Iraqi Bishop: Evangelicals in Iraq Making The Religious Situation Worse

This is actually a common problem in many regions. Evangelicals who go on mission trips tend to be sensationalistic and divisive. They cause a lot of problems, the kind which generate hostility, not only towards themselves, but to all Christians. As a result, Native Christians, who previously had a good standing in their society, find their livelihood, and their very lives, put at risk. In India, many of the conflicts between Hindus and Christians stem from evangelical missionaries encouraging vandalism to Hindu temples. It should not be too surprising that in Iraq, since it is now “opened up” to American missionaries, they are adding to the instability to the region. Thankfully, as Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni has pointed out, many Muslims are working to help protect the native Christians, and are trying to encourage them to stay. Hopefully such positive action will encourage Christians not to lump all Muslims together.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am and is filed under Henry Karlson, Islam, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

57 Responses to “Iraqi Bishop: Evangelicals in Iraq Making The Religious Situation Worse”

S.B. Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm
That story was woefully lacking in details about the supposed “instability” caused by evangelicals. All it said was this: This activity puts the Iraqi “Christian minority at risk, exposing it to the unjust accusation of proselytism,” he said.

An unjust accusation indeed . . . so much for the Great Commission.
Morning's Minion Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The American Catholic allies of these evangelical movements need to bear these facts in mind. Evangelicals have been causing havoc throughout Latin America for years. We really need to get back to basics here. Iraqi Christians are authentic Christians dating back to apostolic times. American evangelicals are a weird heretical fringe. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh to some ears.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm
MM you are right about Latin America. We have seen this before.

It’s important to note, though, that it is a particular type of evangelicalism that we are talking about, not all american evangelicals. Also important to note that certain sectors of the Catholic Church have caused similar havoc, and have indeed worked with the evangelicals you are talking about.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm
S.B. obviously has a perverse understanding of the Great Commission, one that connects Christ’s command to war.
S.B. Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:39 pm
My understanding of the Great Commission is that it means what it says . . . preach the Gospel to all nations. The fact that this may sometimes occur in the wake of a war is coincidental; I said nothing that would “connect Christ’s command to war,” and it is silly to pretend as much. And it’s equally bizarre for a professed Christian leader to say that it is “unfair” to accuse him of preaching the Gospel.
S.B. Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“Unjust” not “unfair.”
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The fact that this may sometimes occur in the wake of a war is coincidental…

Yeah. “Coincidence.”
S.B. Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Whatever, Mikey. Are you trying to suggest that wherever there has been a war, the Great Commission is suspended? Or are you just engaging in the usual childish sniping?
jonathanjones02 Says:
December 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm
American evangelicals are a weird heretical fringe.

Do you believe that evangelicals are heretics to the Christian faith?
Morning's Minion Says:
December 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Do you believe that evangelicals are heretics to the Christian faith?

Of course. Council of Trent.
digbydolben Says:
December 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The theology of the so-called “Evangelicals” is, indeed, a “heresy of the Christian faith” and has been “defined” as such (for you papacy-worshipping “fundamentalist” Catholics) for several centuries now, by the “Magisterium” of the Catholic Church. It seems that only in America–infected as it is by Protestant religious culture–is this not well understood.

Their theology is always based on either “salvation by faith alone,” the “inerrancy” (viz. literalist fundamentalism) of Sacred Scripture, the “priesthood of all believers,” or pre-destination. What is each and every one of these but a Protestant heresy? These fundamental differences with orthodoxy, which have profound effects upon politics (i.e. social justice issues), upon “interfaith dialogue,” and upon sacramental life (as in the definition of marriage, which was long ago “de-sacramentalized” by Protestant tolerance of divorce–resulting in “serial monogamy” as a way of life in America–destabilizing “marriage” long before same-sex marriage became an issue)–all of these important matters are papered over, in America, because of short-term political interests, as in the instances of campaigns against same-sex “marriage,” embryonic stem cell research, and abortion.

