White Horse Inn Blog

Know what you believe and why you believe it

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

The Politics of Enthusiasm

Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 302
  • 36 Comments
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print
Just as the Iowa straw-poll concluded last Saturday, with Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul taking first and second place, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his candidacy.  Happily, the kingdom of Christ is neither threatened nor furthered by the kingdoms of this age.  Nevertheless, the way in which not only the media but professing Christians distort Christianity in public should be of serious concern to all Christians—including those who support the political agenda of offending candidates.

Irresponsible Journalism
The media has had a feeding frenzy over Gov. Perry’s prominent role in a Houston prayer service.  Secularists will be unhappy with any political leader who exhibits strong religious convictions in public.  The furor over Michele Bachmann’s former membership in the Lutheran Church-Wisconsin Synod, which is confessionally bound to the view that the papacy is “antichrist,” points up the incomprehensibility of traditional churches (Catholic or Protestant) to many journalists.  The press hostility churned the already murky waters of religious and historical ignorance into a whirlpool of secularist bigotry.  No one in the press corps apparently Googled the fact that the confessions of 10 Presbyterian and 2 Dutch Reformed U. S. presidents said the same thing.

At the same time, why is it that so many public figures belong to strange churches or identify with extreme movements and leaders?  President Obama’s now estranged pastor, Jeremiah Wright, traced God’s hand in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack to American sins against non-white and disadvantaged peoples.  “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he preached.  Of course, it’s wacky, but the only difference from a lot of right-wing sermonizing is the choice of targets (and reasons) for divine retribution.

In the last go-around, the media also pored over sermons from close supporters of Republican candidates.  Senator John McCain was embarrassed by the prominent endorsement of televangelist John Hagee.  In September 2008, Sarah Palin’s pastor, Ed Kalnins, of Wasilla Assemblies of God, had to apologize for extreme statements he made in sermons about John Kerry supporters going to hell and myriad identifications of particular natural and man-made disasters with God’s judgment on specific groups. [See Robert Stern's USA Today article and Alexi Mostrous's Times article.]

Front-Page Enthusiasm
This year journalists are watching tape from a lot of sermons and televangelist rants.  In spite of the astounding (and dangerous) religious ignorance of society’s fourth estate, there is a disturbing storm brewing in this campaign.

However much the press will get it wrong—and oddly declare the free exercise of religion somehow unconstitutional—U.S. politics seems more dominated than ever by what the Protestant Reformers called “enthusiasm.”  Meaning literally, “God-within-ism,” Luther and Calvin had in mind the radical Anabaptists who thought they were new apostles.  Hearing God’s voice directly within, they did not need an external Word (the Scriptures) or the external ministry of preaching, sacrament, and discipline.  Some of the early radicals even sought to take over civil government.  In the city of Mühlhausen, Thomas Müntzer succeeded, albeit briefly, until his violent, polygamous, and communist theocracy (“The Eternal League of God”) was defeated.  Like Müntzer, many political radicals since have appealed to the twelfth-century mystic Joachim of Fiore and his prophecy of a coming “Age of the Spirit” that will replace all external government and churches.  Everyone will know God by direct revelation and there will be no need for the law or the gospel, the state or the church.

The religious left and the religious right have roots in the Second Great Awakening, which in many ways carries on this radical Protestant impulse.  And while Charles Finney’s broad agenda of public justice and personal morality has split into two divergent streams (indeed, political parties), they are twin offspring of revivalistic Protestant enthusiasm.

Mormonism is a quintessential offspring of the millennarian, restorationist, and heretical impulse of radical Protestant sects in nineteenth-century America.  Although Mitt Romney professes deep commitment to his Mormon beliefs, he has shown no sign of taking his cues from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in Salt Lake City.  Still, according to a Pew survey, 34% of evangelicals say they’re reticent to see a Mormon in the White House.

That’s ironic, because the other Republican front-runners not only believe that the extraordinary office of apostle is still in effect (as Mormonism teaches), but apparently share the hope of their closest religious advisors that they will be emissaries of the Spirit to bring a decadent nation back to God—through the political process.

