The Catholic League Humbles a Prominent Evangelical

The recent case of Pastor John Hagee illustrates the growing power and influence of Roman Catholicism in the United States of America. Pastor Hagee is a well-known television evangelist on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. TBN is the largest Christian broadcaster in the world and has Pentecostal/Assembly of God roots, as does Pastor Hagee.

 Pastor Hagee is a preacher of the old school. His sermons at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, often contain fiery denunciations of the sins of the contemporary world. He is not a man afraid to champion his views on controversial topics, including abortion, homosexuality, and presidential politics. He can easily be classified as belonging to the so-called Christian Right. The most important tenet held by Pastor Hagee is his belief in the separate identity of the church and Israel. His support of the State of Israel is profound.

In this year’s presidential race, the question of the power of the Christian Right has been hotly debated. Some wonder whether the Republican Party can count on its traditional support of Christian evangelicals. John McCain, the Republican nominee, gained what appeared to him to be a significant endorsement when Pastor Hagee offered him his support. But what appeared to be a helpful endorsement soon turned into a political liability. The reason for the change was purely religious in nature. It seems that Pastor Hagee holds to the Protestant notion that Roman Catholicism is the Great Whore of Babylon. At least, he did hold that notion.

The revelation of Hagee’s views shocked the conscience of many observers and reporters in the United States. Soon it became clear that Pastor Hagee’s endorsement was not worth what it had been. It was tainted by “bigotry.” In American today, the word “bigotry” brings a quick end to many arguments. If one side accuses the other of “bigotry,” the bigoted side automatically loses.

Pastor Hagee didn’t stand a chance. Denounced from every side, he quickly succumbed to the pressure to apologize for his own beliefs, beliefs expressed over many years in the pulpit. This must have been a bitter pill for Pastor Hagee to swallow.

Below is a copy of the letter sent to William Donohue, President of the Catholic League. (The bold lettering is supplied for emphasis.) The Catholic League is a powerful civil rights organization that defends Catholic interests in the United States.

The Letter of Apology

Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights
Attn: Mr. William Donohue, President
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Donohue,

In so far as some of my past statements regarding the Roman Catholic Church have raised concerns in your community, I am writing in a spirit of respect and reconciliation to clarify my views.

Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful. After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism.

In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews. In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition, defines the Catholic Church.

It most certainly does not.

Likewise, I have not sufficiently expressed my deep appreciation for the efforts of Catholics who opposed the persecution of the Jewish people. It is important to note that there were thousands of righteous Catholics--both clergy and laymen--who risked their lives to save Jews from the Holocaust. According to many scholars, including Martin Gilbert and Rabbi David Dalin (author of “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope”), Pope Pius XII personally intervened to save Jews.

In addition, I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the “apostate church” and the “great whore," appear only during the seven years of tribulation after all true believers--Catholic and Protestant--have been taken up to heaven. Therefore, neither of these phrases can be synonymous with the Catholic Church.

In recent decades, Catholics and Evangelicals of good will have worked together to defeat communism, promote what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life” that protects every human life from conception to natural death, honors the institution of marriage, and defends the rights of the poor.

As I wrote in my tribute to Pope Benedict XVI after President Bush welcomed him to the White House, he “spoke for all of us when he said that ‘any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted’ and called for Christian participation ‘ in the exchange of ideas in the public square.’’’ Both Catholics and Evangelicals have been engaged in an effort to assert the primacy of faith and values in our increasingly secular society.

My profound respect for the Catholic people has been expressed in my own ministry. For example, when the Ursuline Sisters of San Antonio were on the verge of losing their home, our Church bought the property for our school and allowed them to continue living in their home free of charge for twelve years. The sisters were part of the daily life of the School, walking the grounds and the hallways where the children would embrace them and hold their hands in friendship.

The love of the schoolchildren for those sisters symbolized my own feelings as well. I pledge to address these sensitive subjects in the future with a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is this sense of Christian fellowship I hope to re-establish with Catholics with whom I and all Evangelicals must unite to be a voice for life, the family, marriage and Christian values to our Nation and the world.

Sincerely,
Pastor John Hagee

(This copy of Hagee’s letter comes from Catholic Online, May 14, 2008).

A Brief Analysis of the Letter

The public humiliation of a prominent minister such as Pastor Hagee is unprecedented in American history. This fact alone is significant. But even more significant is the content of Pastor Hagee’s letter. A quick survey shows why.

(1) The letter is abject in tone. Hagee asserts his respect for the Roman Church and asks for reconciliation. When a comparatively insignificant entity says such a thing to a world entity such as Catholicism, you can be quite sure the statement comes from fear.  