This intellectual dishonesty in America regarding grave and important theological differences is having a disastrous effect upon the world Church, in my honest opinion, and will have a terrible consequence, eventually, in yoking the “teaching magisterium” to an increasingly influential and heretical body of sects, which, believe me (I’ve seen their “missionizing” in action, in Sri Lanka and in India), have as their goal the eradication of Catholic just as much as “pagan” religion. In Sri Lanka and in India, their Pajero-driving “pastors” offer free school books, bicycles and shoes for children to show up in, in order to sit the national exams, in return for a pledge to eschew the company of Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus AND “Catholic non-Christians.”

One of these “pastors” had to be sacked from the faculty of my international school in India when it was found that he had sent, from one of the school’s computers, an e-mail to his “mission board” which read, “Send more money; the pagan fields are RIPE FOR PLUCKING!” My friends, he was in Tamil Nadu, on the border of majority-Christian Kerala, and he wasn’t just talking about Hindus!
Kurt Says:
December 4, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Someone might want to check this, but I believe the CNEWA once wrote that in the past 150 years of Christian evangelization in the Arab world, 99% of their success has been in moving Christians from their historic eastern churches to Protestantism or Latin Catholicism. <1% has been in bringing Muslims to the Christian faith.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 4, 2008 at 2:16 pm
S.B. how arrogant of you to suggest that you know better than this bishop what is going on in Iraq.
jonathanjones02 Says:
December 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Do you believe that evangelicals are heretics to the Christian faith?

Of course. Council of Trent.

I disagree. The Catechism states all outside the Apostolic tradition miss the fullness of the Sacraments, but is this heresy? Heresy is a belief that actively rejects orthodox tenets. Evangelicals, on the whole, do not (even as a wide definition may well include the heterodox). Instead, we have :

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
Catechism 819

“The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”
Catechism 870

To say a group is heretical requires an active rejection of central tenants, even as heresy may be present. And so the Jehovah’s Witnesses contain heresy in a way that the Methodists do not, regardless of the evangelization.
S.B. Says:
December 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm
S.B. how arrogant of you to suggest that you know better than this bishop what is going on in Iraq.

Bollocks. I don’t know better than him what’s going on in Iraq, and I said nothing that would be interpreted that way by any semi-rational reader. My only point is that if he wants anyone outside Iraq to understand and sympathize with his situation (whatever that might be), he’s going to have to say a little bit more than “Oh, how unjust that anyone would think Christians are proselytizing.”
Maximos Says:
December 4, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Someone has to say it, but the tendency among many evangelicals to impugn the orthodoxy of the Apostolic churches of the East dovetails with the dispensensationalism of the evangelical sects, which is to say, with the Israeli nationalism of these sects, such that the Christians of the region are regarded as pagans who, if they were “real” Christians, would agree that the Israelis have the right to seize their lands or wage war against their brethren, in fulfillment of a “prophetic” hallucination. Evangelical theology, in practice, entails that the Christians of the region are essentially nonpersons; the trials endured by the Iraqi Christians are invisible, as is their growing diaspora; the decimation of the Palestinian churches is either invisible or celebrated, depending upon the context.
darren Says:
December 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm
i don’t have much stake in defending evangelicals, but i don’t think “digbydolden” is going to get too far defining them theologically. rather, one is much better off defining evangelicals sociologically. take for instance his scare quotes around “priesthood of all believers.” as though 1Peter 2:9 is an evangelical heresy!
digbydolben Says:
December 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm
You know, Darren, to define “Evangelicals” “sociologically” is actually to disrespect them. Ever have a serious theological discussion with one of them? They have very, very serious disagreements with basic Catholic theology, and they take these differences much more seriously than you apparently do.
darren Says:
December 4, 2008 at 3:25 pm
right that’s the problem, digbydolden, i guess by some definitions, i am one of them, but by some i am not. so i’ve had a few conversations. it is not disrespectful to define evangelicals sociologically, some of the “leaders” (of particular denominations or streams) do it regularly. it’s just an honest realization that the span of theological disagreement within groups that at least someone will call evangelicals is enormous. not all have very, very serious disagreements with basic Catholic theology either (like the Creeds for instance). what basic Catholic theology do you mean?
Morning's Minion Says:
December 4, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Maximos: you put it brilliantly. Thank you.
darren Says:
December 4, 2008 at 3:50 pm
i agree that Maximos did note a good connection, depending upon which “evangelical theology” he means in this quote:
“Evangelical theology, in practice, entails that the Christians of the region are essentially nonpersons; the trials endured by the Iraqi Christians are invisible, as is their growing diaspora; the decimation of the Palestinian churches is either invisible or celebrated, depending upon the context.”
blanket statements like this are rather unhelpful, if not plain wrong. surely Maximos doesn’t mean the evangelical (euangelion) theology of the NT? you know, that “evangelical theology” that centers around the good news proclamation that Jesus is Lord.
Morning's Minion Says:
December 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I don’t get Jonathan’s point. Of course there are “many elements of sanctification and of truth” in Protestantism as in Gnosticism, Arian, Monophysitism etc etc.– but they are still Christian heresies. The nineteenth ecumenical council was very clear about this with regard to the early Prostestant thinkers. And since many contemporary evangelicals have added even more dubious doctrines (rapture, anyone?) I would say the case is far stronger against the modern American evangelicals than the traditional Lutherans.
darren Says:
December 4, 2008 at 3:59 pm
please explicate which “Protestantism” you mean MM, which non-mega-church, 700 Club Protestant theologies are outright heresies to you? while of course there are evangelical heresies (just as there as Catholic heresies, if we want to play the lowest common denominator game), your comments lead one to suspect your knowledge of this “Protestantism” is a bit inadequate for you to judge “its” orthodoxy.
HA Says:
December 4, 2008 at 7:04 pm
…your comments lead one to suspect your knowledge of this “Protestantism” is a bit inadequate for you to judge “its” orthodoxy.

