A Profound American Idolatry

A profound idolatry afflicts the North American churches, one that undermines her witness and endangers the world. It endangers the world because all idolatry brings death and destruction.

In this essay I will describe this idolatry and a contemporary manifestation of it, the justification for the War in Iraq. My goal is the purification of the church. As it stands now, I am convinced that many Christians who love God have been misled by their spiritual and political leaders. Hopefully this essay will help us to see the error of our ways and return to the purity of the gospel.

My thesis is not that all wars are illegitimate. In my view, some wars must be fought. Nor will I primarily argue whether or not the war in Iraq was unjust, illegal, or intensified the terrorist threat. Rather, and this is my point, I will show that the war expressed a form of national idolatry which profaned the Name of God. Apart from repentance, this places us under the judgment of God, a judgment that can have serious consequences both in time and eternity. I begin by showing that the idolatry has its deep roots in American history, even from the beginning.

From the Beginning

Here is a quotation from American historian Sidney Mead.

The primary religious concern in our nation must be to guard against national idolatry; against the state becoming God; against the state assuming a heteronomous stance vis-a-vis other nations. The founders sought to incarnate such a guard in the legal system of the new nation, the spiritual core of which is a theonomous cosmopolitanism.(1)

According to Mead, the medieval understanding of the one universal Christian church began to break down with the Reformation and the rise of nationalism in which each nation had their own national Christian church. America, however, did not adopt a national church, and this for a number of reasons. Given Europe's bloody religious wars and persecutions, the founders thought it best to allow freedom for each denomination by giving freedom to all. Further, a number of the founding fathers were enlightenment deists. They believed in a single universal God who revealed certain truths in creation as known by reason. Foremost among them was that no one person was God or divinely ordained to rule another, that all were created equal, that political sovereignty resided in the people, that governments were instituted by agreement among citizens, and that certain rights were inalienable, such as the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They also believed that the particular Christian denominations enshrined these beliefs as an inner core, but beyond that inner core, the denominations differed in their particular doctrines. As deists, a number of the founding fathers did not accept the particular beliefs of the denominations, but they did affirm the inner core and believed it important for the life of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin was typical in this regard. He was raised a Presbyterian, but reached the conclusion that their specific doctrines, the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, and such were unintelligible. He gave up attending church but financially supported the various denominations since each accepted the crucial inner core. In Franklin's view, the particular doctrines "serv'd principally to divide us, and make us unfriendly to one another."(2)

Mead calls this inner core the Religion of the Republic. It was cosmopolitan in that it accepted religion in all its forms. It was theonomous in that it held that God's eternal laws, known by reason in nature, were the source of the universal principles upon which the nation was founded.

Under these conditions, no single denomination could claim ultimacy before the law. Or, to put it another way, in daily life, in public discourse, in actual practice, no particular church was deemed universal with the result that certain universal characteristics that once belonged to the medieval church were attached to the nation itself. According to Mead, three characteristics were especially significant. They are: 1. The nation became the primary agent of God's meaningful activity in history. 2. The nation became the primary society in terms of which individual Americans discovered personal and group identity. 3. The nation became the community of the righteous.(3) Once Americans felt this way about their nation, it became commonplace to believe that America, to quote Lincoln, was "the last best hope of earth."(4)

According to Scripture, Jesus Christ as known through the preaching of the gospel is "the primary agent of God's meaningful activity in history." The fundamental identity of Christians is as followers of Christ in the company of other believers, the church. Further, Christians believe no one is righteous, but by Christ's sacrifice on the cross God imputes righteousness to his people, and from there, they learn to walk in it by holiness of life. When a people ascribe to a nation qualities that belong to Jesus Christ and his church, they are well on their way to idolatry.

Scripture shows that idolatry is more the norm for God's people than the exception. Americans, Christians and non-Christians alike, are typical in this regard. American idolatry is a daily, pervasive reality that affects everything from individual daily decisions to the highest levels of government. Let me describe how this happens.

How the Idolatry Works

All persons carry within them powerful emotional and cognitive networks of feelings, thoughts, memories, and experiences which can be activated by language, especially political and religious language.(5) The term "network" reflects the fact that these mental and emotional constructs are linked together interactively in the soul. Their activity can be observed in brain scans and they have been studied experimentally.

In verbal form, these deep networks are the myths, stories, and narratives that make sense of the world. As just described, a fundamental American myth is that America is the community of the righteous ordained by God to be a light to the nations. These myths are normally in place by late adolescence or early adulthood.(6)

Effective political speeches, images, or slogans tap into these networks. An entire network can be activated in a single moment. A word, a phrase, an image, or a fragment of a song can cause the soul to resonate with profound feelings. This can even happen subliminally, evoking a world of feeling.