(2) The letter supports the idea of the “common good.” The expression, the “common good,” is standard in papal rhetoric. It suggests something benign, but it is really an appeal by the Church for other faiths to give up their insistence on separation from Rome. Hagee’s repetition of it in his letter says he wants to be a team player in the world-wide social force that will solve the ills of mankind.

(3) The letter rejects the history of Catholicism. In reality, the past defines Catholicism. She cannot escape it. The Church’s claim to legitimacy rests on her claims about the past. For instance, the “Magisterium” is the past teaching of the Church.

(4) The letter renounces the expression the “Great Whore.” To renounce this term is to renounce its prime user, Martin Luther, the titular head of the classic Reformation. You can’t be a Protestant without accepting the meaning of the term the “Great Whore.”

(5) The letter shows the devastating power of the futurist interpretive method. It destroys Protestantism. Hagee says the apostate church will not appear until after the future rapture.  

(6) The letter claims that Catholics and Evangelicals share the same values. What are those values? If the past is any guide, the only values possible to “share” are those of Roman Catholicism. As Rome claims, she does not change.

 Where Hagee Went Wrong

Hagee was guilty of straying from true futurism. The true futurist school is no threat to the papacy. Old-fashioned Protestant historicism is. Without historicism, Protestants have no Biblical right to label Rome with her many identities--“the great whore,” “the man of sin,” “the little horn,” “Babylon.” The case of Pastor Hagee illustrates perfectly the dangerous nature of futurism. If a reader of the Bible cannot identify the Biblical “Babylon,” how can he identify the Biblical people of God?

Hagee got into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church because of his love for the Jewish people. This love led him into the history of the mistreatment of the Jews. If a person studies the Church of the Middle Ages and beyond, that person is in a sense readied for the historicist view of Biblical prophecy.

Before being enlightened by apologists for Catholicism, Hagee held two mutually exclusive views. He believed (1) that the Antichrist would not be revealed until after the rapture and (2) that the Antichrist existed in the past as well.

The Antichrist of Rapture theology will be Roman. The Roman Antichrist will make a covenant with Israel during the last seven years of earth’s history. But he will break that covenant and become Israel’s enemy. Now, this interpretation offends no one. However, in researching the mistreatment of the Jews, Hagee was forced to acknowledge that the Rome of the past was not too kind to Jews either. So in Hagee’s preaching, the non-offensive Roman Antichrist of the futurists became mixed up with the highly threatening Protestant Antichrist of the past. Something had to give, and it did. 

Conclusion

For Hagee to abandon his view of the history of Rome should startle observers. Even though Rapture theologians place the Antichrist in the future, there has, heretofore, remained in Rapture theology a radical thread of anti-Catholicism. 

It appears that Rapture theology has lost its last vestiges of Protestantism.

Marcus Sheffield, 2008

The Aims of the Roman Catholic Church

Introduction

For many decades now it might have been said that Seventh-day Adventists were living before their time. They preached a prophetic scenario that seemed laughably improbable. It was simply impossible to believe that Roman Catholicism was going to have a profound influence on American social and political life. It was equally ludicrous to believe that the United States was going to play a supporting role in bringing about that influence. As late as 1960, a candidate for president had to declare that he would not be taking his orders from the pope. We are now coming to a time when it will be surprising if he is not.

The very public death of Pope John Paul II changed everything. Without comment in the mainstream press and without a hint of shock or surprise, American presidents, both current and former, knelt before the body of a Roman pontiff in what appeared to be near adoration. Since that moment, only months ago, other surprising events have been occurring at a rapid pace. The question for Seventh-day Adventists now might be, Can the church catch up with the events that are unfolding before their eyes?

Pilots of complex passenger aircraft are said to “fall behind the airplane” when they have not performed the necessary preparation for, say, landing. Landing a Boeing 747 is not a mere matter of pointing the plane toward the ground. A landing begins long before the airport is in sight. Likewise, the God of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is bringing about the end of all things. He knew long ago of the events we are witnessing, and being the loving Father that he is, he has prepared for this time. The history of the world as we know it, the ways things have always happened, is about to end. Seventh-day Adventists are coming into the moment of their existential meaning. All the training and preparation that is going to occur has occurred. What we are about to experience is not a drill. Target practice is over.

Does this all sound a little too dramatic? A little too excited? No, it is not. Here’s why.

The Protestant Reformation is Over

First of all, for most Protestants in America today, the Reformation is over. That in itself is significant. When the formal Reformation began in 1517 with the nailing of Luther’s 95 theses to the church door, the Roman Catholic Church entered an intense period of confusion and reaction that culminated in the Council of Trent in 1563. The Council of Trent was the carefully considered response to the Protestant threat. Its aim was the destruction of heresy and the restoration of church discipline and order. The goal of the Council has been achieved. Protestants have been completely unmanned. The only resistance left to the hegemony of Catholicism is to be found in small pockets of Bible-believing Christians.

Today we hear the most astounding statements from “evangelical” leaders in praise of what is, in essence, Roman dogma. In tribute to John Paul II, these spokesmen for what was at one time “reformed” Christianity praised the pontiff as a lonely voice of morality in the wilderness of relativity and disbelief. The battle for truth has been abandoned to Rome. What appears certain is that powerful forces in the media, the religious world, and in politics are preparing the people of the United States for acceptance of a new moral vision. This moral vision is a subtle blend of Protestant language and Roman dogma and mysticism.

The Real American Religious Tradition

An example of the nature of this blending would be helpful. On April 11, 2005 Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, a highly influential conservative television personality, observed that the sight of the impressive funeral of John Paul II should make Americans think about getting back to the traditions of their Judeo-Christian heritage. As good as getting back to the American religious heritage sounds, however, the problem is the definition of “tradition.” The early American Puritans came seeking freedom to practice their own reformed faith, but they brought with them no concept of freedom of conscience. They used the power of the state to enforce their interpretations of the Bible, and people were punished for all sorts of sins. A famous dissenter among them, Roger Williams, was expelled for his heretical belief that conscience was key to authentic religious faith. He even started his own colony, Rhode Island, which offered a radical form of freedom of religion.

Williams wasn’t being a secularized “liberal” when he did this. He firmly believed that religious freedom would create a purer church, which he understood to be, in reality, a spiritual kingdom. He argued that no civil authority could enforce the first four of the ten commandments, those having to do with the worship of God, and that to enforce them only led to what he termed the “bloody tenet” of persecution for conscience’ sake. Williams felt strongly that freedom of conscience was the key to the whole notion of a pure church. He thought about it so hard that he thought himself right out of one kind of Puritanism and into another. Adherents to this second sort of Puritanism believed in toleration. It was revised Puritanism, not Roman Catholicism, that created religious toleration.

Williams’ idea was very influential in helping Americans develop the system that is the American way. The middle ages in Europe was not a bright spot in the history of freedom of thought. Portions of that time were very dark indeed. The church of the time attacked and killed any who dared disagree with her precepts, canons, and traditions. So Mr. O’ Reilly’s point confuses rather than enlightens, which is precisely the object. He places Roman Catholics and Protestants in a package, as if there were no real distinctions. This is politically correct in the current climate, and brings to mind happy thoughts of Catholic priests and Protestants ministers in perfect communion, all with the same basic message. In reality no such package exists, or does it?

Historically, Protestants have said that tradition alone isn’t good enough as a ground of faith. They base this on the words of the Bible. For instance, when talking with some of the Jewish leaders of his time, Jesus said, “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7:7, 8). The idea of “tradition” has always been a point of great disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. In fact, in Protestant teaching, the pope has been the “antichrist” because he represents the “traditions of men” rather than the “commandments of God” as found in the Bible. Mr. O’Reilly seems to be saying that the disagreement has been solved. And Protestant leaders are going out of their way to distance themselves from the “antichrist” doctrine. John Paul II may have been a nice man personally, full of wisdom, good works, and charity, but what elements of his Roman tradition have changed? The Roman Church still teaches what it always has, and, in fact, still claims infallibility.

Mr. O’Reilly, from all appearances, seems to be one voice among many powerful religious, political, and media voices in our nation that are poised to push this newly achieved “unity” or “blended traditions” onto the American people. Unlike Roger Williams, these forces don’t appear to want “pure” churches; they just want unity for some political purpose. Whatever this new package called “unity” will become, it won’t be “getting back to American religious traditions.” We celebrate the actual beginning of the American tradition every Thanksgiving. In 1630, when a little ship of seekers of religious purity sailed across the Atlantic ocean, their pastor, John Winthrop, preached a great sermon on the open ocean. It was an important sermon because it outlined the hopes and spiritual aspirations of the reform movement that was American Puritanism. That sermon contains the fine little phrase “City Upon a Hill.”

Since that time the phrase “City Upon a Hill” has wandered through countless political speeches and other attempts to define who we Americans are. To the first Puritans it meant something very particular. They were dedicated to the proposition that a reformed, millennial society was possible on this earth, and they were determined to create it. In the wilderness of America they tried very hard to accomplish their goal. But one big obstacle to a reformed society was the little problem of the human conscience. The idea that a person might have the ability to say “no” when everyone else was saying “yes” struck them as dangerous to the common welfare. And the idea that this ability was a God-given right, or even a responsibility—well, that was downright heretical. Of course, not many other people in Europe had thought about it either for, say, a thousand years or so, which is why the Puritans decided to leave that particular part of the world.

The first “city upon a hill” was Reformed Christianity and later simply the American system as we now know it—freedom of conscience, expression, and religious preference. But powerful forces are fast persuading the American people that the “city upon a hill” is something completely different. History has been lost. Ignorance is gaining the vantage ground. In place of tolerance is coming intolerance. In place of the Bible is coming tradition. In place of freedom is coming slavery. This development will have monumental consequences for the people of the United States. The goal of the Roman Catholic Church is to create the illusion in the United States that Catholicism is in agreement with “Americanism.” In reality, they are as different as light and dark.

The New Fusion

A new syncretism, or fusion, of religious beliefs is being born before our very eyes, a syncretism unified in the name of “Jesus.” An interesting article, entitled “It’s All about Jesus,” recently appeared in the on-line edition of Christianity Today. CT is the voice of evangelical Christianity in the United States. The article well illustrates current developments in the modern spirit of syncretism. The author, Sam Torode, describes his spiritual journey from a fundamentalist Baptist faith to Eastern Orthodoxy. He lists the beliefs of Protestantism that he no longer subscribes to, among them, salvation by faith alone, the dependence of the Christian on the Bible alone, and the necessity of a personal relationship with Christ. In place of these tenets he substitutes salvation by faith and works, the Bible and tradition, and the importance of a corporate identity for the Christian.

When Mr. Torode first left fundamentalism, he fired off hot letters to his friends, vigorously arguing for the falseness of Protestantism and their “cheap grace.” When he joined the Orthodox faith, he experienced the discipline of a more ancient tradition, a tradition that demands things of its adherents—fasting, abstinence, and penance, for example. That experience, though providing an authority and solidity that many Christians yearn for, was not altogether satisfying for Mr. Torode. His life began seeming a bit legalistic, and he and his wife sought a less rigorous form of Orthodoxy, which they found in a new Greek Orthodox church home. He began enjoying a more “liberal” form of Orthodoxy.

Mr. Torode’s theology, his liberal Orthodoxy, now falls somewhere between Baptist fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism. He appears to be a symbolic Baptist and a symbolic Roman Catholic. That is a wide range of symbolism. He now sees the Bible as the important standard of truth and prefers treating tradition, not as separate from the Bible, but as a kind of sacred commentary on the Bible. He realizes that he cannot hand his free will over “to a pope, priest, or spiritual father, even though these can helpful guides.” He admits admiring Pope John Paul II, not because he was infallible, but to the extent that John Paul spoke the truth, “on marriage and sexuality,” for instance. Mr. Torode says that it’s not the church one belongs to that is important, but the fact that “we all agree that everyone under the lordship of Christ, regardless of denominational affiliation, is somehow part of the church.”

Mr. Torode ends his article with an appeal to a kind of “not enough” system of belief. It is not enough to have a liturgy, not enough to be Catholic or Orthodox. “Only Jesus is enough,” he writes. He acknowledges the virtue of the “trappings of Orthodoxy—icons, liturgies, rote prayers.” However, he admits, these trappings can become idols. When this happens, the Christian needs to “step back and remember what, or who, it’s all about.”

Rather than engender confidence, however, Mr. Torode’s faith seems to be without propositional foundation, and thus, liable to error. In other words, he doesn’t seem to have specific Biblical reasons for what he believes because he believes in the Bible, almost. He feels that the name of Jesus alone is a sufficient mark for the proper identification of the Son of God, and thus, the true Christian.

However, “Jesus” is as much a doctrine as theories of justification and sanctification; that is, there are identifiable qualities of the Biblical Jesus that determine who he actually is. Simply claiming Jesus as Lord is not enough because the question always arises, Which Jesus? Is Jesus of the Roman Eucharist the real Jesus? Is Jesus the son of the Virgin Mary who intercedes for us in heaven the real Jesus? And most importantly for the coming crisis, Is Jesus the Lord of Sunday? Only the Bible supplies answers to these questions.

Speaking to the rich young man, Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:18). Many people call Jesus a good man, but is that completely accurate? Is that all he is? In the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus’ home town, Jesus explained from the Scripture who he was. The people of Nazareth knew Jesus, they knew “about” him, but thought he was merely the son of Joseph, not the Son of God, the Messiah (Luke 4:16-30). Even the devils knew better (Luke 4:41). When Jesus explained to people that he was the bread of life upon which they must feed, they rejected that Jesus. Peter and the other disciples, who heard this claim, said “we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 7:69, emphasis supplied). There is only one Jesus who is the Savior of the world. And this same Jesus of the Bible solemnly warned, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (Matt. 24:4, 5).