First, Michele Bachmann.  Though she used to belong to a conservative Lutheran church, Bachmann’s faith seems to have been shaped more by the Pentecostal-theonomist synthesis of “dominion theology.”  (See Ryan Lizza, “Leap of Faith: The Making of a Republican Front-Runner,” The New Yorker, Aug 15 2011, p. 54-63).  She has spoken openly of having had a vision of the person she was to marry, while he was having the same vision of her.  Influenced initially by Francis Schaeffer’s “A Christian Manifesto,” she eventually enrolled in the Oral Roberts University Law School and then moved to Virginia Beach, where her husband took a degree in counseling at Pat Robertson’s Regent University.  Serving on the school board of a charter school led by Christian activist Dennis L. Meyer, she says she admired his philosophy of governance: “Denny encouraged the board to do things and move forward not because we ‘think’ it should be done a certain way, but because God wants us to.”  She also became interested in the writings of David A. Noebel, founder of Summit Ministries in Colorado.  (Having visited the “Summit” for a week during my college years—even giving a lecture, I can only say that it is as close to an indoctrination camp as anything I’ve seen.)  Noebel, a longtime member of the John Birch Society, links the Beatles to Communism in extraordinarily creative ways.  Going on to serve on Summit Ministries’ board, Bachmann then entered politics to try to turn America around.

Second, Rick Perry. First, a little background—sorry in advance for the autobiography.  I edited two books in the 1990s—The Agony of Deceit (1990) and Power Religion (1997).  The first one investigated the theology of then-prominent prosperity evangelists, such as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and the coterie of televangelists especially connected to the PTL and Trinity Broadcasting Network (including Joel Osteen’s father).  Along with R. C. Sproul, J. I. Packer, C. Everett Koop, Walter Martin, and others, my goal was to search beneath the televangelism scandals in the news to examine the heart of prosperity theology itself.  After a TIME magazine story on the book and its charges, a firestorm of controversy ensued—including letters from the lawyers of some prominent televangelists.

The theology that undergirded many of the televangelists' ministries was shared by other men and movements like C. Peter Wagner, the Vineyard movement, the “Toronto Blessing,” and the “Kansas City Prophets.” Together they were the self-styled “Next Wave,” a Third Great Awakening.  Behind this movement lay the “Latter Rain” (a.k.a. “Shepherding”) movement of the 1970s: a bizarre aberration all its own that continues in the New Apostolic Reformation movement I mention below.

Through many of these leaders, the radical fringes of Pentecostalism found their way into more mainstream evangelicalism.  Wayne Grudem, who defended John Wimber and the Vineyard movement, published a rebuttal of D. A. Carson’s excellent chapter in Power Religion, where Carson offers a careful exegetical argument against continuing prophecy.  (I interact with Prof. Grudem’s argument below.)

More radically, many “Third Wave” Pentecostals linked up with R. J. Rushdoony’s “Christian Reconstructionism,” radical defenders of the antebellum South, and other assorted enthusiasts.  Popular versions of dispensational premillennialism (waiting for the Rapture while the world gets steadily worse) gave way to an extreme—and highly politicized—postmillennialism (preparing the way for a golden age of Christian dominion before Christ returns).

That’s where the New Apostolic Reformation (NAP) comes into the picture.  C. Peter Wagner, Fuller Seminary professor and pioneer of the church growth movement, was the theologian of the Vineyard movement.  He also launched the phenomenon of  “spiritual mapping,” where various cities or regions were identified with specific demons to be bound by international prayer warriors.  I met with some of these leaders years ago and I don’t question their sincerity, but I do question their orthodoxy.  Until recently, I had assumed that the whole thing was just another revivalistic movement that had come and gone like an Arizona monsoon.  Not so, evidently.  Enthusiasm never goes away, it just keeps reinventing itself.

