Posted under Christianity & Election 2012 & Israel
Bachmann is, what should be called a “Curser” (to go along with Birthers and Truthers). That’s a person who believes that U.S. foreign policy should be based around the old line in Genesis where God says to Abraham “I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you.” So the U.S. must support Israel not just because is it in our foreign policy interest but because if we don’t God will curse us.
Now I wouldn’t say this is exactly Dispensationalism because her religion is Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), which is a very fundamentalist Protestant sect (they believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ) but is made up largely of conservative German Lutherans (the Bachmann clan is originally from Wisconsin in a little German-dominated farming village called Waumundee in Buffalo County). They’re not the kinds of people who buy into the flights of fantasy of Dispensationalism (they’re Lutherans after all). Dispensationalism is a British import from dissenter sects which fits more in with the more charismatic Scots-Irish than the more reserved German or Scandinavian Lutheran sects
But you can see the evangelical influence given their born-again conversion in the mid-1970s. If she and her husband Marcus had done nothing they still would have been fairly conservative by the tenants of their faith. Being born-again however, transformed them down more activist and more millenarian paths as anyone who was “born again” during this period of time would have been whether they watching the movie How Should We Live Then? or reading the book The Late Great Planet Earth. The Jesus Freaks like Marcus and Michele were looking for something more punchy than “Eine grossen berg ist ein Gott.” Being born again in the 1960s and 70s and early to mid-80s was statement of rejection against the conventional, mainstream religion of that time. It was their own counter-cultural rebellion.
Because she expresses the “Curser” rhetoric, she already has the Dispensationalist market-cornered. Thus, attacking Iran is consistent with her viewpoints which are religiously orientated. Iran threatens Israel, ergo Iran must be dealt with. Libya on the other hand, is no threat to Israel nor is Afghanistan so it’s easy for her to say bring the troops home because neither has anything to do with Israel’s security which would be the centerpoint of her foreign policy.
So to sum it up, a Bachmann Presidency would akin to electing Netanyahu as President. Hordes of neocons and other hawks will be called back from exile to staff the Pentagon and this time the State Department (John Bolton for Secretary of State anyone?) Will we attack Iran if Bachmann becomes President? In two words: hell yes.
RedPhillips on 10 Jul 2011 at 5:37 pm #
Patroon, I actually think Bachmann is theologically confused. Either that or she is pandering. Applying the Genesis curse to modern day Israel is inherently Dispensational. So by doing so she is going against her Lutheranism. I’m just not sure she is aware she is. (I’m pretty sure I’m right about this, but I’ll ask a couple of Lutherans I know to make sure.)
Also, while there may or may not be theological problems with decisional theology, there is more to being born again (there is no need for scare quotes) than some sort of political or cultural statement. It reflects a particular theological belief that one isn’t a Christian just because your parents are Christian or you are on the roll of some church or you were baptized as a baby or whatever.
Aaron on 10 Jul 2011 at 6:00 pm #
On the other hand, Bachmann campaigned for another born-again Christian, Jimmy Carter, not exactly a friend of Israel or an anti-Iran hawk. I’m sure Bachmann’s faith is an important condition of her politics, but you can’t say that one caused the other. She herself describes a sort of “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me” moment when she read some book by Gore Vidal.
By the way, I don’t really know her foreign policy views, but if what you say is right then it would be much more accurate to call her a “Blesser” than a “Curser,” wouldn’t it?
RonL on 10 Jul 2011 at 6:19 pm #
I think you area little confused here. She has never once mentioned Israel and Libya together. Rather, Bachmann has correctly noted that the “rebels” contain members of Al Qaeda, come from a major recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, and are overthrowing a dictatorship (a nasty one) that was working with us against Al Qaeda. Libya is not a threat to Israel but is technically at war with it.
Iran is currently helping Afghans, Al Qaeda, and Iraqi Shi’ites kill American troops. And its nuclear program is aimed at both thei Great and Little Satan. These lunatics think that the Mahdi will come only after the region is cleansed with fire. Suicide bombers should not get nukes, especially if “Death to America” is a national motto.
