When I encounter people that point to the Family Life Network
(FLN) as their news source I almost don't know what to say. The same is true
when I encounter those who daily rely upon the commentaries of Albert Mohler
and others like him.
Obviously they are the sheep being led astray. It's the
teachers and the corrupt institutions behind them that will give an account.
They will answer for the false narratives and syncretism they have promoted.
They will give an account for taking money, making merchandise of God's people
in order to promote the interest of American Babylon and their myriad wealthy
friends and backers.
O'Rourke's statement was pretty outrageous and deserves
scrutiny. But to the tell the truth I've been far more troubled listening to
the Evangelical response and the flawed and patently deceptive commentary that
has resulted from it.
Mohler for example in recent days has spoken extensively
about religious liberty and the radicalisation of the Left. And yet he has
chosen to ignore both the legal issues and constitutional issues mentioned
above as well as the equally remarkable drift of the American Right. What we're
witnessing is polarisation but Mohler in all his expertise and wisdom seems
only willing to identify the trend of secularisation on the part of the Left.
It strikes me as rather convenient.
A case could be made for secularisation in general. I live in
Trump land, the part of Pennsylvania where the Rust Belt and Appalachia
overlap. And while there's a veneer of religion, that veneer is all but gone.
Most of the Right-wing people I encounter are pretty secular. They might wear
some disgusting t-shirt that says something about kneeling and the Lord's
Prayer but they're not fooling anyone. It's a narrative of NASCAR, guns and the
flag intertwined with myth-narratives about American history and identity. At
the end of the day they might pay lip service to God but they're really just as
secular as the 'Leftists' they despise.
It always amazes me that Mohler and his ilk seem to find some
kind of satisfaction or solace in those who play at being Christian or in
sacrilegious and patently confused fashion pay homage to some of its forms.
The Right has also shifted radically since the 1980's.
Apparently Mohler has missed the fact that there's a Right-Libertarian element
that's gained ground, something that Evangelicals were once really troubled
about. With it there's been a push toward extreme libertarian capitalism which
has also pushed the moral envelope and promoted a type of individualist
secularism.... rights and personal liberties reign supreme even for many
professing Evangelicals. From divorce to feminism there has also been a
secularist libertarian trajectory at work within Republican circles and even
the Christian Right. But of course on many points they've simply shifted to the
Right and have embraced politicised authoritarian positions.
The Right has shifted on immigration and crime to the point
of encouraging a near militarised police state. Their zeal for war has at times
bordered on fanaticism and certainly they have moved right with regard to the law
itself. The Originalist project so-championed by the likes of Mohler was still
very controversial in the 1980's. Robert Bork was opposed by 58 senators, 6 of
them Republicans. That wouldn't happen today, nor would Reagan even stand a
chance of being elected today. He has become a legend but his policies would be
called out as being 'Left' by today's Republicans. A divorcee, and signer of
liberal abortion laws in California, and later the author or rapprochement with
the USSR and denuclearisation, he wouldn't stand a chance today. Neither would
Bork. His views on the 2nd Amendment would be so out of bounds as to
disqualify him from a GOP endorsement.
The embrace of the Unitary Executive which is paired with the
concept of the Imperial Presidency also represents a severe shift to the Right
and one that continues to make many old school conservatives uncomfortable.
While the shift began in earnest after World War II, it had been thought
vanquished with the fall of Richard Nixon in 1974. But by the 1980's it was
back and by the 2000's it was ascendant once more.
In fact the shift to the Right is so radical that even Tea
Party darlings like Paul Ryan were out of favour by 2017. In less than a decade
Paul Ryan had gone from being one of the most Right-wing members of Congress to
a compromised centrist and crypto-liberal decried by the Right wing. He
actually didn't change at all but the party did. And in merely sitting still,
his political position migrated in a continuously leftward direction.
But when it comes to O'Rourke and the Democrats, Mohler the
trusted source of news for thousands of Evangelicals and New Calvinists can
only see their drift and radicalisation. That's not wisdom, acumen or
expertise. That's not principled commentary that seeks the truth, warts and
all, even if it means exposing both sides as morally compromised and corrupt.
No, that's partisanship and reeks of an agenda.
In addition to secularisation and a sharp move to the right
on the part of Republicans, the Democrats have also moved to the right on
certain points. Perhaps Mohler hasn't noticed that today's Democrats promote militarism
and war, and have placed great stock in institutions like the FBI, CIA and
Pentagon. This marks quite a change from the institution sceptical Democrats of
the late 1960's and 1970's. Democrats led the congressional charge in the
Watergate era to expose the misdeeds of these organisations and remained
distrustful of them for decades. The party that once embraced figures like
Robert Kennedy, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter no longer exists. They're not
nearly militant enough. Of course we could also talk about the Democratic
embrace of McCarthyism when it comes to both Russia and the MeToo Movement.
While feminism drives the MeToo agenda, the counter-feminism coming out of
Right wing circles is also feminist and such female apologists would have been
condemned by earlier generations. For that matter how many Republican women
resonate with the supposedly anti-feminist rhetoric of someone like Phyllis Schlafly?
While they don't necessarily want to reinvigorate the ERA, these same 'conservative'
women have largely embraced the careerism and role change advocated by the
softer feminists of the 60's and 70's. They only appear conservative when
compared with today's wave of ultra-misandric feminist leaders.
Even the professed socialists, figures like Sanders, Warren
and the adolescent Ocasio-Cortez all support the market and despite their
rhetoric, when pressed, back Wall Street. None of them speak of
nationalisation, seizing the means of production or of class warfare. None
advocate a socialist view of labour. They play the phony identity politics
game, support the empire's 'humanitarian' wars and never draw the connections
between Wall Street finance and foreign wars, between the markets and the
refugee crisis. None of them are even talking about the strikes and unrest both
in the United States and around the world. These supposed far-left figures
aren't all that left. It doesn't take a Ph.D to determine that these figures
aren't socialists. In fact there aren't any socialists in the Democratic Party.
Their platform is Centrist and some of them would scarcely qualify as Social
Democrats in terms of international politics. In reality the DNC (as with all
of American politics) has moved steadily to the Right. Not when it comes to
sodomy, feminism and social issues but with regard to Wall Street and American
militarism.
But do we get this kind of discussion or analysis? No, Mohler
is overwhelmed by how the Democrats have moved to the Left. Very astute.
Mohler praises Attorney General William Barr's recent speech
on religious liberty and clearly wishes to juxtapose this with O'Rourke, the
Democratic presidential candidates and the party platform. I sense Mohler et
al. will use this threat of tax status to motivate the voters and I expect it
will work. They'll scare people. I remember encountering Christians in 2008 who
were considering shutting their businesses down because Obama was a communist
and he was going to nationalise (or 'take over' as they put it) all our businesses.
Little did they realise Obama was just another supplicant at the throne of Wall
Street.
I heard Dave Ramsey and other financial charlatans discourage
people from pursuing careers in medicine. Because 'socialist' Obama was going
to ruin it and doctoring wasn't going to be a profitable career path anymore.
These liars, dupes and swindlers will use the same scare
tactics in 2020. You can count on it.
Barr of course was praised for his moral standing and fine
tuned insight. I'm sure many who seem to have memories longer than Mohler and
certainly a deeper knowledge base find Barr's speech nauseating as he has a
long history of corruption... unrepented of at that. An ex-CIA agent, his
schemes, machinations and participation in dark plots go all the way back to the
criminal enterprises surrounding Iran-Contra and the BCCI cover-up.* For all
his glorifying of the Founding Fathers and supposedly the Constitution, Barr is
a strong advocate of the aforementioned Unitary Executive concept, a Right-wing
manipulation of the Constitution, a doctrine which grants the president near
dictatorial authority. In reality it's a sleight-of-hand trick used by legal
alchemists. Since the Constitution grants the president nearly unrestricted
authority in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, the trick is to turn all
social and political concerns into theatres of war. Militarise everything and
then the president can act without restraint or accountability. He becomes a
law unto himself. It's hardly a Constitutional concept or an honest
'conservative' treatment of US law.
Mohler in his usual confused and convoluted fashion ignores
much that needs to be said, even while trying to forge a bizarre and wholly
inconsistent synthesis between Liberalism and Right-wing Christian politics. He
acknowledges Catholicism's historical rejection of these principles and yet
argues in a way that would make Chuck Colson proud... that in the present hour
the advocates and heirs of historic Magisterial Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism are standing hand-in-hand... and Mohler approves of this. I'm not
sure he realises it but in his addressing of Barr's speech, he has effectively
endorsed the 1994 ECT agreement.
Mohler, ever the pro-war, patriot propagandist exhibits
confusion regarding the principles of not only America's founding but his own
Evangelical profession. He admits the founders weren't actual Christians and
yet argues that their milieu was Christian and thus they thought and acted like
Christians.