According to Wagner and the NAP circle, the office of prophet and apostle, moribund for centuries, was restored in 2001—with Wagner and his associates as the chief candidates.  While most Pentecostals have been somewhat a-political and the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination) has consistently repudiated the succession of movements leading to the NAP, this group is radically postmillennial and politically engaged.  Its “Latter Rain” roots are on many points theologically heterodox, its discipline verges on cultic, and now it seems that it wants political power.  The “New Reformation” such groups envisage is more like the radical Anabaptist theocracy of Thomas Müntzer that Luther thundered against in “Against the Fanatics” and Calvin excoriated in “Against the Anabaptists.”

Why all of this background?  Reportedly, Governor Perry has close ties with the New Apostolic Reformation group.  Rather than rehearse the reports, you can read and evaluate them for yourself, especially the Texas Observer story and the recent Rachel Maddow report.  I'm not suggesting that we should uncritically accept the claims of journalistic neutrality from either source, but this movement—and similar yet less defined sub-groups—will no doubt bring greater disgrace to the cause of Christ in the minds of a biblically illiterate society.  You’ll hear more about it in coming months.  Regardless of how one judges the merits of the candidates’ political positions, the close identification of evangelical Christianity with radical enthusiasm (a direct, unmediated, extraordinary work of the Spirit in charismatic individuals) will only become more justifiable in the minds of many of our neighbors.  Its politicization will only make it more difficult to have serious conversations with our friends and co-workers not only about the common good of civil society but the gospel.

UPDATE - 8.19.11 10:30am PDST

Although the famous orthodox Presbyterian J. Gresham Machen voted for Democrat Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate, evangelicals created a massive phalynx against John F. Kennedy's bid in 1960. The public concern at least was that the Pope would run America, since Kennedy was obliged to an infallible magisterium. To many thoughtful Protestants, the worry was hardly far-fetched. The Vatican had repeatedly branded the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, particularly the doctrine of separation of church and state, as "the Americanist heresy." In an 1895 encyclical Pope Leo XIII made this stand officially binding on all Roman Catholics. In a 1906 encyclical Pope Pius X called such separation "a most pernicious error," as did Pius XI in 1922. Even by mid-century, John Courtney Murray was treated as a firebrand in his defense of compatibility between Roman Catholic teaching and U.S. democracy. It was Murray who finally won, his hand being evident in the Second Vatican Council's softened position. Times have changed indeed. Gary L. Bauer, who was a leading conservative evangelical activist and presidential candidate, told USA Today in 2005, "When John F. Kennedy made his famous speech that the Vatican would not tell him what to do, evangelicals and Southern Baptists breathed a sigh of relief. But today evangelicals and Southern Baptists are hoping that the Vatican will tell Catholic politicians what to do."

Wouldn't it be a little ironic if it turns out that, when it comes to invoking direct authority from living apostles for policy, the Republican candidate who will end up posing the least cause for alarm at least on that score may be a Mormon?

0

Overall Rating (0)

0 out of 5 stars

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0
Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.
terms and condition.

People in this conversation

Load Previous Comments
  • Brian,

    You wrote, Horton’s article is a lament, and a diagnosis. Complaints about this detail or that source miss the point. They belie the same desire for influence that is our problem, and the same complaint that “I wish the world would just understand the good we want to do.”

    I'm not sure to whom this is directed but I'll assume my comment fits. I would agree, more or less, with the lament of Dr. Horton. And my complaint (how about critique?) is not out of a desire for "fringe enthusiasm" to be excused in order to have some "good" Christian influence in government. I personally think it unwise, both politically and substantively, to advocate policy positions in the civil realm via biblical arguments, as well as to represent our nation as a Christian nation. I just think that the lament is undermined by, not just an off-detail here and there, but rather a misleading story. Details are important if one wants to be heard.

    Also, does it really matter that when "most non-christians take the time to think about evangelicals, they think about the political impact of their constituency?" It may make conversations on the village green more difficult, but is that really an impediment to the Church, to the preaching of the gospel? When has the world ever had a right view of the cross? So, as to the diagnosis, I just think this is nothing new, just the unfortunate off-brand of our era. Our history is replete with quotes from politicians conflating Christianity with Americanism. Doctrinally-misguided Christian politicians have been interwoven into the history of this country from the outset. I don't know how this is materially different, even if the news reports were accurate.