Suspect, you say? I take it you’re new here. Else you’d be way beyond suspecting.

Just don’t ask him anything about Calvinism. Seriously.
Morning's Minion Says:
December 4, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Are you people seriously trying to argue that Protestantism (whatever variant you choose) is not a heresy? I take my evangelical councils seriously, thank you very much. I believe what the 19th says about Protestantism as much as I believe what the first says about Arianism. I’m talking real orthdoxy here, not the fake kind characterized by voting Republican, defining onself as “conservative” and selectively banning one’s political opponents from communion.
Mike J. Says:
December 4, 2008 at 11:15 pm
MM:
I believe the only points they’re trying to make is that your brush strokes are far too broad. If this were an oil painting, Protestantism is an example of Pointalism and you’re trying to recreate it using Monet-esque brush-strokes. My personal belief is that the term “evangelical” is well nigh useless to anyone other than a talking head on CNN or FOX.

On the other hand, ProtestantISM does involve any number of heresies, but the Church does not label Protestant believers as heretics or engaging in heresy themselves because of the active choice necessary to the act as Jonathan pointed out above.

-Mike
digbydolben Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:00 am
May I repeat something that I stated earlier and then get one of you defenders of Protestant heresy to respond to it?

It is the STATED goal of Evangelical Protestant sects to spend whatever it takes in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia to “convert” Catholics and other “pagans” to “real Christianity.”

I happen to KNOW this is true; I’ve lived in one of those regions of the Third World and I’ve seen this “mission work” with my own eyes. I’ve even “dialogued” with one or two of these aggressive despisers of “Romanism.”

What do you have to say to THAT?
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:58 am
To say a group is heretical requires an active rejection of central tenants, even as heresy may be present. And so the Jehovah’s Witnesses contain heresy in a way that the Methodists do not, regardless of the evangelization.

Jehovah’s Witnesses may technically qualify as apostates, since they are non-Trinitarian. Heresy is false teaching, but not an outright rejection of the faith.

…but the Church does not label Protestant believers as heretics or engaging in heresy themselves because of the active choice necessary to the act as Jonathan pointed out above.