These networks are far more emotional than cognitive. Once activated, they will even deny facts, leaving emotion to take precedence over reality. For example, studies have shown that subjects, given rock-solid information that directly contradicts the emotional aspects of their networks, will find a way to ignore the facts. Social scientist Drew Westen comments, "But emotional constraints alone could predict which way they would decide 84 percent of the time. Thus, even when we handcuffed people to the data with titanium cognitive cuffs, they managed, Houdini-like, to free themselves from any constraints of reality through the power of emotion."(7) It is feelings, not logic or facts, that drive the electorate to act, or vote, or support a particular program.

An effective political speech, advertisement, or image, will link a number of networks together, each reinforcing the other, in support of a particular world view or political candidate or program.(8) As this happens, the feelings associated with one network can be transferred to another network. When one of the networks is Christian and the other is pagan, Christian feelings can be transferred to pagan realities. This profanes the Name of God in that feelings and thoughts that belong God alone are now given over to other realities. I shall show how this happened in the case of selling the War in Iraq to the American public.

Finally, networks often exist in opposition to one another. For this reason, there is a daily, incessant battle going on for people's souls through images and phrases that constantly renew and modify networks, create new ones, and oppose rival networks. As this happens, certain networks become very powerful, overcoming rival networks and creating master networks of great emotional depth and intellectual reach. Let me describe on such network in action, the gospel as internalized by St. John of the Cross through what he calls the "dark nights."

The Dark Nights

St. John of the Cross describes two dark nights, the night of the sense and the night of the spirit.(9) In these dark nights God withdraws an awareness of his presence and works secretly in the soul to reveal its deep and hidden sins. Sins pertaining to the body, such things as sloth, lust, gluttony, or physical and emotional dependencies pertain to the night of the senses. Deeper sins, how we understand and love, pertain to the night of the spirit. This night deals with meaning, value, and status, such things as how one understands personal relationships or political events, or how one loves or hates, whether it be family members, various social classes, or one's country.(10)

One of the principal ways God enables the soul to enter the dark nights is through what John of the Cross calls the "counsels." These counsels are first and foremost the gospel narrative of Jesus.(11) These are the primary narratives of the master network, namely, the gospel narrative centering in Jesus Christ. As one enters into these accounts by the power of the Spirit, one enters the dark night because all of us are profoundly sinful as measured against the righteousness of Christ. As these sins become apparent, a person is invited to confess their sins, offering them to Christ on the cross, and in this process is cleansed and made new.

According to John of the Cross, few people pass through the dark nights, especially the second one. Such a passage is difficult, demanding. It means ruthlessly facing the fact that oneself, one's family, culture, and nation are dreadfully sinful. Letting go of sinful attitudes and habits is unnerving since it can cause a person to feel utterly lost, adrift, without moorings and alone. Since the dark night denies powerful elements of one's heritage, it forces a person to go against the stream, losing the comfort and advancement that comes from conformity and suffering the resulting alienation and loneliness. In the darkness, God creates a new worldview, one that reflects the biblical revelation in the various dimensions of life.

Those who direct the affairs of nations, as well as those who support their actions, rarely go through the dark night, and as a consequence, they do not experience the world from a biblical perspective. Rather, they are attuned to networks absorbed from the culture, and by reflecting that culture, are able to gather adherents and advance their agenda or that of their class or party.

The first and most important result of the dark night is purity of heart, the gift of seeing and hearing God and seeing life in relation to God. This can occur because the biblical narrative encompasses all of life, from creation to eschaton. When all of life, including all other networks, are purified by the biblical narrative, God becomes visible and all life can be seen in relation to him. This is a great blessing, glimpsed with joy as a prelude to seeing God face to face beyond death. In the words of John of the Cross, "And the memory, too, was changed into presentiments of eternal glory."(12)

Secondly, one has a deeper awareness of the idolatrous and subtle power of sin. The primary sin is not to believe the biblical narrative, not to trust God as known in the narrative, and not to bring all of life into relation to God as revealed in the narrative. Through the dark night, hidden sins become visible, and once visible, their powerful and secret nature becomes obvious.

Once that occurs, it is not only apparent that the soul is organized to hide sins, but also, that society, culture, and the world, are organized in the same fashion. One way this occurs is through images and slogans that reflect networks other than the biblical one. These networks are based on deceit since the Truth is known in Jesus Christ and him alone. Deceptive networks often convey a surface goodness that conceals yet strengthen sin. Words and images that evoke these networks are everywhere, saturating all of life. They create both life and death, idolatry or the worship of the one true God. Let me give an example, one taken from daily life.