    If I'm missing something please let me know. It is only with trepidation that I offer any opinion counter to Dr. Horton's.

    By the way, I'm envious... I would love to be able to attend the Horton talk in D.C. When is it? Blessings to both of you.

    Jack

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Jack,

    No, I didn't have your post particularly in view... it was a response from a general reading of all the comments. But I'll answer the points you raise.

    I agree with your point that we have no clue how much Perry agrees with NAR, and that it's unlikely he'd implement your vision. But I think Horton qualified both those points, and neither one really matters to his main point. Which is, again, how the activity of those Christians who flirt with Perry, and Perry's reciprocation, harms the churches witness.

    I'd defend the proposition that most unbelievers think about evangelicals in political terms not because of their own sinful inability to understand the gospel, though that is a factor. No, the lament is the degree to which the actions of evangelicals in the last 30 years -- focusing on how to renew society, whether it be through politics or other cultural activity -- have created this impression. They have no one to blame but themselves.

    It does matter what the world thinks of the church. We should strive to offend our culture with the stumbling block of a crucified Lord, and the majesty of the resurrection. And nothing else. If we introduce other stumbling blocks, we are betraying our commission to be witnesses to the cross.

    Since you asked, Horton will be preaching at Christ Reformed on October 9th, and lecturing in our Sunday School hour on "The Great Commission and Social Justice." Other speakers in our series (running through 10/23) are David Van Drunen, David Coffin, myself, and a roundtable featuring Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson and Darryl Hart. We'll have audio at christreformeddc.org.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Alan,

    I think your miss Horton's point when you write:

    "The apparent answer of people who take your position is “There is only one way to renew society: do Christianity right by preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments and applying church discipline.”"

    My hunch is that the answer is closer to "The church isn't in the business of renewing society, but loving their neighbor."

    Was the Roman empire in a social crisis when the church came on the scene? I'd argue that there was moral depravity and disorder in some ways much worse than what we observe, and in some ways better. Yet the message of christian proclamation is "save yourselves from a wicked generation." Not, "save yourselves, and then help renew society." We find little or no instruction for such a project in the pages of the New Testament, and no promise that christian preaching or sacraments will bring it about.

    The disorder we observe may seem more shocking because it is a decline from a cultural moment when broadly christian (second table) moral norms were assumed. But what promise, what hope, do we have that our society will be renewed?

    The language of loving neighbor and societal renewal are not the same, regardless of the degree to which one may wish to construe the renewal of society as the necessary outworking of neighbor love. For one, "renewing society" implies to the unbeliever that the church has a blueprint for earthly kingdoms and cultures. We do not.

    "What groups will do the work of reordering our sick American society?" I don't know, nor do I know that it will be reordered. But if it is, it could be anyone who has the law of God written on his heart. It could be patriots in the spirit of 1776. It could be a movement in the spirit of abolitionists or civil rights activists of the 60's -- jewish, christian, atheist. Christians may be a part of such a renewal effort, but we know it won't be the church, for she has no expertise, and no weapons fit for that war.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Alan Roebuck

    Hello Brian,

    It’s not that I’ve missed Horton’s point; I’ve taken the next step. If there is disorder in society, who will oppose it? The business of the church is Word and sacrament, but it also has something to say about sin, and sin is the root of our social disorder. The church fights sin in individuals by preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments, but sin also has social consequences, and not just in the destruction of individual lives.

    One of our fundamental social problems is that America’s leaders teach that we should approve of sins such as homosexuality, abortion, divorce, fornication, the multicultural Balkanization of American into hostile tribes, etc. Sin is not just rampant, but we are required to like it. And since most people believe (or at least go along with) what the leaders teach, we have an increasingly disordered society.

    In ancient Rome sin was rampant, but the authorities never preached that it was good. Our authorities do preach that many sins are good, and they try to force us to act as if we agree. Therefore our situation is historically unprecedented, at least in this respect.

    Individuals cannot oppose social disorder. It requires organization. So what organization is going to fight the institutionalization of the approval of sin? The answer to this question may be of no interest to the institutionalized church, and it may be of no great interest to you, but it is of great interest to me.