Correction: the Church has not called Protestants heretics for quite some time, but it has called them heretics. Also, are you saying that Evangelicals, for example, do not actively reject the papacy, apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc.? Have they accidentally rejected them?

I find it interesting that the people here who rush to the defense of Evangelicals (even those with utterly perverse beliefs such as Sarah Palin) are often the ones to denounce Episcopalianism/Anglicanism for heresy, and are also quick to defend the CDF when it issues statements suggesting that Protestant churches are not churches. Which is it, my friends?

And although I recognize the validity of MM’s position, I tend to be a bit more generous in general when it comes to drawing lines of “heresy” and “orthodoxy.” I would certainly not call Protestantism as a whole “heresy,” mainly because “Protestantism” does not exist, rather multiple Protestant churches exist.
S.B. Says:
December 5, 2008 at 9:06 am
I happen to KNOW this is true; I’ve lived in one of those regions of the Third World and I’ve seen this “mission work” with my own eyes. I’ve even “dialogued” with one or two of these aggressive despisers of “Romanism.”

What do you have to say to THAT?

Bring it on. Who’s afraid of a little competition? Besides, some of these Third World “Catholics” are mixing Catholicism with native animist religions, and if you’re so worried about “heresy,” they’d be better off as evangelical Christians.

On another note, no one, not even Mikey, was able to explain why the Iraq (or the Catholic Church there) is exempt from the Great Commission.
S.B. Says:
December 5, 2008 at 9:14 am
I’d also note that no one claims to have any further details on why the Catholics in Iraq are supposedly disadvantaged by evangelicals, beyond being “unjustly” accused of preaching the Gospel themselves. Anyone have any idea? If there’s any real harm going on, it would be interesting to know of it.
Kurt Says:
December 5, 2008 at 9:23 am
SB –

I am a beleiver in religious freedom and free speech. However, I am also Catholic and I believe it is unfortunate when practicing Catholics are converted to Protestantism. Less important than the loss of the Catholic faith for these individulals, but still heavy on my heart, is the coming extinction of the laudable liturgical, spiritual and theological patrimony of Chaldean Catholicism. The Church of the East has survived the Persians, the Mongols, Tamerlane, the Caliphs, and Baathism. Yet now is seems likely this is their last century as a living tradition.
Joseph Says:
December 5, 2008 at 10:07 am
I never cease to be disgusted by MM, MZ, MI and the like. I agree that “evangelical” missionaries make things worse in nations other than their home in the U.S., especially when trying to proselytize in countries that have their Christian roots in Catholicism (and Orthodoxy). The Great Commission was given to the Apostles, to be continued by their successors in the Apostolic Church. What the evangelicals bring is confusion, not the Truth. One of the dogmas of evanglicalism is “blessed assurance”, which always ends up in sanctimoniousness and an allowance for sin (since they’ve already been forgiven for sins past, present, and future). There is no prudence or tact involved with their methods of evangelisation and their targets are oftentimes the Catholics and Orthodox. The whole attitude provokes violence, and, unfortunately, because they try to claim themselves as part of the Church (however invisible they believe it to be), they are, in the eyes of the violent aggressors, associated with the only Christians they know in their communities. In the case of Iraq, that is the Chaldean Catholics.

However, there is a greater problem with these evangelical missionary groups. Ever wonder why they are always so protected while the Catholics are not? Historically, these groups have operated as NGOs and the Red Cross having U.S. (or other) intelligence personnel embedded within to spy and spread propaganda that will serve the interest of the U.S. and partners intelligence communities (this is a major problem in Russia today). There are several reasons why these groups cannot be trusted, but it should raise some eyebrows that these folks have a degree of protection that the native Christians do not?
radicalcatholicmom Says:
December 5, 2008 at 10:59 am
What is interesting is how Evangelical Protestantism was supported, funded and encouraged in Latin America by US funded military regimes to undermine the Catholic Church and thus the regional stability. Fascinating (in a very sad sort a way) to see this being repeated in Iraq and even sadder to see American Catholics supporting (again) the undermining of Our Faith in other countries.