The 90,000 Ton Killing Machine

On the wall where I get my hair cut are a number of posters depicting American life. One of them is a picture of an imposing aircraft carrier with the caption, "90,000 Tons of Diplomacy." What does this image convey? To begin with, the image of a massive aircraft carrier conveys awesome military power, the power to devastate any opposition. For most viewers, this fits in with prior perceptions that he or she belongs to a very powerful country, the United States of America. Secondly, this 90,000 ton killing machine is in the service of diplomacy. The term "diplomacy" communicates instantly that the United States is a country committed to diplomacy, that is, to solving conflicts through peaceful means. This is because, according to Mead's third point, America is the "community of the righteous." At the same time, however, the country recognizes that there are evil people and evil nations, and if crossed, the diplomacy will be backed up by 90,000 tons of force.

Since few people pass through the dark nights, they carry within them powerful unconfessed sins. Among them are the insecurity, anxiety, anger and aggression created by failing to trust the Father of Jesus Christ. The image of 90,000 tons of diplomacy resonates with these deep fears and aggressions. It strokes and pleases them by assuring them they are being taken care of by awesome power, and further, that there will be an outlet for their aggression if need be, the aggression of a 90,000 ton killing machine. The slogan also justifies these aggressions by claiming that they are only exercised when diplomacy fails. In this way, the poster never allows the viewer to enter the dark night and repent of his or her sins, whether individual or corporate. For example, the poster does not ask the viewer to question whether or not America's military power has only been used to back up diplomacy, or whether it has been used instead of diplomacy. To resolve that issue, one would need to study the foreign policy of the United States over the last century or so. Virtually none of those who see the poster make such a study. Nor does the poster suggest to the reader that their internal aggressions have had and will have sinful, destructive consequences. Rather, the viewer experience the poster as a fleeting moment in a more general impression that the United States is a just, powerful, and righteous country, giving them a feeling of pride and security.

This impression reinforces an entire world of images and slogans continuously promoted by media, parents, friends, politicians, and so forth. This creates a social world in which real repentance is virtually impossible. Repentance is impossible because the poster, and the socially constructed world to which it belongs, is created through images and slogans that feed each person's sinful aggression while hiding its reality. The result of this deceit is that most people are in bondage to the deep aggressions and fears that drive the human heart. Intense human suffering is the consequence.

A Contrast

Let me now contrast this poster with a gospel counsel, that of Good Friday. First of all, the biblical narrative of Good Friday shows how human sin, politics, greed, envy, and the manipulation of the crowd by their leaders, lead at once to the suffering of Christ on the cross. The narrative shows you Christ dying there. By contrast, the poster shows none of the mangled, bloody bodies produced by a 90,000 ton aircraft carrier in action. That reality is hidden, and since it is hidden, viewers are not confronted with its horror. Secondly, the biblical narrative depicts the whole of life, religious leaders, political leaders, the crowd, men, women, the followers of Jesus, individuals such as Judas and Peter, all involved in events that lead to Jesus' death. Whoever you are, you will find yourself in the Good Friday narrative, and you will see how you kill Christ.

By contrast, the poster shows no one killing anyone. The flight deck is empty except for an array of fighter planes. No one is there. All are innocent. Further, the biblical narrative portrays the death of Christ in a larger context, that is, Jesus as God's Son, so that his death is a sin against the living God. This enables sinners to repent of their sins, to receive forgiveness, and to enter into relationship with a transcendent, righteous God, who having loved his own, loves them to the end. Further, this encounter with the message of Good Friday elicits feelings of sorrow, contrition, repentance and thankfulness before the face of God. The poster refers the viewer to a larger context as well, the United States of American as a powerful, righteous country. It elicits the feeling that one belongs to a great country, a powerful country, a free country, a country that fights for democracy, for freedom, and for peace at home and abroad. It exalts the soul with a feeling of the nation's greatness, while the cross humbles the soul before a living God. The cross leads to worship of the one true God and to eternal life, the poster to making an idol of the nation and to death.

The poster is but one image in a vast, socially constructed world of images, messages, and media that bombard the soul daily. Under normal conditions, this world of meaning is not monolithic. There are opposing ideologies and policies, each promoted by slogans and images, normally designated by the political right or left. The poster contributes to one side of this ongoing debate, namely, the conservative emphasis on a strong military.

The 9/11 Crisis and the War in Iraq

In times of crisis, the poster and its ideology come to the fore. After 9/11, for example, the aggression that lay in everyone's heart was intensified beyond the boiling point. This aggression required an outlet. Someone had to pay for this crime and the threat had to be exterminated. Iraq was chosen to pay the price, even though Iraq had no real relation to al Qaeda nor to 9/11.

That choice was not accidental. It was the convergence of at least two major factors, the religious right and the neo-conservatives.(13) The religious right has adopted a heretical understanding of the Christian faith. Rather than the Kingdom of God, they see the United States as the vehicle of God's redemption of the world. The neocons offered a pagan version of a similar vision. Both reflect the idolatry described by Mead. My next step is the describe the religious right and the narrative by which they make sense of reality. I will focus on Pat Robertson, one of the most influential members of the Christian right.

The Christian Right

Pat Robertson is surely a major player among politically conservative Christians. In 1988 he ran for president on the Republican ticket, garnering well over three million signatures and speaking at the Republican National Convention. He is the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), the Christian Coalition, International Family Entertainment, and Regent University. He is the host of The 700 Club, a Christian worldwide TV program that promotes conservative religious and political views. He is also an author, having written a number of books which became best sellers. One of the most important is his book,The New World Order.(14) In that text he sets forth his agenda for America and the world.

He begins by painting a picture of a world soon to fall under the power of Satan. Conspiratorial forces, such as the Illuminati, the Masons, the national and international bankers, the United Nations, the liberals, and the supreme court are conspiring to create a world order against God. The only hope for the world is for Christian men and women in the United States to take control of the government, "precinct by precinct, city by city, and state by state."(15)

To justify the rule of the religious right, Robertson quotes Isaiah 2:1-4. An orthodox understanding of this passage would see it fulfilled in Jesus through the preaching of the gospel. That is not, however, how Robertson understands it. In his view, the passage means that godly men and women take control of the government and implement the Ten Commandments. Robertson then shows how obedience to the Ten Commandments will bring the peace to the nations. Here is Robertson, describing the absolute necessity that Christians govern the nation and the world.

There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there by peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy moneychangers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top? Under their leadership the world will never, I repeat never, experience lasting peace.(16)

This, however, raises a question. Can Christian leaders serve in government as Christians? As soon as "God's people" impose some of the Ten Commandments, such as, for example, the law against adultery or the commandment of the Sabbath rest, such leaders are no longer acting as Christians. No law is effective on a sinful and recalcitrant public unless it is backed up by coercion, jail time and fines. But the gospel of Jesus Christ is never imposed by force. It is "imposed" by the wrenching image of the Son of God hanging on a cross for our sins. That is the only "coercion" that is Christian. Christians can serve in government, but in a role as civic leaders and not in the role of imposing a sectarian morality.

As is well known, the leaders of the Christian right have consistently supported George Bush and other conservative candidates. On the eve of the 2004 election, for example, Robertson claimed on the 700 Club that the vote would be a "blowout" for President Bush since whatever Bush does, "good or bad, God picks him up because he is a man of prayer and God's blessing him."(17) Statements such as these by Robertson and other religious leaders translate into millions of votes. Nearly 80% of white evangelical Christians voted for George Bush in 2004, comprising 36% of the vote that barely elected Bush.(18)

According to Robertson's agenda, once the Christian right gains control of government, their next step is to "save" the world from the godless one-world government that is waiting in the wings. When, and only when, America is a strong, sovereign nation, under the laws of Jacob and governed by Christians, will their any hope for the world. Here is Robertson.

Such a world government [the Satanic one] can come together only after the Christian United States is out of the way. After all, the rest of the world can federate any time it wants to, but a vital, economically strong, Christian United States would have at its disposal the spiritual and material force to prohibit a worldwide satanic dictator from winning his battle. With American still free and at large, Satan's schemes will at best be only partially successful. From these shores could come the televisions, radio, and printed matter to counter an otherwise all-out world news blackout. An independent America could point out Satan's lies. If America is free, people everywhere can hope for freedom. And if American goes down, all hope is lost to the rest of the world.(19)

This is the idolatry described by Sidney Mead. It is syncretistic, merging the Kingdom of God established by the preaching of the gospel with a political agenda implemented by a political process.(20) It places Christians on the top, rather than on the bottom as those who serve as Christ served. It makes the unsubstantiated and un-biblical claim that a Christian United States of America is the divinely anointed vehicle by which God defeats Satan and saves the world. By the theological norms of orthodoxy, Robertson is a heretic. By Old Testament standards, he is a false prophet, telling the powerful what they want to hear. By the standards of America's founders, his agenda is un-American. In violates the founders' belief that America should not be governed by those who impose their sectarian religious practices upon others. My next step is to describe the world view of the neo-conservatives, the second major force leading to the War in Iraq.

The Neo-conservatives

For some years prior to 9/11, the neo-conservatives had been advocating an invasion of Iraq.(21) They believed that by toppling Iraq and establishing a democratic free-market government, other Arab nations would get a taste of freedom and join the Western camp.(22) This would insure America's access to oil and protection against Islamic radicalism.

The invasion of Iraq was part of their larger vision that the twenty-first century belongs to America. According to their 1997 Statement of Principles, as "the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power." In this new world, the country must exercise "American global leadership." This requires a strong military with strategic alliances so that America can "challenge regimes hostile to American interests and values," promote the cause of "political and economic freedom" abroad by "preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." The words "challenge" and "extending" refer to their willingness to overthrow regimes that do not live up to American "principles" and "values," or regimes that threaten American "interests" and "prosperity."(23)

From a religious point of view, the neocon agenda is pagan. Paganism is the belief that the forces of the world around us, whether it be a nation's preeminence, its military prowess, its democratic ideals, or a incomparable economy, are valid grounds for action apart from the Word of God. As such, the neocon agenda is the normal push for empire. With over 700 bases world-wide, including a number on Islamic soil,(24) and with a military budget not far from total world military spending,(25) the neocons were seeking to extend that empire. By right of preeminence, overwhelming military and economic strength, the pagan claim was advanced that the 21st century belonged to America. The neocons wanted what the devil offered Jesus, authority over the kingdoms of this world.(26)

Bush had appointed a number of neocons to his administration, most notably Cheney his vice-president and Rumsfeld his secretary of defence, both of whom signed the 1997 Statement of Principles. Once 9/11 occurred, the neocons saw their opportunity. The day after 9/11, Rumsfeld suggested to Bush's inner circle that they attack Iraq, although Iraq's connection with 9/11 was unknown.(27) Within five days, it was decided to first go after Afghanistan, leaving Iraq until later. By November 21 of 2001, Bush had secretly initiated planning for the invasion of Iraq.(28) This set in motion a train of events that soon acquired a momentum of its own, leading to war.

The invasion of Iraq had to be sold to the American public. Given the obvious threat, the fact of 9/11 and unfriendly nations and groups, it might seem that the invasion could be sold on the pagan grounds of national security alone. By my reading of the gospels, Jesus did not primarily direct his prophetic words against pagan Rome. He knew that all nations are subject to the judgment of God, but like the prophets before him, he proclaimed the judgment of God against Israel for choosing pagan politics over the Kingdom.(29) As such, I see little reason to fault the neocons for their pagan agenda. In and of itself, it has integrity. For those who believe the destiny of nations is determined by raw power alone, no further considerations are needed. Jesus did say, however, that those "who live by the sword will die by the sword." Or, according to Psalm 9, "The Lord is known by his acts of justice; the wicked are trapped in the works of their own hands." Blinded by the idolatry of their own power, we cannot expect the neocon agenda to be effective long term. For example, conservative scholars Clarke and Halper, partisans of Ronald Reagan and advocates of the judicious use of force, believe that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists than it eliminates.(30)

Be that as it may, Jesus did address the idolatry of those who linked the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a pagan program. What was true then is true now. The invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public through presidential rhetoric that linked the neocon pagan program to the Christian faith, especially the faith of the Religious Right. Before showing how that happened, I would like to make a theological comment in reference to narrative and Spirit.

A Theological Note

We understand the world we experience through narrative and spirit. As described in this essay, the authoritative narrative for Christians is the biblical narrative centered in Jesus Christ. The links between the biblical narrative and the whole of reality is given by the Holy Spirit. This happens through what Scripture calls the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, the desert of the Exodus and Jesus' temptations, or the dark night of John of the Cross. Each of these refer to the same spiritual process. Other narratives, such as those of the neocons and the religious Right, do not lead to truth or final safety, nor are they activated and connected by the Holy Spirit. Their linkages with the whole of reality are effected by what Scripture calls "principalities and powers."(31) These potent spiritual beings blow through the nations, bringing confusion, social conflict, economic crises, and war. This is what happened when the war in Iraq was sold to the American public. The United States is a leaf in the wind.

Selling the War

Between September 11, 2001 and May 1, 2003, the commencement of hostilities with Iraq, the president of the United States made 17 major presidential speeches, an unprecedented pace among modern presidents.(32) These have been exhaustively analyzed, their dominant themes and references catalogued and counted.(33) Two binary opposites were dominant and linked together, good/evil and security/peril. The first polarity activated the idolatrous perspective described by Mead and championed by the Christian Right. The second polarity enabled the neocons to carry out their pagan agenda. The link between the two profaned the Name of God. How did that happen?

Framing the Discourse(34)

One of the first things that needs to happen to mobilize public opinion and marginalize other alternatives is to frame the discourse. A discourse is framed by a phrase or label that marks the boundaries within which, usually without being aware of it, people are able to think about or act on a particular issue. For example, consider the phrase, "the axis of evil," used by president Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address to refer to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

The speech was written by Bush's speech writer, Michael Gerson, an evangelical graduate of Wheaton with a degree in theology. Initial drafts of the speech used the phrase, "axis of hatred." The phrase had "overtones of the World War II Axis powers."(35) Gerson changed the phrase to "axis of evil." This maintained the Axis link, but even better, Gerson thought it broadened "the notion, making it more sinister, even wicked. It was almost as if Saddam was an agent of the devil. The connection between his regime with weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism could put the world on the road to Armageddon."(36) President Bush liked the phrase. In his words, "It just kind of resonates."(37) Furthermore, the phrase "blurred the focus by including North Korea and Iran, providing additional cover for the secret planning for covert action in Iraq, and war."(38)

The phrase, "axis of evil," framed the debate, setting up boundary markers. It was like the poster of the 90,000 tons of diplomacy, defining good and evil. On one side was God, the good, the United States, the President's war plans, and all who would agree with those plans. On the other side of the boundary was the devil, evil, the rogue nations, imminent terrorists attacks, and those who might advance alternatives to an imminent invasion. Once the impending war had been properly framed, it was difficult for Americans to believe they had done anything wrong in the Middle East, such as the presence of American military bases and troops on Islamic soil in violation of Islam, or not being even-handed in support of Israel, or being among those western powers that invaded, occupied, and exploited the Middle East at the beginning of the past century. Unlike the Good Friday narrative, the phrase "axis of evil" allowed only one evil to be seen, that of the terrorists. Further, the phrase ensured that opponents of an immediate invasion could easily be silenced by marking them as allies of the forces of darkness. As such, the phrase defined the limits of perception, thinking, and debate. It enabled America to self-righteously go to war, a war of good against evil. It was an important element in presidential rhetoric that defined reality in terms of good/evil and security/peril. Consider these quotations, taken from presidential speeches after 9/11 and before the announcement of hostilities with Iraq.

The Idolatry in Action

A. America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. (Evening of 9/11)

B. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us ... Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice-assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of victories to come. (9/20/01 address to congress and the nation)

C. America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. ... If this [Saddam Hussein] is not evil, then evil has no meaning." (2003 State of the Union Address)

D. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, ... so that we will not have to meet it later .... on the streets of our cities." (March 19, 2003, announcing the start of military operations in Iraq.)

E. The course of this conflict is not known, its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." (9/20/01 address to congress and the nation)

F. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. ... We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know-we do not claim to know all the ways of providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history. May He guide us now." (2003 State of the Union Address.)

G. Every name, every life, is a loss to our military, to our nation, and to the loved ones who grieve. There's no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray, in God's time, their reunion will come. (5/1/03, announcing end of major combat operations in Iraq).

H. All of you-all in this generation of our military have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' and to those in darkness, 'be free.'" (5/1/03, announcing end of major combat operations in Iraq).(39)

The polarity between good and evil can be seen in virtually all of the above quotations. As such, the quotations activated the ancient myth that America is the community of the righteous chosen by God to save the world. More generally, they placed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in a heretical Christian context, the war between the forces of good and evil best seen in the book of Revelation. As such, these quotations resonated in the American soul, filling the heart with the righteous anger that comes to those who fight for freedom and justice against a universal evil.

Further, virtually all of the quotations given above activated the security/peril network. That network, standing alone, was the pagan perspective advocated by the neocons. The linchpin of the security/peril network was 9/11 itself, referenced in every presidential speech but two, namely, the ultimatum to Saddam and Bush's announcement of an invasion of Iraq.(40) This was probably due to the fact that there was no real evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Even so, by the time of the second anniversary of 9/11, polls showed that 70 percent of Americans believed that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against our troops, and that the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had been proven.(41) None of this was true, demonstrating the power of emotional networks activated by presidential addresses to fabricate reality.

These two networks, the heretical "Christian" one and the pagan security/peril one, were linked, so that the feelings of holiness and righteousness from the first displaced, concealed, or merged with the feelings of fear and aggression required by the second. For example, quotation E identified the United States with freedom and justice, Saddam Hussein with cruelty and fear, and linked this contrast to God thereby linking religious feelings of God's justice with America's aggressive foreign policy. Quotation F did the same, claiming that the American way of freedom and liberty is "God's gift to humanity." In the context of an impending war, that gave a Christian glow to the slaughter that lay ahead. The line, "May He guide us now," evoked the Christian notion of guidance, thereby resonating in the souls of the Christian millions who believe God guides believers. They would immediately feel that Bush is being led by the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, even as Bush directs the bloody business of war. Quotation H was addressed to American military men and women at the end of the first phase of the military operations. It evoked the Christian network through biblical terms such as hope, calling, and darkness, together with a passage from the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah 49:9. An orthodox interpretation of this passage sees it fulfilled in Jesus Christ who, obedient to God, chose to be crucified rather than defend himself. Here, however, Isaiah 49:9 is fulfilled by the "shock and awe" of war. Quotation G was probably one of the most effective. It linked the sacrifices of those killed killing others with the Christian network of an eternal homecoming in heaven, a homecoming that was only attained by Jesus' innocent suffering. Quotation G is not that far from the Muslim idea that those who die in the wars of Allah will inherit paradise.

These connections between the Christian network and the military campaign appealed to emotion not thought. It is unlikely that most Americans were aware of the linkage between these two very different realities. When they heard the phrase "the axis of evil," they did not stop to wonder if America might have done some evil in the Middle East. Nor will most people stop to think how the guidance of the Lamb of God would comport with the guidance of a president leading a nation to war. Or, in quotation G, most Americans would not notice that those who died in Iraq were killing others while Jesus did not. Political speeches are not written for people who analyze, but for people who feel. That is their power.

Human beings do sacrifice themselves for each other. American soldiers have died and their sacrifices have defended America against real enemies. Those who give up their lives in Iraq should be honored for their willingness to die for what many doubtless believe is a just cause. But far more than that is being said here. What is happening here is that feelings and beliefs that belong only to the holy Name of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, are being used to legitimate, honor, and praise a brutal act of aggression. Whether that aggression was justified or not,(42) whether it was right or wrong,(43) whether it had to be done to protect democracy, freedom, or ourselves from weapons of mass destruction, whatever it was, it was and is not the way of Christ. To state my case again: Even if the invasions were justified by any known norm or set of facts,(44) it is never justified and always blasphemous to link the killing of others to the cause of Christ.

As these speeches took place, millions of people resonated to the words, millions transferred religious feelings that belong to Jesus Christ and to him alone, over to a foreign policy that may be legitimate on other grounds, but it isn't the way of Christ upon earth. Jesus killed no one. He never took up arms. He died a horrible death for the sake of those who killed him. A terrible idolatry, a deep profaning of the Name of God, a violation of the first commandment, a taking of the Lord's Name in vain, a disfiguring of the bride of Christ, has taken place in the American soul.

What terrible apostasy. What endless suffering it brings. What wretchedness and grief. Would that the gospel would remain pure. Would that the bride of Christ were fit for the bridegroom. Would that Christ's sacrifice had never been profaned. Would that Christians would rend their hearts in shame and sorrow. Oh that Jesus would come back. Oh that he would end the carnage. Oh God, have mercy on us, have mercy. Let us all repent. Oh Father, remember your Son. Remember his sacrifice. Remember his words after they nailed him down, "Father forgive them they know not what they do."

Endnotes

1. Sidney Mead, The Nation with the Soul of a Church (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), p. 76.
2. Mead, p. 22.
3. Mead, p. 73.
4. Lincoln's Annual Message to Congress Concluding Remarks, Washington, D.C., December 1, 1862
5. The ideas from this section come from Drew Westen's book, The Political Brain (New York: Public Affairs, 2007).
6. Westen, p. 95.
7. Westen, p. 111.
8. The 1988 advertisement accusing Michael Dukakis of being soft on crime showed a black man, Willie Horton, getting out of prison. Once out, he raped a white woman. Ostensibly, the ad activated a network created by years of political ads that claimed that the Democrats were soft of crime. That was the surface network. The image, however, of the black African face of Willie Horton linked the soft on crime network to another network, namely, that black men are dangerous. Had the ad showed a young white man getting out of prison, and then, in a business suit, bilking his company, the ad would have been useless. It would have conveyed the same fact, criminals are getting off easy, but lacked the emotional jolt, Dukakis is letting black men rape our white girls. That is what made the political ad very effective (Westen, p. 63-5).
9. St. John of the Cross, Collected Works, translated by Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriquez (Washington D. D.: ICS Publications), 1979, pp. 73, 109. Biblically, the dark nights correspond to the forty years Israel wandered in the desert as well as Jesus' forty days in the wilderness. It was, and is, a time of testing and temptation.
10. John of the Cross, p. 334-9.
11. John of the Cross, p. 102.
12. John of the Cross, p. 335. I have described how this looks, feels, and sounds in my novel Face to Face.
13. America Alone, by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). These two authors possess the highest academic credentials and have distinguished careers in government and academia. They are conservative politically and both are admirers of Ronald Reagan. Halper, for example, was a White House and State Department official during the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. They describe in documented detail how the neo-conservatives, supported by the religious right, took command of the Bush administration and utilized the fear generated by 9/11 to promote their agenda to remake the Middle East in America's image, starting with Iraq.
14. Robertson, Pat. The New World Order. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991.
15. Robertson, p. 261.
16. Robertson, p. 227.
17. David Domke, God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the "War on Terror," and the Echoing Press (Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2004), p. 16.
18. Westen, pp. 392, 401.
19. Robertson, p. 256.
20. The beliefs of the Religious Right are the conservative form of the liberal heresy that has seized the Episcopal Church. These two groups, left and right, need each other. Their mutual accusations conceal their common heresy.
21. See the Iraq section, 1997-2000, of their web page, Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000 1997.htm
22. Halper and Clarke, p. 218.
23. All these quotations are taken from the June 3, 1997, Statement of Principles, found on the web site of the Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
24. See Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004), pp. 4, 216.
25. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
26. Matt. 4:8-10, Luke 4:5-8.
27. Woodward, pp. 25-26.
28. Woodward, pp. 26, 30. Clarke and Halper, pp. 204-5.
29. See especially chapters 7 and 8 of N. T. Wright's, Jesus and the Victory of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
30. Clarke and Halper, pp. 283-4. Clarke and Halper argue that the neocons are ideological, not pragmatic, and their adherence to a rigid world view has led them to turn the war against terrorism into a war against Muslims. "As a result, the United States risks empowering a tiny minority of Islamic extremists and fundamentalists and risks being feared and reviled by 1.3 billion Muslims spread throughout the globe, several million of whom reside in the United States" (p. 326).
In my view, a follower of Jesus can be a political leader, even an advocate of a strong military on such grounds as that of the two Kingdoms. But when such persons make an ultimate of the nation, they will, in their ideological blindness, put the nation at risk. In this regard, on August 20, 2002, Woodward interviewed George Bush for 2 hours and 25 minutes. In Woodward's words, Bush spoke in "sweeping, even grandiose terms about remaking the world." In Bush's words, "I will seize the opportunity to achieve big goals." (Woodward, p. 162) Anyone subscribing to an idolatrous belief in America's divine destiny will not remake the world, or if so, it will not be for the good. Idolatry always breeds destruction.
31. A very good account of the principalities and powers can be found in Karl Barth's, The Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 213-33. Barth was the leading theologian of the Confessing Church, those few Christians who did not let themselves by subverted by Hitler's pagan revival. Barth saw, first hand, how the lordless powers can destroy the world and subvert the church.
32. Domke, p. 19.
33. The ideas for this section come from the book by David Domke.
34. See Clarke and Halper, pp. 202-210, especially the comments p. 208
35. Woodward, p. 86.
36. Woodward, p. 87.
37. Woodward, p. 95.
38. Woodward, p. 95.
39. Domke, pp. 102, 16, 47, 53, 109, 1, 110, 110.
40. Westen, p. 56.
41. Clarke and Halper, p. 303.
42. There are those who, like conservative catholic apologist, Michael Novak, believe the war in Iraq satisfies just war criteria (http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp). I find such apologetics for empire rather useless. Even if the war were just by Augustine's criteria, that wasn't how it was presented to the American public. The word "just" in presidential speeches appealed to the Christian network, not Augustine's theory. In point of fact, Pope John Paul II sent a personal envoy to George Bush asking him not to attack Iraq. The envoy stated that there would be civilian casualties, it would deepen the gulf between the Christian and Muslim worlds, it would not be a just war, and it would be illegal (Woodward, p. 332). The pope's pleas went unheeded.
43. In my view, the invasion of Iraq was wrong, a terrible evil with horrible consequences.
44. The great claim leading to the War in Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. It is highly unlikely that he did since, after the invasion, they were never found. Woodward's Plan of Attack would indicate that the Bush administration never possessed clear evidence for WMD (Woodward, pp. 173-4, 190, 194-5, 197-8, 249, 290, 292, 298, 309, 316, 422). For the neocons, however, their existence was a matter of expediency, rather than demonstrated fact. Clarke and Halper reach a similar conclusion. In their view the neocons would have invaded Iraq even if there were no WMD (pp. 318-9). Whether the Bush administration did or did not have good intelligence on WMD is irrelevant to the argument of this essay.