It's rather interesting though admittedly inconclusive that a
character like Mark Tooley, an admitted former CIA agent is heading an
'institute' devoted to influencing the mainline United Methodist Church.
Tooley is an outspoken opponent of not only Liberal Theology
but any form of theology that takes an anti-conservative tone in the realm of
politics. He's very hostile to Christians who don't support militarism,
patriotism or US policy in general.
I was surprised to see his name pop up on the recently
rebooted radio programme 'Iron Sharpens Iron'. This show could be described as
Reformed Baptist in orientation. It's interesting at times though I think the
host is lacking in basic interviewing skills and thus the show can drag. I
don't say that to be unkind but to warn for those who listen to the programme.
It will show up as being 2hrs in duration but it's actually two shows
back-to-back. The Tooley interview runs for one hour.
It's also interesting that the show is willing to bury the
Calvinist-Arminian hatchet. Apparently Dominionism is the ecumenical force that
trumps all divisions.
If you don't understand what is meant by the statement,
suffice it say that it must be understood that Arnzen (the host) as well as
Tooley (the guest) are very committed to standard Christo-Republican type
thinking and immediately view as suspect anything that questions it. They make
a basic error that equates Leftist or Liberal politics with Theological
Liberalism. Granted they often go together but it's not always the case. There
are plenty of political conservatives who are theologically liberal. There have
been theological liberals that are nationalistic and capitalist as well. And
yet it also must be granted that there are indeed many theological liberals who
are also politically on the left.
But there are also some Christians who reject the Right and
yet that does not make them automatically Leftist sympathisers. They may agree
with aspects of both political movements or as in my case they may agree with
some of the Leftist critique without ascribing to the Leftist agenda.
Those who embrace the type of thinking represented on this
programme are in a permanent state of polarization and cannot grasp those who
take a prophetic position, a sort of non-aligned posture that is non-committed.
It must be noted that for many on the Right, non-alignment or simple
non-allegiance is the same as enmity and hostility.
Of course from my standpoint, my own theology in terms of
Theological Prolegomena is as about as conservative as is possible, and yet
that does not translate into allegiance with Constantinian Orthodoxy and/or
political conservatism. I would argue as would a great many others that
Christian thinking must necessarily transcend political struggle and its
inherent and thus consequent violence.
Tooley is scandalized by Mainline denominations rejecting
Right-wing narratives and embracing what he identifies as Marxist thinking. Of
course he's referring to Liberation Theology which it must be admitted does
find some affinity with Marxism. That said, to be technical Marxism is of
course atheistic and so Liberation Theology represents a significant
modification of the movement. While it is certainly wrong for Christians to
embrace Marxism it's somewhat dubious if dishonest to label them thus. Tooley
is either ignorant of the terminology and its nuances or he's trying to use the
term for effect. Either way it's a misrepresentation.
Of course we might label Tooley and what he represents as a
form of Christian Fascism and we could certainly make a case every bit as
strident as his labeling of non-conservatives as being Marxist. That wouldn't
be entirely fair even if like the equation of Liberation Theology with Marxism
there are elements of truth within the labeling.
We can agree with Tooley that we ought to be scandalized by
the fact that Christians supported the Sandinistas and other Leftist groups in
Latin America, but I find it both ironic and offensive that Tooley and those
like him can support military dictatorships and believe it's morally
acceptable. Tooley admitted that he was involved in Mozambique while working
for the CIA, itself something worthy of Christian scandal. If you know anything
about Mozambique and Angola in the 1980's and 1990's you know that America was
supporting guerilla movements in very nasty civil wars and that many of their
allies were involved in all kinds of abominable activities. Oliver North and
others, some with Heritage Foundation connections, were involved in this sad
and bloody chapter of American intelligence and covert action. Tooley is
apparently quite proud of his service when he ought to be ashamed and condemned
as the moral equivalent of Christians who supported Leftist guerilla movements.
Like them he's guilty of heresy and has blood on his hands... or at the very
least is guilty of approving of those who have done evil.
Apparently it was okay that the CIA at the same time was
supporting the Mujahideen of which not a few later morphed into Al Qaeda. Tooley's
Consequentialism is morally bankrupt as his form of Christianity.
Liberal Theology is certainly apostate, and we can agree with
Tooley in rejecting it. But his Sacral version of Christianity and the ethics
it produces is in the end just as evil. I guess if someone goes out and
assassinates, murders and blows things up it's okay as long as they believe in
the Virgin Birth and the Inerrancy of Scripture.
