The Click-Bait and Spin Machines of the Christian Right

https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/01/10/not-a-single-democratic-senator-supports-u-s-military/

Pulpit and Pen wants so badly to be taken seriously as the bastion of discernment and the font of all wisdom when it comes to things Reformed. And yet this is seemingly accomplished by means of a Christianised version of click-bait. Through sensationalist and misleading headlines the outlet plays a game of bait and switch that in the end amounts to little more than a dog and pony show.

There are certainly plenty of issues that deserve attention in our day. There are many defections and error is rife and yet Pulpit and Pen demonstrates a sometimes astounding ignorance of the heritage it lays claim to and in the end is revealed to be little more than a shill for the Tea Party-Right wing which resorts to labeling everything that might oppose it as Marxist. Even when there's some truth that should be revealed or something noteworthy in the things they report on, the story is so skewed and distorted that in the end it accomplishes little more than generating confusion or in the case of the overt lies (which permeate the site)... it does great harm. (See Ezekiel 13.22 and Jeremiah 23.14)

Clearly the writers don't know what Marxism is and in many cases they seem unclear as to what theology they themselves would represent. One minute there are Calvinistic assumptions being presented (always Baptist to be sure), but then at other times there are stories that seem to take the Dispensationalist line. While this is the theology of popular teacher John MacArthur, if Pulpit and Pen wishes to advocate such a hybrid they cannot lay claim to the 'Reformed' label in any way shape or form.

To be honest I don't know that any of this really matters to them because like so many outlets of their ilk, the real theology being promoted is not Calvinism, Arminianism or Dispensationalism but Christo-Americanism, the syncretistic heresy that dominates the scene in our day. In the end it's a compromised and worldly-minded system. They can slam Evangelicalism all they want but they're drinking from the same poisoned wells and the fruits will be readily apparent in a generation.

Like it not Pulpit and Pen is within the New Calvinist sphere. It's on the sociological Right-wing fringe of the greater movement but it's still well within its larger circle and thus still within the sphere of Evangelicalism. It may be highly critical of some figures that function under the umbrella of New Calvinism but the website is still deeply committed to the movement's ethos and is much closer to it in spirit than it is to historic Confessionalism.

In the case of the linked article regarding Ted Cruz and his attempt to mark the congressional record with an official declaration of praise for the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the Federalist article (linked and endorsed by Pulpit and Pen) demonstrates several things.

1. An unwillingness to acknowledge or perhaps a failure to understand that the Soleimani killing is different than bin Laden, a figure well known to the American public. Soleimani was only known to those who have been closely following events in the Middle East. The information given by the White House regarding the 'threat' of Soleimani is under question. Trump, Pompeo and Pence have all lied multiple times in their statements about Soleimani and thus there is a degree of scepticism regarding his killing. Additionally, he was not a member of a terrorist group but a uniformed member of an internationally recognised state. By some Right-wing definitions he may nevertheless be reckoned a 'terrorist'. That's fine but by those same definitions someone like Pompeo also fits the criteria and thus (it follows) would also be a legitimate target.

Given the different nature of this operation and its context, the killing and the subsequent tensions have led to unease and angst. I don't find it too surprising that many in the US Congress don't feel like it's time for a victory lap.

The author may not have understood the cultural impact of the bin Laden killing because (based on her bio) I'm guessing she was a small child when 9/11 occurred and thus would fail to grasp the emotional outburst (as misguided and deceptive as it was) when bin Laden was killed in 2011.

2. Defeating the organizations (as the article would have it) is quite different when it comes to Soleimani. Bin laden presided over an underground network of men that were reckoned as outlaws by the international community. The government of Iran for good or ill presides over a state of 80 million people with an economy the size of a mid-level European nation. It has a government bureaucracy, an international presence, diplomatic corps and a proper army. To compare Soleimani and Iran to bin Laden and al Qaeda is to compare apples and oranges and I dare say Cruz et al. know this. And while they wish to politicise this point by smearing the Democrats, the very resolution itself was little more than a political stunt.

3. Not only is Pulpit and Pen misled and willing to mislead in posting this article, it also tells us a great deal about The Federalist, an unfortunate hack web-magazine that many Christians openly and proudly affiliate with. While the clownish writer at The Federalist may speak of a 'moral compass',  one wonders what kind of morality resorts to obfuscation, spin and in some cases deliberate lies? In that sense The Federalist is cut from the same 'moral' cloth as Pulpit and Pen. While I continue to be upset by Christian outlets (like LPR's Issues etc.) utilising Federalist authors, their blatant political agenda is not quite as upsetting as what's happening at Pulpit and Pen. With the latter, the focus is specifically oriented to the Church and thus in spiritual terms, is far more dangerous and pernicious.

4. There is also the heretical assumption of American Exceptionalism, the idea that America cannot be spoken of in the same terms as other nations. It is set apart, or to put it another way, sanctified. America's murders, thefts and other crimes are legitimate and moral while other nation's actions and crimes are evil. Any attempt to speak of them in the same breath, or draw comparisons is out of bounds and guilty of the sin of moral equivalence. This is bad enough in terms of political theory but when cast in Christian terms it is a heresy. It covenantalises a nation that is not in covenant with God. It grants said nation privilege (a private and exclusive law or morality) and the ethics that flow from this error are in grave opposition to the doctrines and imperatives of the New Testament. The Scriptural concepts of Kingdom and Covenant and the ethics rooted in these concepts are distorted if not turned on their head.

5. Even the discussion of Anti-Semitism is disingenuous and echoes what has been taking place in the United Kingdom. Opposition to the Zionist state of Israel (especially when led by Likud) is not Anti-Semitic. This is a deceptive tactic being utilised by the Right and the Israeli lobby in both countries.

Pulpit and Pen and The Federalist are hardly alone in promoting these views. Such websites and organisations are proliferating at the moment and while they tear their hair out and point to George Soros and his organisation, the truth is that Right wing and Christian Right outlets are swimming in billionaire philanthropist funds and thus have no basis for accusation. I don't know anything about Pulpit and Pen's finances and generally speaking these things are kept under wraps but the network is growing and it is not uncommon for these groups to support one another and provide grants. Each seems to be clamouring for attention and thus I wonder if something more isn't at stake... a case of the squeaky wheel getting some grease. Under such models it's hardly surprising that truth let alone the kind of explanatory truth that fosters actual discernment takes a back seat.