    I have written an essay on the institutionalized approval of sin, available at

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/08/05/a-nation-that-honors-sin/

    In it, I conclude that the church, being the institution best able to identify and oppose sin, must play a role in the renewal of society. Exactly what that role is, I cannot say, so I am asking others for their thoughts.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • I'm not opposed to the organized opposition of institutionalized evil in the world. Indeed, I believe God's law required in nature requires it, to some degree, depending on our callings.

    But your fundamental premise remains off. I appreciate your focus on Word and Sacrament, but the church does not "fight sin in individuals." It redeems individuals form their sin, and the restoration from that sin is not the means of that redemption. It is a fruit. We are guaranteed that sanctification will accompany our salvation, we just don't know how much will occur before glory.

    I think there is a great temptation to see the decay evident in one's own culture as worse than others. The Roman authorities organized gladiatorial battles to the death in the forum. In extremis (a little Latin is in order), they dipped Christians in oil, lit them on fire, and used them as torches to light the way. How is that not glorifying gross sin and violence, and proclaiming it to be good?

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Thank you Brian. I don't know that we are that far apart and I appreciated your comments.

    From Dr. Horton's essay:
    "Happily, the kingdom of Christ is neither threatened nor furthered by the kingdoms of this age....

    Amen, I agree completely.

    "Its politicization will only make it more difficult to have serious conversations with our friends and co-workers not only about the common good of civil society but the gospel."

    I agree, but is that necessarily a bad thing and something one can change?

    Take the Christian Temperance Movement and the accompanying moralistic project to improve society at the turn of the century. Much confusion existed in the eyes of the world due to its conveyance of the notion that Christianity was essentially a religion of keeping moral "do's and don't's" and cleaning up society. It infected mainline and fundamental churches. Yet out of that era came Machen, a clarion call back to the gospel, the OPC & Westminster; as well as a renewal of the Reformed tradition.

    I think it is in the difficult and serious conversations referenced above, and even more - faithful churches - where the focus needs to be... rather than on the making of a case that the phenomenon of the enthusiastic/political tide, which gives reformed evangelicals a bad image, needs to change. It is what it is until it plays out... the cards dealt?

    I can imagine an unbelieving friend who buys into that media image coming to our church and thinking, "Hmmm, this isn't anything like a enthusiastic religious/political stuff I get in the media... something else is going on that has captured the hearts and minds of these Christians." The contrast can end up being valuable in crystallizing the gospel as it's presented.

    It may be just a matter of emphasis or maybe I'm reading too much into Dr. Horton's concerns. Thanks.

    Jack

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Paul

    ' . . . to his main point. Which is, again, how the activity of those Christians who flirt with Perry, and Perry’s reciprocation, harms the churches witness."

    I fail to see how a group of people who respect the Bible yet differ with Michael Horton's theological views, harms the Church.

    "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HAIL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT."

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Paul

    CORRECTION!


    >>>>to his main point. Which is, again, how the activity of those Christians who flirt with Perry, and Perry’s reciprocation, harms the churches witness. GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.”

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Alan Roebuck

    Regarding the church's role in social renewal, consider the following proposal, from the essay I linked in my second comment above:

    “But one obvious way the church could lead a cultural renewal is by teaching not just the Christian doctrine that is its primary teaching responsibility, but also principles of proper social order. Theologically conservative churches already teach some of these principles indirectly; for example, when they teach the sinfulness of fornication and abortion. But it is not enough to teach what is sinful for the individual to do. The order of society does not arise spontaneously from individuals practicing personal piety. Society’s laws, rules, customs, and traditions must also be made right by sociopolitical action, and the necessary foundation of a properly ordered society is a general belief among the population that society’s order ought to be proper. The people must believe, for example, not just that homosexuality is sinful, but also that law and custom must reflect this reality. They must believe not just that husbands ought to have primary authority in the home, but that society’s rules should honor this truth. The church must teach the necessity of a proper social order”

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • [...] The politics of enthusiasm (White Horse Inn blog) Horton recently examined the Christian beliefs of some of the more [...]

    Like 0 Short URL: