John McCain, John Hagee, and Why the Holocaust Matters
Not long ago, McCain solicited the support of John Hagee, the well-known Pastor of Cornerstone Church and TV Evangelist for support for his campaign. Hagee enthusiastically endorsed the campaign, freely and all was well in the political realm for about an hour and a half. This election though, with Obama and his pastor having set the precedent, religious endorsements have proven problematic for both candidates, and even for President Bush, whose choice of Minister to marry his daughter and new son in law came out for Obama.
For Obama, his longstanding Pastor the problem was that his pastor was
A. Outspoken
B. Controversial
For McCain, the problem with his pastor friend was that he was
A. Outspoken
B. Controversial.
The Problem With Religious Endorsements
The problems which are beginning to surface in political endorsements by religious leaders, are that politics and religion keep trying to mix, have often mixed and have never been successful at it. Politics especially in free countries is dependent on pleasing as many diverse persons and groups as possible in an election year, and while lukewarm religion wavers also, religious groups' motives are to support the best candidate which supports their often divisive and controversial views. Hence, no matter how many people are involved (there are at least 70 million Gospel-believing Christians or more), once they endorse a secular candidate, their controversial beliefs and associations come out. Religion in this country, be it liberal or conservative, Muslim , Christian, Jewish or other, is inherently politically incorrect to someone, and the Media, constantly shifting feet not to offend commercial audiences, runs to the minor controversies of misspeak often characterizing all religious views as ready to 'shove their views down the throats' of the American people. For this reason, there are no longer safe religious endorsements.
Hagee, McCain & the Shoah
Obama's dilemma set the stage for the terrible world of political dilemma. He and his pastor, were long term friends by accounts, and his family life tied up with his pastor. His pastor, however had strong opinions, including lauding Farrakhan, and deriding the 'American condition', which proved to be an embarrassment to Obama when running for the highest office, as too many Americans were already concern for possible Islamic ties in Obama's past. Obama at first, was not disloyal to his soon to be former pastor, but when the outspokeness became cumbersome, he left the Church and his pastor, which did not have the effect he had hoped for , as some were glad to see him in a 'tolerant' stance, while others considered his character and loyalty of separating with an old family friend and pastor when the tides rose.
With McCain however, the situation is slightly different. Like with Obama, McCain had to have understood that fundamental Christians believe differently than many and have what are controversial views to some, though those views date back 2000 years and more. Speaking of things like the Rapture of the Church, Christ's return, the Blood atonement and so forth are not mainstays on the Senate floor, nor on the local news, and since Biblical illiteracy is rampant today, perfectly normal and accepted doctrine across many denominations sounds eccentric when spoken in public arenas, to people who 'have not heard of such things'. This is the dilemma both men but particularly McCain found himself in.
The controversial 'statements' which the Press was so horrified about were some remarks made by Hagee about the Holocaust happening for a reason in order to get the Jews back to Israel. It was a Media circus, in which Hagee was implied as anti-Semitic, like Wright was implied as Islamic, and neither McCain for election or foreign policy/relations reasons nor Obam could afford the campaign 'baggage', even if the perceptions were skewed. And they were, no matter what 'kernel of truths' existed.
McCain, though, may have also made a fundamental error in immediately declining Hagee's support, although the truth is, Hagee, while misunderstood, promoted a fundamental misunderstanding of the Shoah and the Jews and Israel which is rampant among born-again Christians. Both candidates would have done well to say something like, 'isn't it the remarkable nature of a dynamic Constitution, that we can seek and receive endorsements from those not exactly like us or sharing our views'---without causing further divisiveness, disloyalty and hurt feelings on both sides, with a sense of betrayal all around. Christians knew up front there were things about McCain they would not agree with: his fortune is partly tied up in the Beer industry, and one can hear the dear church women with their hankys in the back pew half fainting. However, he is pro-life on almost every piece of legislation of that nature he has encountered, and he is a thoughtful 'across the aisle' Senator, no matter what the Press, and one finds ration, reason, and a pretty constant support of Christian issues and mores, as well as a dignified and knowledgeable not only view of but relationship with Israel and her leaders. The beer thing aside, his history of voting should remind us that we have not found a perfect Christian candidate in some years who was electable, and while we should strive for the best, we are electing a President of a diverse secular nation and not a Pastor, which would be quite a different matter.
Hagee's Comment and the Shoah
Perhaps the first thing that should be said about the comments of Pastor Hagee is that as is often the case with portrayal of Christians, they were taken out of context, and slightly twisted from the original intent. Hagee was and often preaches about the Jews in history, the Jewish roots of Christianity, Jews in the endtimes, and Prophecy---he also has many ties in Israel and Israeli-based ministries, and has been a long time supporter of Jewish causes, politically and religiously. His support of Israel and often right teaching on Jewish-Christian relations and doctrine have immensely helped in the 20th and emerging 21st century to change erroneous views which have been too long floating around Evangelical and Fundamental Christianity, which through twisted doctrine have led many to an Anti-Semitic stance.
What Hagee was referring to was an issue of the Sovereignty of God, a Romans 8:28, 'all things work together for the good' idea, in which what I believe he was trying to say was that the Shoah, as horrible and detestable as it was, played a providential role in the return of the Jews to Israel. Even many Rabbis believe that, but two things caused the stir:
1. A slightly wrongful view regarding the nature and 'necessity' of the Shoah
and
2. A poor choice of wording.
To address the second first, it will go without question to both politicians and pastors that wording of certain responses can make or break reputations, deals, transactions and elections. Anyone who has ever taught the Bible or preached a sermon, knows what it is like to reach a point one needs to make within five seconds, and want to make it dramatically, yet want to not err from the Scriptures or correct doctrine. ( There are congregates who hang on every word with a slice and dice).
And sometimes, we say things a certain way, which many might take as incorrect but is not. So it goes with politicians. While I can never excuse some comments like McCain age old gorilla joke, or Obama's friend's dissing McCain's POW experience, I can say that if we are all lined up in a row with our whole lives layed out and every wrong comment, stupid hurtful joke, bad word etc exposed, none of us would qualify even for the address we live at, or job we have, or office we would seek. These should not be the constant crucibles the press uses for ratings. And both politicians and pastors should realize that in these days and times 'the walls have ears', and not be too mortified but be cautious.
THE HOLOCAUST, OR SHOAH and the Election
I have written before on the Shoah and the Elections and will iterate that I believe that the issue of the Shoah is critical to the choice of President. Why? because it has been the philosophical, social , religious and economic foundation of the world
and international relations ever since. We do not want a holocaust denier in the office: it would immmediately tell us that he could not see what was in front of him. We do not want someone with a superficial view either, for the politics of the Shoah and spiritual and social remnants confront us on every street corner in every nation, and have made us all what we are for the good or bad.
Did the Jews have to Suffer the Holocaust for the Return to Israel?
The primary question though, which was worded somewhat poorly is whether the Jews had to suffer the holocaust or Shoah in order to get back to Israel to promises and covenants of God, and the answer, which many Christians need to take to heart is simply 'no'---Israel was about to happen anyway. The move to resettle world Jewry back in the land had gone on almost as long as the dispersion into the nations. In the late 1800s talk heated up through the proposals of Herzl and others, and by a twist of fate, in gratitute for work of a Jewish engineer, in WWI, causing a British victory, the Balfour Treaty, declaring the place of Israel as a Jewish homeland came about. White Papers and other documents ensued, and rather than the holocaust having to happen so that the Jews could providentially be catapulted back to Israel, it is far more the case that following the 1917 declaration, the dynamics of the Shoah began to build to keep them out by Vatican and other national interests, and much more for a reason of divine warfare: wherever there is a great act of God about to ensue, there is a great opposition of Satan.
Now I know it is not o.k. to say 'Satan' in the press out loud for fear of accidentally naming one of their bosses, but it is hard for me to understand in the modern mind and 'zeitgeist' how one could believe as C.S. Lewis has pointed out, that there would not be a Satan also. Lewis declared that this was one of Satan's greatest triumph's for he could practice his warfare against the human race without identification. Yet a far more scriptural and historically accurate position, lies within a little studied aspect of the Glory of God: that the glory of God, is bordered by a great darkness. 'The horror of great darkness' mentioned in Genesis 15 follows the sacrifice of Abraham for the covenant of the Seed and the Land. There is a plague of darkness on Egypt just before the deliverance of the Children of Israel back to the Promised land, and Dt. 4 and 5 talk about darkness enveloping the fire burning on the mountain.2 Samuel 22 refers to darkness under God's feet, and 2 Chronicle refers to God dwelling within it (in Glory there is not darkness,but in its surrounds).Psalms 97:2 talks about darkness round about him, as do countless other passages in Psalms, such as Ps 18. At the Cross, in the deliverance of Israel, just as the Messiah 'gives up the ghost' and before the resurrection, the darkness takes the sky. And while the canons of Scripture are closed, it can be easily seen, that the great darkness, described in one Torah passage on the Exodus, was 'so great they could not see one another'---I cannot think of a better explanation for the Shoah.
It was not that God put Israel through one last destructive fire to 'sacrifice' them for the existence of Israel, or even for unbelief, for the slumber of Israel was providential, so that Gentiles might be added into the promises and covenants. Israel did not have to go through a 'purgatory' for cleansing or to produce the land: the Land was already on its way into their hands. What the Shoah was , was a last ditch effort of men's hatred and a warfare of Hell, to devour as much of the Seed as possible, so they could not enter the Land, and so the prophesied plan of God could not take place. It was the 'horror of great darkness' which edged the great and glorious fulfillment of the Covenant of the Land between man and God . (see Land Belongs to Israel
This view shows the great sorrow and darkness His Children have walked through on this earth in between His Canaan covenants, and does not make them as having to be tortured to get Israel back, or punished for not understanding the ways of God.
McCain and the Horror of Great Darkness
Now, it should be noted, that it is unlikely that John McCain will ever read this column, nor try to explain the Horror of Great Darkness to the Press, who actually are quite comfortable with it, but it is meant to offer a corrected view of what went on. God does not willingly afflict the children of men. Says so. Conversely, there is nothing that happens that is not held in his hand. So the real issue is and should be a non issue in a campaign: we have our little understood doctrinal points of view, but we can still endorse even a secular candidate who has never heard of such a thing. Conversely, if John Hagee and Anheuser Busch (different Bush) both decide to endorse McCain, he does not have to dissassociate because the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't like it, or because AA doesn't like it, etc. I doubt Obama or McCain are down the line on anything all their contributors or supporters believe.
A sign of dignity and maturity in a country is that they begin to live and let live on the small stuff. Tell McCain never to make fun of women's appearances, nor tell off-color jokes. It doesn't suit you, it isn't dignified but it doesn't disqualify you to be president. Neither does the way Hagee believes. McCain was once an Episcopal which denomination is now allowing gays in the pulpit: do we not vote for the more conservative candidate? Even a lot of Episcopals disagree. And Obama's wife said 'for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country'---I don't think she would have said it if she had time to edit, but when you haven't had sleep or rest or quiet for weeks, or quality family time, and you are watched everywhere by everyone, give it a rest. I want to hear and so do most intelligent Americans how each of you dear candidates are going to stabilize this country much less Iraq. Give me real-time solutions so I can decide who and what you are. Your character(s) are already established beyond the petty goofs. We all figured out what Jesse Jackson meant without help from Bill OReilly. Here's to a more human election process, and how about asking how each candidate views the post-Shoah world and genocide instead of what they wore on an African visit or whether they were going to replace a Beach Boy. And by the way, somebody get both of them better joke books.









