The Boston Globe By Mark Noll | April 10, 2005
No one would mistake John Paul II for an evangelical Protestant. But he contributed to a dramatic warming of relations between evangelicals and Catholics that may mark a turning point not only in American politics but in the history of Christianity.
DURING THE 1960 presidential campaign, leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals – including Harold John Ockenga of Boston’s historic Park Street Church – joined other Protestants in warning the nation about the danger of electing a Catholic, John F. Kennedy. Last year, the conservative evangelical spokesman Gary L. Bauer saw the matter very differently.
”When John F. Kennedy made his famous speech that the Vatican would not tell him what to do,” Bauer told USA Today, ”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.”
Interesting … I wonder how much of the Protestant population this represents. Is this the lunatic fringe or popular opinion amongst evangelicals?
Ah yes, Jack Chick! I remember getting Jack Chick comics as a first or second grade Sunday school student. I think stuff like this is the lunatic fringe and popular with some Fundamentalist elements. It probably generates more interest among insular American Protestants in the Pentecostal and “hyper-Baptist” churches than anywhere else. My favorite comic is “The Death Cookie,” especially the scene of the demon sitting on the wafer that the poor deceived hell-bound Catholic is about to receive. However, this attitude is deeply rooted within the psyche of non-liturgical Protestants.
In a way things like this are frustrating because it still influences the way many Americans thinking about Orthodoxy, because, you know, the Orthodoxy church is just the same paganism, just without a pope/antichrist. But in the long it is probably best to laugh it off and not take this junk seriously. At the same time, however, we should also be always prepared to answer stuff like this — something that, due to my sinfulness, I do not do very well.
James, I would say that represents about as much of the Protestant population as does the ecoterrorists at the Earth Liberation Front represents popular opinion among Environmentalists.
I would very much like to think that your question, “Is this the lunatic fringe or popular opinion amongst evangelicals?” is an honest one, but I doubt it. Based on your posts elsewhere at this blog you clearly show yourself to be a man of the Left. It is my experience that folks on the Left tend to think the very worst about those of us on the Right, especially those of us who can be classified as the “Religious Right”. So I think you already have in mind an answer to your question. If you think the garbage at Chick Publications represents popular evangelical Protestant opinion, be honest with us (and yourself) and say so. But don’t play silly rhetorical games, by digging up some of the worst anti-Catholic bigotry one might find on the internet and throwing it out there as if it belongs in a respectable discussion.
I would even go so far, James, as saying that you are, unknowingly, doing the work of dark forces by propagating hate-filled garbage solely intended to create animosity against the Catholic Church. I humbly suggest you take care with what you pass along through the internet.
Of course some Orthodox have also fallen into this same Jack-Chick-like ad-homonym silliness.
But that does not detract from the Orthodox faith per se.
(pausing while adjusting my bat-like wings and sharpening my horns)
No, Daniel.
I listen to religious broadcasts on AM radio which over and over and over again chide Catholicism for its many “heresies”. I’ve read MANY Baptist sites that state quite clearly that a Catholic cannot be “saved”. What’s “hate-filled” about showing others what they believe are their errors, anyhow? If you ask Jack Chick, they’d simply respond that they’re trying to inform Catholics “in love” that they are doomed to perdition and why. To them, they’re simply preaching the Gospel.
As a Catholic myself, I can’t see why I’d try to incite anti-Catholic bigotry but if it pleases you to think as such, that’s fine.
Daniel,
FYI – Post 4 was referring to say, the relationship between the Russian Church and Rome, not your response to JamesK.
That said, whatever JamesK’s motivation, I don’t think his linking to Chick’s site is a disservice. It is good to deal with trash like that since it does shape attitudes. Even it is on the fringe Jack Chick still sells these comics by the boatload and we need to be aware of it.
Bill –
If you are referring to the Chick comics, you are mostly correct; it does not detract per se. But he does have comics that list the Orthodox as most certainly NOT Christians.
For the record for Daniel who thinks I’m part of the “vast Left-wing conspiracy”, my various positions:
a) Oppose higher taxes
b) Oppose abortion
c) Favor keeping drugs illegal
d) Oppose the death penalty in all but the most extreme situations (consistent with my Catholic faith)
e) Not a “peace-nik” in every circumstance, believe some wars are justified
f) Support allowing use of school grounds for religious purposes
I have a tendency of playing the Devil’s advocate in the sense that when I hear an opinion that I feel is arrived at not through serious reflection but through
sentiment, emotion or unthinking allegiance to tradition, I challenge it, whether it be a Left or Right position. It’s how I ensure my own beliefs are just that: my own.
As a recovering protestant whose family is 100% Pentecostal, I’d have to say that Chick is on the fringe today. When I was growing up, I read these comics in Sunday school, but that was in the late 1970’s before the rise of religious politics. The Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority made a real effort to reach out to Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and this led to a kind of ‘political eucemism.’ Politically active Evangelical preachers started refraining from attacks on Roman Catholics. At the same time, mega-church dwelling Pentecostals have become largely nominalist in their thinking. What matters is that you believe, not what you believe.
They are ‘just Jesus’ Christians, meaning that if someone just accepts Jesus they are a Christian. By this loose standard, almost anyone from Mormon to 7th Day Adventist is considered a ‘Christian.’
There are still the radical protestant elements, such as Bob Jones III and this ilk, who hold onto the old ways. That is not to say that many, many Protestants don’t rip the Catholic and Orthodox in their absence. That is a common practice to do. However, only a small minority will rip into Catholics and Orthodox in their presence. Especially given Pope John Paul’s moral stature.
James, there are a great many times when I think I am doing something that is promoting growth through debate or discussion. After some time reflecting on what I did or said I realize that all I did was sow discord and disharmony, not least of all within my own heart. I thought I was being quite virtuous asking questions, showing what others say about this, that or the other thing. I am slowly coming to realize that I have been attempting to fill myself with pride of being a greater dispassionate observer than my fellow man.
I apologize for mischaracterizing you as a man of the Left. I can only base my perception on what I read here. If you argue from the Left, don’t be too surprised when folks think you are a Leftist. But, again, my apologies for making this mistake.
As far as the anti-Catholic Chick Publishing stuff goes. I really don’t understand why a Catholic would come to an Orthodox website with anti-Catholic material and ask the readers if this represents Protestant opinion. I, as a former Protestant, can tell you it does not. But if you really want to know, go ask the Protestants. Confront them with their bigotry and obvious error. Or were you anticipating receiving support for this anti-Catholic dreck? As Michael R. notes above, some Orthodox do believe that Catholics are not Christian. During a visit to Greece there were some Greek Orthodox who publicly labeled Pope John Paul II the anti-christ. Shameful behavior by the Orthodox, but there it is; I do not think it is popular opinion among the Orthodox.
Now, that I know more about you, I’m sure you know this stuff to be garbage. Why carry it around with you just to play the Devil’s Advocate? Do you carry racist literature around in order to spark discussion between African-Americans and Caucasians? And if you do, do you find it to be a useful way to address race relations?
I stated above, “I think you already have in mind an answer to your question.” Your responses show me to be correct. You believe that Chick Publishing represents widespread belief among Protestants. So you really weren’t asking an honest question to which you wanted a honest answer. I might suggest that you represent yourself and your thinking more honestly as you post here.
As to your statement that you argue against any “opinion that [you] feel is arrived at not through serious reflection but through sentiment, emotion or unthinking allegiance to tradition.” I would suggest you sit down with the Saints. A great many of them deepened their love for Christ, and, more importantly, came to understand Christ’s love for us, through sentiment, emotion and allegiance to tradition.
But, again, forgive me for mischaracterizing you as a Leftist.
No apology needed. (I’m not really a “Right” either, more of a “moderate”).
A few things:
I don’t think Chick’s readings are hateful, merely ignorant. I think they are acting out of what they believe to be the charitable thing to do. Hateful is Fred Phelps and his ilk (though I support his right to be as obnoxious as he is). My point was to perhaps highlight, however inelegantly, the huge gulf between Christian denominations that still exists. There will always be differences, yes, but not ones that, in my opinion, are worthy of the animosity that exists.
As Jim H has noted, most people are not extremists (whether they be liberal or conservative), but the numbers of extremists are not negligible, and as we see from the recently arrested Eric Rudolph responsible for the bombings, they are capable of serious damage. We need to know what they are doing. Extreme literature is not my steady diet, however.
Side note: As a Catholic, I’m also involved as a musician with Baptist services, oddly enough (American, not Southern, and there’s a BIG difference!) There is no anti-Catholic tone that I’ve ever detected.
Speaking of extremists, I’m attaching this link to the words of Eric Rudolph regarding his bombings of abortion clinics, a gay nightclub and the Olympic site. This is no deranged psychopath or a hapless drifter: on the contrary, his thoughts have a fiendish logic to them. I do not pretend to understand what motivates men such as this, but it’s interesting reading nonetheless.
As a Catholic, James, I would think you would understand the very real presence of Evil, not as a defective psychology, but rather as an actual force that is at work in this world. If we believe that God and His Angels act in this world than we also have to believe that Satan and his demons do as well.
It is a shame that I rarely, if ever, hear people recite the Lord’s Prayer as He taught us. Most people end it with “Deliver us from evil.” It was taught as “Deliver us from the Evil One.” If you read the Desert Fathers you will see that they struggled, regularly, against demons. We do not do ourselves any good if we dismiss the reality of forces in this world that only want to wreak evil.
And we always have to remember that even Satan quotes Scripture.
Just want to back up Daniel on his point about the Lord’s Prayer. The expression does indeed refer to the divider. I’m off to work, so I don’t have time to go into Satan’s character in the Gospels. Maybe another time.
JamesK, I had you pegged as a leftist as well. Good smoke screen. Daniel is right: take evil very seriously.
I don’t deny the reality of evil. I do think that actively attempting to seek and destroy it (as Eric Rudolph did) will inevitably so taint the hunter that in the end they may end up being sucked into the void themselves. (Which is why I often wonder why exorcists seem so drab, joyless and haunted themselves.) Those of us who have met our demons are less scandalized by the failings of others and can often converse with the “worst” with an understanding that may provide to them a glimpse of a way out.
A good example …
“She went out for cigarettes.
That’s my favorite detail of the story of Elizabeth Ashley Smith. This was not a noble calling; it wasn’t even a noble errand. But the craving for nicotine at 2 o’clock in the morning led Smith into the loaded gun of one Brian Nichols, a man who had already raped one woman and murdered four men. Acccording to Smith, Nichols forced her into her apartment, tied her up, put her in the bathtub and told her “I’m not going to hurt you if you just do what I say.”
What would you do under those circumstances? Scream? Panic? Beg? But at that point, something else intervened. Smith actually communicated with her murderous captor. She says she saw him not as a monster but as a human being. She talked with him. She told her own story. How her former husband had been stabbed in a petty dispute and had died in her arms, how she had then developed a drug habit, had been caught for speeding and drunk driving, arrested for assault, and ceded custody of her young daughter to her own mother. She showed him her own wounds as a human being. And she saw through the terrible crimes this man had committed to the wounded soul beneath.
It would be politically correct to describe this encounter as a spiritual one. But it seems to me that it was more than that. It was, in the minds and souls of both human beings, an encounter with God.”
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20050322
Be Ready for the Counterattack
I think people need to understand that if they challenge the devil’s hold over something they will be hit with a counterattack. They need to know that a battle is being waged and they need to be ready for it.
Example, if I were to challenge the domination of leftists in a university alumni association, i would prepare myself carefully. I would make sure that I had thorough understanding of the procedural rules and the law and the politics. I would make sure that I knew where the money came from. Then, I would seek out allies on a private basis. Only then would I go public. After I went public, I would be prepared for the counterattack for it will come and will be vicious.
People who did not fully acknowledge that the Evil One prowls everywhere will be wiped out early. (Never thought I would write a sentence like that, I consider myself a scientist, but, the truth is the truth.)
James, I guess my point is that evil is not something one can “understand” unless one is willing to acknowledge the presence of Evil, by which I mean the presence of demons poisoning our souls and leading us to behave, in the worst case, like Eric Rudoph and Brian Nichols. When I read your comments, “[Rudolph’s] thoughts have a fiendish logic to them. I do not pretend to understand what motivates men such as this…” I understood this to mean that the evil Rudolph does can be understood in strictly human terms; as defective psychology, zealotry, racism, sexism, or just plain old hate. We are looking in the wrong place when we try to “understand” evil in this manner.
When we think about love and forgiveness we easily remember Christ’s healing the paralytic and the parable of the Prodigal Son. When we want to remember what it means to be a Christian we easily recall Christ’s teaching the Beatitudes. When we want to know what how to approach the altar at worship we have at our fingertips the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. But when we see something like Rudolph we seem to forget that Christ and the Apostles came face to face with demons.
I think that deep down Elizabeth Ashley Smith understands Evil as the real presence of demons. Sullivan wrote that when faced with the very threat from Nichols “at that point, something else intervened.” I would argue that “something else” was, in fact, Christ working through Smith to cast out, for a few moments, the demons possessing Nichols, which allowed him the clarity needed to give himself up to police. Now that doesn’t mean we should allow the defense of “demon possession” for criminal behavior or that we should have our cops become exorcists. Nor does this mean that those demons won’t be back tempting Nichols to kill and rape again.
If we want to know why people like Nichols or Rudolph do what they do a good place to start is the Scriptural stories of Christ and the Apostles casting out demons.
Missourian,
What does “People who did not fully acknowledge that the Evil One prowls everywhere will be wiped out early” mean? Who exactly, in your opinion, is on this slippery slide to perdition? People who don’t properly acknowledge the existence of the Devil? Eric Rudolph believes in him quite a bit, and he blew up a few buildings (and a few unfortunate bystanders) in the process of trying to rid the world of him. Does the apparent certainty that you are excluded from this unlucky group come from being without moral stain, your faith in Christ or, as you say, your “acknowledgement of the Evil One”? Wiped out by whom or what? An Angry God? The Devil himself? A tidal wave? I find comments like this to be a little on the cryptic side. Are we simply being Apocalyptic?
Forgive me if I’m reading a tad too much into it but since I don’t know you, I can only guess …
JamesK
You write:
Missourian,
What does ?People who did not fully acknowledge that the Evil One prowls everywhere will be wiped out early? mean? Who exactly, in your opinion, is on this slippery slide to perdition? People who don?t properly acknowledge the existence of the Devil? Eric Rudolph believes in him quite a bit, and he blew up a few buildings (and a few unfortunate bystanders) in the process of trying to rid the world of him. Does the apparent certainty that you are excluded from this unlucky group come from being without moral stain, your faith in Christ or, as you say, your ?acknowledgement of the Evil One”? Wiped out by whom or what? An Angry God? The Devil himself? A tidal wave? I find comments like this to be a little on the cryptic side. Are we simply being Apocalyptic?
Forgive me if I?m reading a tad too much into it but since I don?t know you, I can only guess ?
************************************************************************************
James, I apologize for sloppy language. Let me try to respond in some detail.
I wrote (somewhat hastily) People who did not fully acknowledge that the Evil One prowls everywhere will be wiped out early? mean?
What I meant is that when a Christian takes the initiative to stand up for morality or for Good in any situation, they need to be prepared for the counterattack. Example, I once worked in State agency charged with protecting children from abuse by adults. After I won a string of cases, I was called into my supervisor’s office and I was told that his supervisor had….. get this….. received complaints from the child abusers I had won cases against. My supervisor’s surpervisor was complaining that I had been “too rough” on the child abusers. The quote that stands out in my mind was….. I am not making this up…..”Child abusers are taxpayers too.” The only direct personal contact I had had with the child abusers was in a formal court proceeding. The child abuser was represented by a lawyer and everything was controlled by the formal legal etiquette. I had never had a word with the child abusers outside of this forum. The only possible meaning of being “too rough” on child abusers was that I had fought to hard to win. I never used improper tactics or violated any ethics requirements. They did not identify any specific misconduct on my part, there wasn’t any. I am very careful about ethics. The child abusers were protected by their attorneys who would have complained if I had violated ethical standards which I did not. This taught me that even when I was pursuring something that was unambigusouly good there would still be forces out there on the other side. By the way, I continued to fight hard on my cases. “Fighting hard” means working hard to find and secure relevant evidence and working hard to be well-prepared. For instance, if I learned that a possible witness was out of state, I didn’t just give up and assume that they would not be available for trial. I worked to contact them and took the extra effort to get them there to testify.
I do NOT mean that I think that people who fail to acknowledge the reality and existence of Evil will be punished by God for this alleged ignorance, rather, I meant that they will be surprised by the counterattack. Let me ask you this, would you have anticipated a supervisor telling you, after you won a string of child abuse cases, that “child abusers are taxpayers, too.” Came as a surprise to me then, now I am not surprised.
Second example, while investigating child abuse cases, social workers in my department came upon people who would look them straight in the face and in broad daylight say “What a man does with his daughter in his own home is his own business.” This was in response to a charge of father-daughter incest. Creepy enough for you?
I belive Jesus made direct reference to the existence of a Devil. I believe that I have seen evil working its way through people’s lives in many child abuse and criminal cases. If you don’t believe in evil, visit a prosecutor’s office and ask to see some of his major crimes cases and see the damage done to innocent people by criminals for no reason whatsoever. There is much crime that has no monetary motivation and which is just an exercise in cruelty.
Does this clear things up?
As to Eric Rudolph, I believe the Church’s teaching on the use of violence is clear. I am glad that Rudolph will be locked up for the rest of his life. I am very sorry for his victims.
Not Being Apocalyptic Just Sloppy Language
JamesK writes:
Missourian,
What does ?People who did not fully acknowledge that the Evil One prowls everywhere will be wiped out early? mean? Who exactly, in your opinion, is on this slippery slide to perdition? People who don?t properly acknowledge the existence of the Devil? Eric Rudolph believes in him quite a bit, and he blew up a few buildings (and a few unfortunate bystanders) in the process of trying to rid the world of him. Does the apparent certainty that you are excluded from this unlucky group come from being without moral stain, your faith in Christ or, as you say, your ?acknowledgement of the Evil One”? Wiped out by whom or what? An Angry God? The Devil himself? A tidal wave? I find comments like this to be a little on the cryptic side. Are we simply being Apocalyptic?
Forgive me if I?m reading a tad too much into it but since I don?t know you, I can only guess ?
8***********************************************************************************
No I did not mean that God would punish people who did fully understand that Evil was a real force and a real presence. I meant that good people who are standing up for morality or justice or whatever is good, should be prepared for a counterattack, as it will come. Those who are unprepared for a counterattack will be “wiped out early.” Does that clear things up? I apologize for the sloppy language.
I abhore what Eric Rudolph has done. The Church’s teaching on violence is clear.
I feel very sorry for his victims, I am glad that he is finally locked up. I had zero sympathy for this man, zero.
Example of Counterattack.
After I had won a string of child abuse cases for a state agency charged with protecing children, my supervisor called me into his office and relied an message from his supervisor. My supervisor’s supervisor wanted me to know that I had been “too rough” on child abusers and that I needed to remember….I am not making this up….. “child abusers are taxpayers, too.”
Now, my only contact with the abusers was a formal legal proceeding. All of the activities at the formal legal proceedings occurred with, at a minimum, a judge as a witness. I followed standard legal etiquette which does not involve any abusive or angry language. Most of the child abusers were represented by attorneys who would have stopped anything like that.
I did not violate any ethical guidelines in my cases. No one suggested that I had violated a particular ethical guideline. Again, most child abusers were represented by attorneys who would have screamed bloody murder if I had violated an ethical guideline.
There was nothing, repeat nothing, put in my file about this conversation. They couldn’t put anything in my file, I hadn’t done anything wrong. There was no written evidence of the conversation, they didn’t want any evidence of the conversation, but,they did want me to know that I had been “rocking the boat” by winning cases. Cute huh?
Now, at the time, I was flabbergasted, how could anyone intervene on behalf of child abusers, didn’t we all know that child abuse was very, very wrong? Sure, we all do, the call to the office was the counterattack I was talking about. I continued to do the best I could on my cases.
Note 19: Thank you for clarifying. Honestly, I don’t have much experience dealing with what I think are evil people, although I’ve come into contact with those who I feel are confused and misguided, often because of traumatic life events, drugs or simple immaturity, and who do some not-so-good things. As a child, I was aghast that anyone could be an atheist. I now know that for someone who may have been abused by a clergy member, it would seem an understandable psychological coping mechanism to reject the faith as just more lies.
Perhaps by luck (or grace) I’ve managed to avoid coming into contact with truly dark personalities.
Missourian and Daniel,
I agree with you completely. Evil (a.k.a. “The Evil One) also works much more subtle “sugar coated” fashion. It sounds reasonable, is professed by “respected” academics and politicians, and twists things around so that those who opposed it are themselves considered “evil.” An all to easy example to point to is the logic that the Pope was somehow responsible for AIDS in Africa because he opposed contraception. This is just as evil as the examples mentioned above, but more insidious, at least here in the West.