This is Evangelicalism? What pray tell is this Christianity
he speaks of? What Gospel is given to sanctify society? Are states baptised? Is
the Holy Spirit given to nations? If not, then is it not a perversion of the
term 'Christian' to speak of states, nations and societies in this way? Is this
not to redefine the term? What Christianity is this that is so readily
accessible to the unbeliever? Unregenerate persons by virtue of cultural
exposure and education can think, reason and ethically act as Christians? If
this isn't Pelagianism I scarcely know what is. Mohler calls himself a
Calvinist and an Evangelical. He's actually a Christo-Americanist and in terms
of Biblical Christianity he's just plain confused. Apparently there's another
gospel that's pertinent to this other Christianity... a regeneration and
sanctification of culture and civilisation. While the term heresy is certainly
applicable, Paul's imprecation of 'other gospels' is much more to the point.
When one considers the size of Mohler's audience and the
magnitude of his influence... it makes one pause. It's sobering, even startling
and he's by no means the only 'mover and shaker' in the New
Calvinist/Evangelical sphere.
Mohler doesn't like the censorship and authoritarianism and
associates these things with the 'Left' and yet is blind to the agenda of his
own political faction and the Catholics and Dominionists who now play a large
part in Christian politics. They all advocate these same things and if granted
political power they would certainly shut down not only speech but would
curtail social and religious expressions deemed offensive or those that would
challenge the status quo. The irony once again is that Traditionalist Catholics
and the most hard-line Dominionists will openly say so, but Mohler isn't
listening or just doesn't understand.
Mohler thinks the historical Protestant attempts to curtail
Catholic liberties represent a mistake and yet fails to understand that if a
Dominionist consensus took over in the form of a Protestant-Catholic alliance
they would turn around and do the very same to their social and political
opponents.... just as the 'Left' is calling on the government to do the same
today.
All would agree our society is rent by polarity. And yet few
can agree as to why. Those with a foreign policy to promote continue to insist
the divisions are born of Russian meddling and provocation. Well Facebook posts
aside it's clear there's plenty of polarity and it certainly existed long
before social media came into existence. It's born of a breakdown in the social
consensus and it's now rapidly leading our society to fragmentation. We will
have authoritarian government because otherwise we're going to end up in a
state of civil war. We may yet endure episodes of both.
The larger story is in regard to the myth of America, the fable
regarding these Liberal principles and the false notion that democracy has
always reigned. Study American history and you'll learn otherwise. It's pretty
ugly. It was a land of promise for a long time by virtue of the fact that it
was vast and seemingly contained an endless supply of land and resources. Once
that era came to end, the system was put to the test and just a few generations
later it's on the verge of collapse. And even this is but one aspect of a
larger story.
Mohler was deeply moved by Barr's religious liberty speech
because it tickled his ears... and it further promotes the confused
Christianity that so many Evangelicals like Mohler have come to embrace.
Once again O'Rourke's comments deserve our attention but I
have yet to hear any serious, insightful or reflective commentary coming from
Christian media or Evangelical leadership. O'Rourke's shot across the bow is
part of a larger legal, social and historical context. Partisan spin might
motivate people to vote but Christians should be concerned with truth and
wisdom. You won't find that in the pseudo-intellectual analysis provided by its
leaders.
We could call it a sad situation or we could recognise it for
what it is... judgment.
See also:
*It has always been strange to me that many Church groups
condemn membership in secret societies and yet lionise intelligence agencies
and special ops. Both conservative Protestants and Catholics have decried
Freemasonry and yet that's what the CIA and other likeminded organisations are.
They're secret societies. Before WWII the US intelligence agencies were
dominated by the Ivy League and those affiliated with Freemasonry and groups
like Skull and Bones. And so you had secret society members joining another
larger secret society under the auspices of government.
After World War II, the constitution of organisations like
the CIA underwent a change and began to heavily incorporate ultra-conservative
Roman Catholics. Members of the Knights of Columbus and the more prestigious
Knights of Malta and Opus Dei began to flood the ranks of the FBI and CIA. The
CIA has jokingly been referred to as the Catholic Intelligence Agency due to
its many prominent Catholic members and leaders. Barr was (and presumably is)
part of this wave, a chapter in which the CIA and the larger intelligence
community has been involved in what can only be described as dark deeds.
Secret societies operate in layers and undoubtedly there are
factions within organisations such as the CIA. These are dark paths and yet
good patriots like Albert Mohler can only offer praise for these men... even
while he would probably (and rightly) condemn Freemasonry. I suppose in the
case of the latter he would find it incompatible with a Christian profession
and yet such an understanding (which is common enough) fails to understand the
cultish and frankly religious and idolatrous nature of serving in an
organisation like the CIA or Delta Force. This is to say nothing of their
actual deeds. Frankly, from my perspective Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta
are just as 'pagan' as Freemasonry but once again Evangelicals are clearly
confused about Catholicism and this contrivance they've created call the
Judeo-Christian West or Christendom.