It's striking how hostile many Sacralists are to the Sermon
on the Mount. It upsets them that Liberal Theology utilizes it as an ethical
base and then tries to apply it to the larger society. While they in viewing
Jesus as a Gandhi type figure are certainly off base as well, it's the ethics
that causes such a tangle for Sacralists. The Sermon on the Mount presents an
ethical framework that casts down and is antithetical to the Sacralist project.
It's almost like they don't want to talk about the Sermon on the Mount or
really any of the ethics of Christ. They would prefer to bury them in the
tangle of Systematic Theology, dogmatics and philosophical tradition. They
rightly rail against the Liberals pitting Paul against Christ, but then they
ironically do something that's very much the same, just in a different
direction. The Liberals have misread Christ and not a few of the Conservatives
have misread Paul. The Pauline ethic does not support their position and
neither does Romans 13.
Why is Tooley wasting his time on the United Methodist
Church? He's a lover of institutions and there's a lot of money and soft power
floating around in a large denomination like the United Methodists. He seems to
believe he can counter the trend toward apostasy. We would argue the trend is
no trend at all but a reality that set in before the UMC was officially founded
in 1968 by the merger of several groups.
He insists that most congregants are still fairly
conservative. I suppose it's possible but I sure don't know any. My area is
saturated with UMC congregations. The area in which I live was settled just
after the American Rebellion and many of the settlers who came into the area
embraced Methodism through the agency of Circuit Riders. The Presbyterians and
some of the other groups lagged behind in reaching out to the frontier and lost
out (badly) to groups like the Methodists and Baptists. My point is that I
regularly talk to UMC members (and clergy) and I have yet to find any who are
Biblically literate or conservative. Tooley is right in saying they will
vocalise adherence to orthodoxy, expressing belief in fundamentals and the
veracity of Scripture. But once you probe a little you'll quickly find it's at
best a veneer. They don't know what the Bible teaches and embrace many beliefs
and ethical positions quite contrary to it. In fact when confronted with what
the Scripture teaches I've encountered nothing less than hostility. I've spoken
with many UMC ministers who affirm their belief in the 'jot and tittle' of
Scripture only to find out that they have a very different, fluid and dynamic
concept of what that means.
I have no doubt Tooley has a personal commitment and perhaps
some sentimental attachment to the UMC and yet one must wonder, and this is
certainly speculation, if an ex-CIA operative is in fact serving in more than
one capacity. Is he just labouring for the renewal of the UMC? Is it possible
he's also being funded by other interests who wish to subvert the UMC?
Nixon and Colson did what they could to prop up individuals
in conservative Evangelicalism hoping for reciprocal political support. We know
the CIA has worked to infiltrate news media and academia. It's also common
knowledge that many think-tanks are saturated with 'ex' intelligence agents.
Would they fund or offer some support to a conservative working within the ecclesiastical
mainline trying to steer people away from political paths that are contrary to
Establishment goals? It's not much of a stretch in my mind. The mainline
denominations are vocal in divestment vis-à-vis Israel and in some cases are
supportive of Environmental agendas. A figure like Tooley working to influence
their ranks would be helpful. In addition he will certainly be making contacts
with the most conservative elements within the denomination... the overseas
populations and in particular the ecclesiastical authorities in Africa and
elsewhere. Could Tooley be coordinating, gathering Intel, moving money around and
in general manipulating the course of events... or at least trying to? It's not
too hard to imagine.
Tooley's project is openly political. For Tooley the
theological elements really only seem to matter in terms of the overall
political goals. Sacralism is nothing more than a politicised theology, a civil
religion. Tooley like all Sacralists has categorically rejected the Scripture's
teaching regarding the Kingdom of God. Everything is read through the Sacralist
lens. I had to chuckle as I heard him make the same basic Sacralist error when
reading and interpreting the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. If he read it
more carefully he would discover the field is the world, not the Church.
That said, the purist vision that many Baptists embrace
doesn't do justice to the Scriptures either. The New Testament Church is most
certainly a "Believer's Church" but that does not eliminate the
membership of children, the possibility of apostasy or the efficacy of God
ordained means.
In no way do I mean to defend the apostasy that is mainline
Christianity but Tooley's reading and interpretation of 'liberal' motivations
is reductionist at the least or deliberately misleading at the worst. He
believes there are many subversive agents (Alinsky types) at work in the UMC.
That's interesting because we might say the same about him.
Not everyone who rejects the politically conservative
narrative and the Sacralist marriage with 'conservative' theology is therefore
a Theological and/or Political Liberal. Tooley's not dumb. He knows that, but
to speak thus is contrary to his goals.
The interview is not all that interesting but for those who
wish to wrestle with these topics, then it's worth listening to and thinking
about.
