Sunday September 21, 2008
Out of the wilderness to the promised land
I must have been dozing during a campaign speech on a U.S. news channel. In that slightly unfocussed state, I thought I was hearing a re-run of a Billy Graham crusade.
At that point I snapped wide awake. I realized why the frantic electioneering going on simultaneously in both Canada and the U.S. felt so familiar – and so subtly unsettling.
Because electioneering is evangelism. Under a different banner, admittedly, but still evangelism. Its goal is conversion.
The evangelical links are obvious in Barrack Obama and Sarah Palin. The cadences, the choice of language, the passion – all trace their lineage to Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. And before them, to Billy Sunday and all those itinerant preachers who stomped the sawdust trail in tent meetings.
It\’s hard to fault the integrity of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King. Unfortunately, it\’s easy to satirize the shortcomings of their kin. Elmer Gantry did it in film. Preacher Casy in Steinbeck\’s novel Grapes of Wrath bragged that evangelical fervour triggered a fervent romp in the hay. The careers of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Aimee Semple McPherson, and Ted Haggard all flamed out spectacularly.
They leave me, I confess, with a bit of sour taste in my mouth whenever evangelical techniques crop up in other spheres.
Historic suspicion
Perhaps I\’m more biased by history than most people. I belong to the United Church of Canada. In the 1950s, we celebrated our own boy-wonder evangelist, Charles Templeton, as a Canadian equivalent of Billy Graham.
And then, at the peak of his popularity, Templeton quit. Declared that he no longer believed his own words.
The United Church has shied away from overt evangelism ever since.
On the surface, so has Canadian politics. Even Stephen Harper, by far the most evangelical party leader in his personal faith, presents himself as coolly rational, low key, down to earth.
But underneath all the campaign promises, the whistle stops and photo ops, runs the recurring message: “Believe in me!”
Believe in me, and I will make your dreams come true. Have faith in me, and we can move mountains. Trust me — I am the way, the truth, and the life…
The campaigns of all party leaders have a messianic tone. My party, my programs, can lead you out of the wilderness into the promised land!
Demonizing the other
The first evangelical crusade I ever attended was in a Mennonite Brethren church in Vancouver. The evangelist, Will Wilding, prowled back and forth across the platform like a tiger pacing its cage.
He had two tactics. One promised untold blessings if we accepted Jesus\’ invitation to turn our lives over to him. The other warned us of untold torments if we persisted in our foolish ways.
I see the same two tactics in the current political campaigns — except, of course, that they focus on this present life, not on eternal life.
So they offer, on the one hand, the thread of hope. Instead of milk and honey, they promise tax cuts, cleaner environments, and shorter waiting lists for hip surgery.
On the other hand, they constantly demonize their opponent. Stephane Dion gets caricatured as an academic wimp, John McCain as a warmonger, Stephen Harper as a robotic clone of George W. Bush, Jack Layton as a socialist, Barrack Obama as a victim of his own rhetoric…
Sarah Palin doesn\’t need any further caricaturing.
Demonization – the technique of attacking a real or imagined alternative – does not seem to me an foundational element of Christianity. Yes, Jesus did have some harsh words to say about Pharisees. And a traditional wording for adult baptism asked, “Will you renounce the Devil and all his works?”
But there\’s little evidence in Paul\’s letters that he had to attack Roman gods, or the Emperor, before he could present his case for Jesus.
Rather, people were attracted to this new faith by the change they saw in its converts. The early Christian church was known as “The Way.” It was a way of life, not a way of censure.
But by the end of the first century, the Way had gone astray. Much of what we know of early church history comes from vicious polemics written by some leaders against what they considered heresies.
The pattern persists in today\’s politics. Attacks get more media coverage than attracting by example.
Right-wing envy To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to [email protected]. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to [email protected].
It\’s also worth pursuing Charlene Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
Consider another parallel between church and politics.
When local congregations find their memberships declining, in my experience, they invariably try to borrow tactics and theology from the right-wing churches around them.
I\’ve yet to hear of a struggling congregation that deliberately decided it wanted to offer a more liberal theology. I\’m not saying it never happens – just that I have not seen it happen. Any shift to the left is usually accidental, an unintentional by-product of hiring a minister with progressive leanings.
Now look what\’s happened to Barrack Obama. As an outsider, a long shot, he articulated his nation\’s deep discontent with George Bush\’s policies. As he became a credible contender, his party\’s spin-doctors steadily massaged him further towards the middle of the political spectrum in search of additional votes.
Meanwhile, McCain and Palin get even more hawkish on social issues.
Other than the Conservatives, who have learned to keep quiet about their more controversial views, all Canadian parties have moved to the right. No party will risk leaning fully left. At most, they\’ll support the status quo on abortion clinics, safe injection sites, and corporate tax rates.
When the NDP got its start in Saskatchewan, it put doctors on salary. Today\’s NDP has backed off so far from its radical roots that it barely offers an alternative to anything.
Why not? In today\’s elections, policies hardly matter. Leaders do. And their message boils down to the same thing Jesus said at the Sea of Galilee: “Follow me!”
=====================================
Copyright © 2007 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS