Thou Shalt Not - One Conservative Christian's Response to Bill Clinton's Remarks at Riverside Church
For about a year now Nancy and I have developed the habit of watching Booknotes almost every Sunday night on C-Span. It says at least a couple of things about us. One is that we’re not what you’d call very exciting people. Another would be that we prefer to listen without the aid of a talking head to explain what we’re seeing.
Last night we tuned in a bit early and saw the tail end of about thirty minutes of comments Bill Clinton made at Riverside Church in Manhattan.
He covered a lot of ground in a half an hour. From the more mundane to the profound, it was classic Bill Clinton. Some of his more salient points follow:
He’s a Southern Baptist, considered by the religious right to be an apostate
Politics dictated by faith is not the exclusive property of the “right wing.”
Faith includes, among other things, concern for the poor, concern for the environment, and truth in campaign advertising
The religious right has turned “liberal” Christians into two dimensional cartoons
That fundamentalism and hate are our real enemies
That the “religious right” is dominated by “absolutists”
That the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are violating one of the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not bear false witness)
I’ve had a chance to digest his “sermonette” and have decided to comment on his remarks, beginning with the more mundane and proceeding to the deeper elements of his thought:
Point One – Great! That’s wonderful! I think that Southern Baptists are, by and large, wonderful people. As for whether or not he’s an apostate, I can’t say. I’m a Charismatic and really don’t intend to tell the Southern Baptist Convention who is and who is not in good standing with the church.
Point Two – Christianity is not the exclusive property of either wing, left or right. The problem that the left has is that it did lay almost exclusive claim to religion in the public arena until the 1980’s, when Christian conservatives and fundamentalists, who for the better part of the twentieth century had not been as politically engaged as the left, became not only politically active, but also politically effective. Conservative and fundamentalist Christians who had, by and large, abandoned the political arena now returned. Why had they abandoned it? I believe, was due in part to a reaction to the “social gospel” promoted by “the left” in the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. The split came in the form of emphasis; it was not a split that meant that one wing or the other was apostate. The advocates of the “social gospel” preached a message of salvation that was communal in nature. That is, salvation was seen as being a social phenomenon, emphasizing those elements above the personal elements of soteriology. The conservative elements of the faith preached a message of salvation that was directed to the individual. The emphasis was on proclamation. The debate raged into the seventies and eighties. I can recall many discussions between the two camps while I was in seminary from 1975 till 1980. The debate itself never produced a resolution. The logjam was broken by groups like the “moral majority.” These conservative para-church organizations had a profound impact on American politics. They supported the “Reagan revolution.” They got involved in local politics. They became a political force with a social agenda that had to be reckoned with.
It’s that effectiveness and power that angered the left in the eighties and angers them today. Father John Neuhaus put it this way (in The Naked Public Square – Religion and Democracy in America):
“Describing the religious new right as a division of the new right carries the odious implication that religion is being “used” for partisan purposes. That is undoubtedly the case. Similarly, it is charged that, for instance, that the National Council of Churches is “used” for the partisan purposes of the left. Generally speaking, that too is the case. Viewed from within these different worlds of politicized religion, however the accusation is not so odious. It does not call into question the motives or sincerity of the actors. There are obviously different agendas for social and political change in America. If committed believers favor one agenda over another – as publicly concerned folks inevitably do – then they marshal whatever resources they have, including religious resources, to advance that agenda. They are criticized for employing religion for giving their agenda the character of a holy crusade. They respond that their agenda does in fact engage questions of ultimate right or wrong and therefore warrants panache of holiness. The issue is not one of religion “being used” for politics, but whether one thinks the left or the right is right. It is not a matter of being used but of being of service. What to one person is exploitation of religion is to another the exercise of responsibility.”
The conservative movement within American Christianity has become powerful and effective. Conservatives have entered the political arena and their ideas have taken hold in the free marketplace of ideas. That’s what bothers the left.
Point Three – Of course Christianity, whether it’s liberal or Conservative, calls its adherents to an active faith that includes concern for the poor and stewardship of the good earth we inhabit. It also calls its followers to embrace the truth. But when it came to campaign advertising I believe Mr. Clinton’s exegesis was flawed. The word “campaign,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, does not appear in the Bible. The word “advertise” appears only twice (Ruth 4:4 and Numbers 4:14). I’m not trying to make light of his argument, but it’s important to see that his argument about truth rests on a flimsy foundation. It’s based on an assumption that the political advertising of Mr. Kerry’s opponents is not true. It’s a claim he can’t support, but somehow believes that making the argument will make the case. Truth doesn’t work that way. It’s verifiable and supportable and stands on its merits. The American electorate will have to weigh the issues and decide whether or not what Mr. Kerry’s opponents are saying about him is true.
Point Four – Neither I nor any of the conservatives or fundamentalists that I know has it within their power to turn religious liberals into “two dimensional cartoons.” It’s not that we don’t believe in miracles. We do. Could it be, I wonder, that this condition may be self-inflicted?
Point Five – Fundamentalism is our real enemy. Hidden in Mr. Clinton’s catch phrase is the idea that if you’ve seen one fundamentalist you’ve seen them all. If it were to be put into a syllogism it would look like this:
Osama bin Laden is a fundamentalist and fundamentalism is a dangerous enemy
Phil Dillon (you may also insert any name you wish) is a fundamentalist
Therefore, Phil Dillon (or any other Christian fundamentalist) is a dangerous enemy
It’s just a small twist of Aristotelian logic, but it goes a long way to affirming the absurdity of Mr. Clinton’s argument. Using his logic I could prove the following, for example:
Dogs are animals with four legs
Turkel (my cat) has four legs
Therefore, Turkel (my cat) is a dog
Point Six – The religious right is dominated by “absolutists.” I guess the question in return would be, “In what sense?” For example, fundamentalist and conservative Christians almost universally acknowledge that we can know “the Absolute.” We’d like to think that’s normative Christianity. God knows us and we can know Him. I could go into more depth about transcendence and immanence here, but it’s enough to say that normative Christian belief includes the ability to know God. Do we, on the other hand (as Mr. Clinton’s remarks imply) subscribe to totalitarianism or arbitrary despotism? The answer is an emphatic “Nooooooooooooo!” We subscribe to representative government. We know tyrants and despots when we see them and, as they say in this part of the country, “we’re agin’ ‘em.” If the time ever comes in this country that we see a real despot, I can assure our liberal brethren that we’ll take to the streets with them.
Point Seven – This is the real meat of what Mr. Clinton was getting to. This was all about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They’ve violated one of the Ten Commandments. They’ve borne false witness against John Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans, in turn, have brought evidence into the court of public opinion and have challenged Mr. Kerry to bring his charges into that same court, with his evidence. Mr. Kerry’s antagonists have said that it is he who libeled and defamed them and all Vietnam veterans in 1971 and they’ve put the charges in their own words: (Unfit for Command, p. 119-120):
“I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lieutenant (jg) Kerry.
In 1971-1972 for almost eighteen months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that five hundred thousand men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains – they were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for president of the United States and commander in chief. It just galls one to think about it.”
-Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
“In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees even though I had served at the same time and in the same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the senator has accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States’ efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness.”
-Richard O’Mara
John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi, authors of the book, conclude by saying (p. 185):
“Why then do we oppose John Kerry in such a public way? It is no so much resentment at his false charges or his exaggerated and fictionalized self-promotion, although this is certainly present. What motivates us is a genuine fear for the consequences to our nation if its safety is placed in the hands of so cynical and shifting a commander in chief.
We were not war criminals, either fighting in Vietnam or remaining here as citizens of the United States during time of war. No man who ever died as an American POW in a North Vietnamese prison was ever forced to hear our testimony in support of the enemy. Yet forgiving and forgetting are not the questions here.
The question is one of fitness and character. The loyalty that is indispensable to successful command cannot simply be restored because a person now wants to be leader. John Kerry might well continue in the Senate, but as commander in chief he has, unfortunately breached the trust it would take to hold his band of brothers together. In the end, our objection to John Kerry is not in his past; it is the future as predicted by his past.”
I am also secure in the knowledge that John Kerry is using a monstrous lie upon which to build the rungs of a ladder to power. As I’ve said in other posts, I served in Southeast Asia and never saw any war crimes or atrocities, never heard or received any command to engage in any. I never knew anyone in my year there who said they had seen such acts or had received any directives to commit them.
To get to the heart of the issue theologically, which was the issue raised by Mr. Clinton at Riverside Church, we who have produced the evidence against him have not borne false witness. It is, in fact, the Democratic Party’s nominee who bore false witness against us over thirty years ago. And he’s using that lie as a basis to assume power. In the end, Mr. Kerry can rattle his saber at the Swift Boat Veterans and their supporters. Bill Clinton can use a twisted exegesis in a flimsy attempt to take the moral high ground. As a veteran, as a Christian, as a citizen of the United States I have not only the right, but also the responsibility to speak now. So do the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!
Last night we tuned in a bit early and saw the tail end of about thirty minutes of comments Bill Clinton made at Riverside Church in Manhattan.
He covered a lot of ground in a half an hour. From the more mundane to the profound, it was classic Bill Clinton. Some of his more salient points follow:
He’s a Southern Baptist, considered by the religious right to be an apostate
Politics dictated by faith is not the exclusive property of the “right wing.”
Faith includes, among other things, concern for the poor, concern for the environment, and truth in campaign advertising
The religious right has turned “liberal” Christians into two dimensional cartoons
That fundamentalism and hate are our real enemies
That the “religious right” is dominated by “absolutists”
That the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are violating one of the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not bear false witness)
I’ve had a chance to digest his “sermonette” and have decided to comment on his remarks, beginning with the more mundane and proceeding to the deeper elements of his thought:
Point One – Great! That’s wonderful! I think that Southern Baptists are, by and large, wonderful people. As for whether or not he’s an apostate, I can’t say. I’m a Charismatic and really don’t intend to tell the Southern Baptist Convention who is and who is not in good standing with the church.
Point Two – Christianity is not the exclusive property of either wing, left or right. The problem that the left has is that it did lay almost exclusive claim to religion in the public arena until the 1980’s, when Christian conservatives and fundamentalists, who for the better part of the twentieth century had not been as politically engaged as the left, became not only politically active, but also politically effective. Conservative and fundamentalist Christians who had, by and large, abandoned the political arena now returned. Why had they abandoned it? I believe, was due in part to a reaction to the “social gospel” promoted by “the left” in the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. The split came in the form of emphasis; it was not a split that meant that one wing or the other was apostate. The advocates of the “social gospel” preached a message of salvation that was communal in nature. That is, salvation was seen as being a social phenomenon, emphasizing those elements above the personal elements of soteriology. The conservative elements of the faith preached a message of salvation that was directed to the individual. The emphasis was on proclamation. The debate raged into the seventies and eighties. I can recall many discussions between the two camps while I was in seminary from 1975 till 1980. The debate itself never produced a resolution. The logjam was broken by groups like the “moral majority.” These conservative para-church organizations had a profound impact on American politics. They supported the “Reagan revolution.” They got involved in local politics. They became a political force with a social agenda that had to be reckoned with.
It’s that effectiveness and power that angered the left in the eighties and angers them today. Father John Neuhaus put it this way (in The Naked Public Square – Religion and Democracy in America):
“Describing the religious new right as a division of the new right carries the odious implication that religion is being “used” for partisan purposes. That is undoubtedly the case. Similarly, it is charged that, for instance, that the National Council of Churches is “used” for the partisan purposes of the left. Generally speaking, that too is the case. Viewed from within these different worlds of politicized religion, however the accusation is not so odious. It does not call into question the motives or sincerity of the actors. There are obviously different agendas for social and political change in America. If committed believers favor one agenda over another – as publicly concerned folks inevitably do – then they marshal whatever resources they have, including religious resources, to advance that agenda. They are criticized for employing religion for giving their agenda the character of a holy crusade. They respond that their agenda does in fact engage questions of ultimate right or wrong and therefore warrants panache of holiness. The issue is not one of religion “being used” for politics, but whether one thinks the left or the right is right. It is not a matter of being used but of being of service. What to one person is exploitation of religion is to another the exercise of responsibility.”
The conservative movement within American Christianity has become powerful and effective. Conservatives have entered the political arena and their ideas have taken hold in the free marketplace of ideas. That’s what bothers the left.
Point Three – Of course Christianity, whether it’s liberal or Conservative, calls its adherents to an active faith that includes concern for the poor and stewardship of the good earth we inhabit. It also calls its followers to embrace the truth. But when it came to campaign advertising I believe Mr. Clinton’s exegesis was flawed. The word “campaign,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, does not appear in the Bible. The word “advertise” appears only twice (Ruth 4:4 and Numbers 4:14). I’m not trying to make light of his argument, but it’s important to see that his argument about truth rests on a flimsy foundation. It’s based on an assumption that the political advertising of Mr. Kerry’s opponents is not true. It’s a claim he can’t support, but somehow believes that making the argument will make the case. Truth doesn’t work that way. It’s verifiable and supportable and stands on its merits. The American electorate will have to weigh the issues and decide whether or not what Mr. Kerry’s opponents are saying about him is true.
Point Four – Neither I nor any of the conservatives or fundamentalists that I know has it within their power to turn religious liberals into “two dimensional cartoons.” It’s not that we don’t believe in miracles. We do. Could it be, I wonder, that this condition may be self-inflicted?
Point Five – Fundamentalism is our real enemy. Hidden in Mr. Clinton’s catch phrase is the idea that if you’ve seen one fundamentalist you’ve seen them all. If it were to be put into a syllogism it would look like this:
Osama bin Laden is a fundamentalist and fundamentalism is a dangerous enemy
Phil Dillon (you may also insert any name you wish) is a fundamentalist
Therefore, Phil Dillon (or any other Christian fundamentalist) is a dangerous enemy
It’s just a small twist of Aristotelian logic, but it goes a long way to affirming the absurdity of Mr. Clinton’s argument. Using his logic I could prove the following, for example:
Dogs are animals with four legs
Turkel (my cat) has four legs
Therefore, Turkel (my cat) is a dog
Point Six – The religious right is dominated by “absolutists.” I guess the question in return would be, “In what sense?” For example, fundamentalist and conservative Christians almost universally acknowledge that we can know “the Absolute.” We’d like to think that’s normative Christianity. God knows us and we can know Him. I could go into more depth about transcendence and immanence here, but it’s enough to say that normative Christian belief includes the ability to know God. Do we, on the other hand (as Mr. Clinton’s remarks imply) subscribe to totalitarianism or arbitrary despotism? The answer is an emphatic “Nooooooooooooo!” We subscribe to representative government. We know tyrants and despots when we see them and, as they say in this part of the country, “we’re agin’ ‘em.” If the time ever comes in this country that we see a real despot, I can assure our liberal brethren that we’ll take to the streets with them.
Point Seven – This is the real meat of what Mr. Clinton was getting to. This was all about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They’ve violated one of the Ten Commandments. They’ve borne false witness against John Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans, in turn, have brought evidence into the court of public opinion and have challenged Mr. Kerry to bring his charges into that same court, with his evidence. Mr. Kerry’s antagonists have said that it is he who libeled and defamed them and all Vietnam veterans in 1971 and they’ve put the charges in their own words: (Unfit for Command, p. 119-120):
“I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lieutenant (jg) Kerry.
In 1971-1972 for almost eighteen months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that five hundred thousand men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains – they were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for president of the United States and commander in chief. It just galls one to think about it.”
-Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
“In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees even though I had served at the same time and in the same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the senator has accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States’ efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness.”
-Richard O’Mara
John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi, authors of the book, conclude by saying (p. 185):
“Why then do we oppose John Kerry in such a public way? It is no so much resentment at his false charges or his exaggerated and fictionalized self-promotion, although this is certainly present. What motivates us is a genuine fear for the consequences to our nation if its safety is placed in the hands of so cynical and shifting a commander in chief.
We were not war criminals, either fighting in Vietnam or remaining here as citizens of the United States during time of war. No man who ever died as an American POW in a North Vietnamese prison was ever forced to hear our testimony in support of the enemy. Yet forgiving and forgetting are not the questions here.
The question is one of fitness and character. The loyalty that is indispensable to successful command cannot simply be restored because a person now wants to be leader. John Kerry might well continue in the Senate, but as commander in chief he has, unfortunately breached the trust it would take to hold his band of brothers together. In the end, our objection to John Kerry is not in his past; it is the future as predicted by his past.”
I am also secure in the knowledge that John Kerry is using a monstrous lie upon which to build the rungs of a ladder to power. As I’ve said in other posts, I served in Southeast Asia and never saw any war crimes or atrocities, never heard or received any command to engage in any. I never knew anyone in my year there who said they had seen such acts or had received any directives to commit them.
To get to the heart of the issue theologically, which was the issue raised by Mr. Clinton at Riverside Church, we who have produced the evidence against him have not borne false witness. It is, in fact, the Democratic Party’s nominee who bore false witness against us over thirty years ago. And he’s using that lie as a basis to assume power. In the end, Mr. Kerry can rattle his saber at the Swift Boat Veterans and their supporters. Bill Clinton can use a twisted exegesis in a flimsy attempt to take the moral high ground. As a veteran, as a Christian, as a citizen of the United States I have not only the right, but also the responsibility to speak now. So do the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!
posted by Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologist at 5:14 PM
0 comments