But at least the president who did it was pro-life!!!
Joseph Says:
December 5, 2008 at 11:26 am
RCM,

Yes, that’s true. I’m no defender of Bush, but if you are trying to justify your vote for the illustrious Obama again, stop and think about the new missionaries that he will be funding. They will be spreading the abortion gospel.
Seminarian Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:04 pm
There is a difference between material and formal heresy. Formal heresy inovolves four specific elements: 1. The person has been validly baptised. 2. External profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate. 3. Outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God. 4. Finally, the disbelief must be culpable.

Material heresy is when someone innocently denies or has positive doubt concerning a truth that the Church has taught as revealed by God: that is, he doesn’t recognize his obligation to believe through ignorance, etc… Material heresy doesn’t imply sin or guilt subjectively but the objective reality of heresy and the grave damage it causes Christ’s Body remains.

So, Mornings Minions is absolutely correct that all protestants are heretics, if he is speaking about material heresy that is.
radicalcatholicmom Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:38 pm
SB: “I’d also note that no one claims to have any further details on why the Catholics in Iraq are supposedly disadvantaged by evangelicals, beyond being “unjustly” accused of preaching the Gospel themselves. Anyone have any idea? If there’s any real harm going on, it would be interesting to know of it.”

In tense ethnic and religious situations, the aggressive Evangelical tactics is like pouring gasoline on a spark. And then the missionaries get to leave and the Christian native population gets to experience the consequences.

In Latin America, it was the Catholic populations who suffered the most. It was understood that once people converted to Evangelical Christianity they would be on the side of the Government.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Besides, some of these Third World “Catholics” are mixing Catholicism with native animist religions, and if you’re so worried about “heresy,” they’d be better off as evangelical Christians.

Riiiight. Mixing “pure” Christianity with other cultures is absolutely wrong. Maybe you’d be better off as an Evangelical, S.B. since you obviously wouldn’t be able to tolerate the impurities of Roman Catholicism.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm
RCM – Yes, you’re right about the “evangelism” going on in Latin America. Sadly, though, S.B. is not interested in facts like these.
S.B. Says:
December 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Riiiight. Mixing “pure” Christianity with other cultures is absolutely wrong.

How about answering this, if you have the intellectual capacity to do so: What would possibly make you rank Protestants as worse on the heresy scale than the Catholic-voodoo combination that is practiced in Haiti?
digbydolben Says:
December 5, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Some of the stuff being written here in defense of “material heresy” is so risible as to be almost freakish. And, of course, it’s all being fabricated for purely POLITICAL motives.

That’s why we have the “more Catholic than the Pope” “SB” saying “bring it on” regarding the apostasy of poor theologically unsophisticated Third Worlders. It sort of shows how seriously HE takes the claims of the Apostolic Succession and the “Real Presence” offered by the true “Body of Christ,” doesn’t it?

And while we’re on the subject of the self-delusions of the heretics regarding the nature of “real Communion” with the “Body of Christ,” maybe the homophobic “SB” and “HA” would like to take a look at “The Masculine Journey” of the “Promise Keepers”:

http://watch.pair.com/symbol.html#mj

http://www.rense.com/general53/promise.htm

Ahem, now let’s all sit back and wait for the vitriol that will be splashed here as a display of THEIR ultra-papist orthodoxy and as “outing” of MY prurient interest in what they’ll obviously deem to be “un-representative” “perversions” of “real Evangelical spirituality.”

The thing is, though, that this kind of ithyphallic “male-bonding” IS part of the perverted spirituality of militant Protestant Christianity in America, and so maybe the “Promise Keepers” are right–maybe some innocent indulgence in homoerotic male-bonding is “normal” and healthy; the problem is that homophobes like “SB,” “HA” and President Dubya would prefer it to take the form of “making war”–rather than “love”–together–on the killing fields of the Muslim heartland!
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 5, 2008 at 2:01 pm
What would possibly make you rank Protestants as worse on the heresy scale than the Catholic-voodoo combination that is practiced in Haiti?

I don’t put either of them on the “heresy scale.”

But to answer your question in any meaningful sense I would need to know which Protestant church you are talking about and which beliefs and I would also need to know which “voodoo” practices are supposedly being integrated into Catholicism in Haiti and which of them you are concerned about. Catholicism has ALWAYS practiced syncretism, so in that sense the hybridity taking place in places like Haiti is nothing new and is very Catholic. Not all syncretisms are bad; only the ones that fundamentally contradict the Gospel. Like many aspects of the americanist Catholic project.
S.B. Says:
December 6, 2008 at 9:19 am
OK.

Any of the other folks here complaining about heresy . . . wouldn’t you have to agree that people practicing this sort of religion — news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0707_040707_tvtaboovoodoo.html — would be better off from a Christian perspective if some evangelicals “converted” them from their mish-mash of pseudo-Catholicism and voodoo? At least evangelicalism — as much as you might get the cooties when thinking of it — doesn’t involve sacrificing chickens to deities other than God.
Morning's Minion Says:
December 6, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’d rather a dead chicken than a million dead Iraqis.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 6, 2008 at 11:28 am
Well, the chicken sacrifices in the article were not done for deities, but spirits. Let’s at least be accurate in our representations.

I’m not saying that every religious practice can or should be combined with Christianity. But again, we have to look at individual practices and beliefs and not write off entire cultures or religions and dismiss their attempts at authentic inculturation as “pseudo-Catholicism.”

Also, what MM said. I think right wing evangelicals have their own syncretisms to worry about and be liberated from.
Aaron Johanson Says:
December 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm
It is well know that evangelical missionaries are both predatory and dismiisive of the native faiths where they go to preach. The reserve a great deal of hatred for Hindus and all I can say is that many of them get what they deserve when they “take one for the faith”. It would be hard to determine which they are more dismissive of, Hinduism, or Islam.

In any case, were I to suggest that it is no great offence to desecrate evangelical churches because evangelicals worship demons and inflict great harm on their families and communities, evangelicals would have strokes pounding out condemnation on their blogs, hate radio station, absurd television “shows”, and birdcadge fit “newspapers”.

I have been thinking about starting a blog to encourage this idea here in the States simply for the fun of the reaction.

Pot.Kettle.
S.B. Says:
December 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I’d rather a dead chicken than a million dead Iraqis

Except that the latter isn’t a religious practice, so it’s quite the straw man if the question is who you want to call a heretic.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 6, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Except that the latter isn’t a religious practice, so it’s quite the straw man if the question is who you want to call a heretic.

This is incorrect. Countless americans, including George W. Bush, “justified” the Iraq War using supposedly “Christian” principles. Many soldiers fighting in the war see what they are doing as if it were a crusade.
S.B. Says:
December 6, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Countless americans, including George W. Bush, “justified” the Iraq War using supposedly “Christian” principles.

Says who? The fear of alleged WMDs doesn’t have much to do with religion, nor does the belief that democracy should be installed in certain areas of the world.
Morning's Minion Says:
December 6, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Says a lot of people. The Vatican for one. See here: http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0523.htm

“In the view of some in the Vatican, underlying both the harsh American response on sexual abuse, and its dualistic approach to foreign policy, is the legacy of Calvinism. The Calvinist concepts of the total depravity of the damned, the unconditional election of God’s favored, and the manifestation of election through earthly success, all seem to them to play a powerful role in shaping American cultural psychology.

After Cardinal Pio Laghi returned to Rome from his last-minute appeal to Bush just before the Iraq war began, he told John Paul II that he sensed “something Calvinistic” in the president’s iron determination to battle the forces of international terrorism.

Recently I was in the Vatican, and happened to strike up a conversation with an official eager to hear an American perspective on the war. He told me he sees a “clash of civilizations” between the United States and the Holy See, between a worldview that is essentially Calvinistic and one that is shaped by Catholicism.

“We have a concept of sin and evil too,” he said, “but we also believe in grace and redemption.”

Vatican officials, it should be noted, are not the only ones to detect a strong Calvinist influence in American culture. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago made a similar statement during the Synod of Bishops for the Americas in November 1997. George said that U.S. citizens “are culturally Calvinist, even those who profess the Catholic faith.” American society, he said, “is the civil counterpart of a faith based on private interpretation of Scripture and private experience of God.” He contrasted this kind of society with one based on the Catholic Church’s teaching of community and a vision of life greater than the individual.”
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 6, 2008 at 7:07 pm
S.B. – Are you seriously suggesting that our faith has nothing to with whether or not we go to war? You are in favor of the war, no? Are you saying your faith plays no part in your opinion about the war?

If so, then you are precisely the kind of Catholic who places the nation-state above his or her faith. The exactly wrong thing to do.
S.B. Says:
December 6, 2008 at 10:04 pm
MM–

The point, which you can’t answer, is that if you’re going to get out your heresy-o-meter, and you apply it honestly, you’ll have to concede that a lot of so-called “Catholics” in the world are alarmingly pagan, and converting to a decent evangelicalism (which need have nothing to do with supposed war-mongering doctrines) would be an improvement.

In any event, we’ve been through the whole “Calvinist” shtick before. Your one wanna-be authority in the Vatican doesn’t make a cognizable argument tying American foreign policy to the traditional TULIP doctrines of Calvinism. If you’re falling back on your old standby argument that “cultural Calvinism” consists of viewing other countries as “other,” then you’ve merely identified a universal human trait, and one that has zero to do with Calvinism. Indeed, given the centuries-long history of wars sponsored or initiated by Catholics or the Church itself, it is foolish beyond belief for a supposedly educated person to suggest that Calvinists are to blame for war.
S.B. Says:
December 6, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that our faith has nothing to with whether or not we go to war?

Irrelevant. Faith may influence lots of questions, but there’s nothing particularly “evangelical” about the Iraq War, nor have you even remotely shown as much. You’re not even trying.
Michael J. Iafrate Says:
December 7, 2008 at 12:53 am
S.B. – Do you even remember your comments after you write them, or is this like a stream of consciousness thing?
S.B. Says:
December 7, 2008 at 9:42 am
More childish sniping in place of an argument. I’m saying the exact same thing that I said above . . . that the Iraq War isn’t an example of evangelical Christianity. You do not and cannot prove otherwise.
S.B. Says:
December 7, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Let’s back up, using simple declarative sentences.

MM doesn’t like evangelical missionaries. He thinks they’re heretics.

My response: Maybe so, technically. But so is their intended audience, including many putative “Catholics” that are practicing animal sacrifice, etc.

MM’s response: Better animal sacrifice than 1 million dead Iraqis.

My response: What a ludicrously false dilemma. If a missionary to Haiti converts one of the pagan-Catholics there to become a practicing Baptist, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever about that conversion that makes the Haitian more likely to engage in war. Moreover, none of the promoters of the Iraq War (including Bush himself, a mainliner) were evangelicals. Sure, some of the voters who supported the Iraq War were evangelicals, just as some were Catholics or Methodists or atheists or Jewish. That doesn’t mean that Catholicism or Judaism or atheism or any of the above are to be blamed for the Iraq War, and it is egregiously big0ted for you to blame a particular religious faith.
S.B. Says:
December 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
In fact, MM, your rantings about Calvinism remind me of the far-right websites that blame everything on the “Jews.” Indeed, your rantings are even less reality-based than anti-Jewish websites, because there are indeed some Jews in the highest ranks of government and finance (at least that much is true), whereas none of the people who orchestrated the Iraq War were Calvinists.
Christian Right’s Opposition of Obama. Not a well thought out position. | Civil Religion | STLtoday Says:
January 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm
[...] in the Muslim world. So one wonders had their leaders really thought out their position on Obama. Was it really a smart thing to try to paint him as a closet Muslim. To me that was a bit of cutting off one’s nose to spite the face. Had the Christian right even [...]