The Death of Brother Roger

The recent murder of Roger Schutz in France illustrates further the crisis the world is approaching. A deranged woman is alleged to have stabbed Schutz to death during a worship service. Schutz was a Protestant who, in 1940, founded a religious community called Taizé in Burgundy, France. This community is composed of both Protestants and Catholics who have come together to demonstrate the spirit of reconciliation, love, and ecumenism. The brothers of this community are celibate and have created a highly meditative and impressive form of worship that has been highly influential around the world.

A highly eclectic group of religious leaders have visited and studied what is essentially a Protestant/Catholic monastery. Anglican and Orthodox archbishops, Lutheran pastors, and many other clergy have witnessed for themselves the life of these monks. According to a report by BBC News, “Taizé is . . . deeply committed to religious unity, and although its founders were all Protestants, it drew on various Christian traditions. Pope John XXIII called it ‘That little springtime,’ and Catholic churches have widely adopted the Taizé approach.” Expressions of sadness are pouring in from around the world. The French Interior Minister said, “He was a man of peace. He had managed to establish a spiritual dialogue between the Catholic Church and other churches. We won’t forget his message.” French President Jacques Chirac observed that “All his life, this man of faith had a message of peace and dialogue.”

Brother Roger and his community are well known by Pope Benedict XVI. At his installation mass last April, the pontiff served the Eucharist to him. This is a highly unusual step for the Roman Catholic Church to do such a thing. It is strictly against Church policy to offer communion to those who are not Catholics in good standing. In fact, according to a canon of the Council of Trent, faith alone is not enough to enable a person to receive the Eucharist, and anyone who says it is, the Council said “let him be anathema.” Sacramental confession is necessary before the Eucharist may be received, and anyone who teaches to the contrary, he shall be “excommunicated.” If Brother Roger received communion from the hands of Benedict XVI without the preliminary steps, then the pontiff is in the strange position of being under the curse of his own church.

The Nature of Roman Catholicism

But no one should be surprised. The Church has always claimed the power to determine the content of truth. The Roman Catholic Church, by its own admission, is a collection of law created through precedent and argument over the long centuries of her existence. This is why Rome rejects the Protestant notion of the Bible as the only authority for truth. For the Roman Church, truth is the result of decisions made over time. It is Roman law which is truth, not the Bible which is truth. What we see in Rome today is nothing more than imperial principles of lawmaking applied to religious things. The papacy represents a set of human laws for creating order in spiritual things, but in reality the worldview of the Roman system is not Biblical because it disregards the commandments of God. The Roman system uses Biblical language, figures, and symbols, but is not Biblical. The Roman system is actually a man-centered, not a God-centered, form of human governance based on tradition. This was true for pagan Rome, and it is true for papal Rome.

In a recent issue of Newsweek (August 15, 2005), Christopher Dickey notes the deep desire on the part of Pope Benedict XVI to re-Christianize Europe. According to Dickey, Benedict’s biographer, George Weigel, says that the history of Christianity in Europe may be repeated in America. Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church has as its mission the re-establishment of Christianity as the foundation of Western civilization. However, what does this goal mean for America? America is a traditionally Protestant nation, founded upon Republican principles and the critical idea of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, the United States appears unprepared for the attempt by the Roman Church to assert itself as the standard by which Christianity is measured. The United States does not now realize what it is giving up.

The Aims of the Roman Catholic Church

In the current world climate of fear of terrorism, economic worries, famine, environmental catastrophe, and the rumblings of nature gone mad, the Roman Catholic Church is poised to assert itself as the last best answer to the woes of this earth. Her authority will allow her to create a system of religious belief the likes of which the world has never seen and in which most everyone in the world will find some sort of place. Her authority will also allow her the power to compel the conscience and enforce her claims. It will be a system of peace, unity, reconciliation, love, and compassion. But behind it all lurks the dragon, the enemy of mankind. Without the Holy Spirit and the foundation of the Holy Scriptures, what’s coming upon the earth will be impossible to resist.

It will not be easy for Seventh-day Adventists to stand for truth in these days. Many Adventists identify with conservative principles of law and order. To resist the coming syncretism, which will wear an extremely appealing face, will make individuals seem out of step with many laudable attempts by good people to end abortion, fight rampant secularism, stop the decline of the family, defeat the growing homosexual agenda, and end the filth and corruption overwhelming society. But in the Spirit and power of Elijah, the Church will stand and deliver her warning message.

 Marcus Sheffield, 2005