. Chávez is demanding that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated and is even threatening to overthrow the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti. He's leading the charge from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United Nations and the Obama administration are falling in line.

Is this insane? You bet. We have fallen through the looking glass and it's time to review how hemispheric relations came to such a sad state.

The story begins in 2004, when Mr. Chávez was still an aspiring despot and the U.S. pursued a policy of appeasement toward him. Not surprisingly, that only heightened his appetite for power.

Mr. Chávez had already rewritten the Venezuelan Constitution, taken over the judiciary and the national electoral council (CNE), militarized the government, and staked out an aggressive, anti-American foreign policy promising to spread his revolution around the hemisphere.

DeMint Statement on Honduras

July 2, 2009 - Greenville, SC - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, made the following statement about the ongoing situation in Honduras.

"The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator. The Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran military have acted in accordance to the Honduran constitution and the rule of law.

“For weeks leading to his arrest, Zelaya flouted the constitutional authority of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, and claimed for himself extra-constitutional control of his nation’s military and political institutions. Every institution from the Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme Court ruled that his actions were unjustified and illegal. Zelaya’s open defiance of democratic norms has set Honduras on a path toward violence, instability, and tyranny.

“I am hopeful that as President Obama grows in office, he will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya, and give the United States’ full-throated support to the people of any country who are fighting for the same values we cherish and defend in America. The people fighting for freedom around the world, in Iran and Honduras, should never have to wonder which side America will choose between freedom and tyranny.

“President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.

“The rule of law is working in Honduras. President Obama should not undermine the democratic institutions that guarantee freedom by forcing an illegitimate President back into power.

“This is not an ideal transition, but Hondurans are adhering to their constitution. The United States should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”

The Truth About Honduras

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.

Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.

By Octavio Sánchez

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

UPDATE: Christians in Honduras overwhelmingly support Zelaya's ouster.

Adultery in High Places: A Closer Look at King David

It has become standard operating procedure for disgraced politicians looking to make amends with religious constituents to invoke the name of King David. From Bill Clinton to Mark Sanford, "the man after God's own heart" has become the bipartisan patron saint of presidents, senators, and governors who break their marriage vows but still hope to cling to power by simply saying, "I'm sorry." It is a cynical attempt to sugar-coat an egregious violation of the public trust by drawing a parallel between the politician in question and Israel's greatest king. In Sanford's case, it is particularly unconvincing, as Al Mohler points out.

When speaking to the Cabinet, Governor Sanford referred to the biblical story of King David. The governor spoke of "the way in which he fell mightily -- he fell in very, very significant ways --- but then picked up the pieces and built from there." The governor also suggested that remaining in office would set a good example for his four boys, teaching them to persevere after a fall. The great shame is that the governor did not have his four boys in mind as he committed adultery.

Naturally, questions emerged related to the extent and duration of the extramarital affair. The governor's initial statement was unclear about several key issues. The days following would render the situation even more unclear.

Most recently, in a lengthy interview granted to the Associated Press, Governor Sanford added what the wire service called "explosive details" that made the picture all the more troubling. In the first place, the governor admitted to having "crossed the lines" with other women. "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines that I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line," said the governor.

But the most troubling words from the governor concerned the nature of his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman with whom he had the affair. "This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," he said. He added: "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."

Speaking, not of his wife, but of his mistress, Governor Sanford declared that he would go to his grave "knowing that I had met my soul mate."

Immediately following the governor's first admission, it seemed that he might survive politically and remain in office. The nation found itself once again in a debate about the relationship between personal virtue and public responsibility. This is a question that is particularly vexing to Christian conservatives, who must simultaneously understand that all are sinners in need of redemption and, at the same time, affirm that some sins disqualify individuals from public service and influence.

America's recent political history indicates that some politicians can survive revelations of adultery. While Christians should be less concerned about the political consequences and more concerned about the spiritual consequences, it is fair to observe that those politicians who survive more often than not do so when the adulterous relationship is clearly over and in the more distant past and when the politician has given himself in a demonstrable way to the priority of rebuilding his marriage and reestablishing credibility with his family.

Put simply, Governor Sanford's most recent comments point to a worst-case scenario. His words make clear that his heart is still inclined toward his mistress, and not his wife. With tragic candor, the governor has spoken of trying to fall back in love with his wife. He refers to his mistress, not his wife, as his soul mate, and speaks wistfully of the affair as "a love story at the end of the day."

Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel's King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear. David's adultery was mixed even with murder, but his own acknowledgment of sin came in a flood of contrition, remorse, broken heartedness, and humility. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance. Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his dissent [sic] into unfaithfulness.

Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina -- as well as the watching world -- now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the "detestation of sin." This is a far cry from what we've heard from Governor Sanford.

It is also important to note that, contrary to the impression Sanford and all who have come before him wish to give, David did not get off that lightly for his adulterous liaison with Bathsheba. He was forgiven, because he truly repented, but the son born of his illicit union died and another son, Absalom, led a rebellion which eventually cost him his life, but not before plunging Israel into two years of bloody civil war. David's transgression yielded devastating consequences for the whole nation, which enjoyed precious few intervals of peace throughout his reign.

Mark Sanford is no King David. If he took a closer look at the whole story, he wouldn't want to be.

Mark Sanford and the Failure of Pop Culture Evangelicalism

Pop culture mythology portrays "evangelical Christians," lumped together under the umbrella of the "Religious Right," as a potent--even dangerous--force in American politics. In reality, however, the "evangelicalism" so often maligned by the pop culture is largely a product of that culture itself. From the outmoded escapist fantasies of "rapture ready" dispensationalism to the trendy fads of the "Emergent Church," the similarities between pop culture evangelicalism and genuine Christianity are few and far between.

A stinging indictment against one of the major shortcomings of pop culture evangelicalism is the sorry episode involving South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. As Lloyd Fonvielle sees it, Sanford's "culture" failed him.

Sanford's case feels more complex, and interesting. He's clearly still in love with his Argentinian bombshell, if by love we mean the pussy-fever associated with a new and transgressive sexual relationship. Some failing in the right-wing Christian culture he inhabits seems to have left him unprepared to deal with the power of that fever -- you get a sense he was blindsided by it, and is still reeling from the blow.

Perhaps there is something about the rhetoric of his culture that minimizes the exaltation of sexual love, relating it too exclusively to law and duty, downplaying its delirious joy, leaving the members of that culture defenseless when the real thing emerges or re-emerges in their lives.

When it comes to adultery, I'm agin' it -- I don't see it as a "pecadillo" but as a profound, existentially crippling moral failing . . . yet at the same time less about the sex involved than about a violation of trust that can almost literally rip the heart out of a partner. No amount of personal pleasure or fulfillment can justify it, but you need to have a healthy appreciation of just how much personal pleasure and fulfillment it can deliver to know what you're up against when it presents itself.

I don't think Mark Sanford had a clue. In his e-mails to his mistress he sounds like a lovesick and somewhat bewildered teenager. How did he get to the age of 49 in that condition of emotional immaturity?

The particular "failing in the right wing Christian culture" here is a view of sin as merely the violation of a moral law ("God's law," to use one of Sanford's favorite terms) with little or no emphasis on the larger problem of depravity being the natural state of the fallen human condition. This is an essentially Pelagian view which reduces repentance to little more than saying, "I'm sorry and I'll try to do better next time." There is no need for divine grace, just a more earnest human effort to try harder to stay out of trouble. But trouble will always find you if you rely on your own strength, rather than on the grace of God alone, which awakens true repentance and a radical change of heart and mind.

Pop culture evangelicalism is hardly the monolithic monster so foolishly feared by the cultural left. Its minimalist expression of the faith will never transform even one individual, much less an entire culture.

Democrats Have Not Always Been Socialists

H/T to Salvo:

"I will not be a party to stealing money from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens. No matter what the need or apparent justification, once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again."

Grover Cleveland

This Pretty Much Says It All. . .

Obama vs. Keyes, 2004: A Breathtaking Contrast

This video from a 2004 Illinois Senate debate between Barack Obama and Alan Keyes pretty much speaks for itself. Obama speaks of Christianity and religion in general as a mechanism for advancing his political agenda (and career), while Keyes speaks of his Christian faith as shaping every facet of his life, including the political choices he makes. The contrast is breathtaking. It is a sad commentary on the state of our nation that the former is now President of the United States and the latter has been exiled to political obscurity.

Warner: This Will All End in Tears

From across the pond, Gerald Warner offers this sober, somber, and ominous reality check.

This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.

The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

Keep Albert Mohler's prayer from yesterday handy. We may need to repeat it daily.

It's Not the End of the World

Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States. I'm not particularly excited about that but, as Wade Burleson reminds some of his more zealous Southern Baptist colleagues, it's not the end of the world. Besides, Sarah Palin notwithstanding, I was not particularly excited about the prospect of a John McCain presidency, either. What has come to an end, thankfully, is the longest election season in American history. So, take a deep breath, relax, and let's get back to addressing more important subjects.