Kevin Thompson on 10 Jul 2011 at 7:55 pm #
I love the nickname “curser.” But, Red is right, that particular application of Gen 12 is textbook dispensationalism. However, I do find many evangelicals do not know the actual tenants of their church (no matter what the denomination) and have a shallow understanding of Scripture in general.
Weaver on 10 Jul 2011 at 8:23 pm #
She’s strong on immigration. Is there another issue?
Weaver on 10 Jul 2011 at 8:27 pm #
Neocons aren’t for immigration restriction in anything but name only. Michele Bachmann, then, isn’t a neocon.
I don’t fear Iran though.
Is Martin Luther Lutheran btw? I don’t think he’d be backing Israel, heh. I don’t say that as anti-Israel, but it’s not “Christian” to be a Curser.
Weaver on 10 Jul 2011 at 8:29 pm #
A quick google search brings up what I’m referring to: Martin Luther.
Kirt Higdon on 10 Jul 2011 at 10:05 pm #
Bachmann explicitly stated that the nuclear option should not be taken off the table with respect to Iran. In other words, the US should be prepared to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Iranians on behalf of Israel to receive God’s blessing and avoid his curse. This war harpy is worse than McCain and worse than Obama’s gang of three (Clinton, Powers and Rice). Bachmann opposes the Libyan war only because a Republican didn’t start it.
RonL on 11 Jul 2011 at 12:04 am #
Kirt,
You have it backwards. Using a tactical nuclear warhead to take out certain facilities that are in mountains would save millions of Americans and Iranians. The alternative is mutually assured destruction, which hinges on our killing millions of Iranians because their leadership is crazy.
Nuclear weapons are probably not the best choice for political reasons. But you don’t negotiate from a position of weakness. The alternate weapon would be kinetic energy weapons. Basically, replace the warhead of an ICBM is a tungsten or depleted uranium precision guided solid projectile. My memory could be off, by a 1000kg warhead would still release the energy equivalent to a .8 Kiloton warhead, except it would be focused on a smaller area. It’s the ultimate bunker buster.
RedPhillips on 11 Jul 2011 at 12:19 am #
Ron, the idea that Iran is definitely going to use nukes if they get them because of their particular theology seems to me a huge leap. They would be assuring their own destruction. What independent authorities that aren’t predisposed to preemption share this view?
Bruce on 11 Jul 2011 at 11:21 am #
I’ve attended Wisconsin Synod services (not a member). I have a copy of their confessional “This We Believe” on my bookshelf. They explicitly reject Baptist-style dispensationalism, etc. It’s a short confession and something they’re supposed to agree with to be a member of the church (they practice closed communion) so she has to know they don’t teach that sort of thing.
Sean Scallon on 11 Jul 2011 at 12:41 pm #
Red, Bachmann doesn’t believe in Dispensationalism per say but you can see the 1970s evangelical influence on her because that’s when she had her “born again” experience, so it carries over to her politics. And while yes it would nice to believe all person’s born again do so to renew their commitment to God, one cannot ignore the times upon which this happened either. Something had to motivate the Bachmann’s to go through this experience and I happen to believe it was the same for them as it was for a persons in this era, a quest for meaning in their lives within the upheaval of the times. Support for Israel, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War was a big part of the Fourth Great Awakening.
RedPhillips on 11 Jul 2011 at 1:04 pm #
I’ve sent the question out to a few of my Lutheran friends, but I think the Genesis 12 curse is meaningless today and is of historic interest only outside the Dispensational belief that modern Israel equals ancient Biblical Israel.
RonL on 11 Jul 2011 at 3:51 pm #
Red,
You want me to find analysts who believe that Iran would use their nukes pre-emprively but who don’t want to take action to preven thtem from acquiring nuclear weapons? Would you accept those who would preffer non-military actions to do this, because any analyst who sees the threat would necessarily want to prevent it.
RedPhillips on 11 Jul 2011 at 4:49 pm #
Well that’s part of the problem isn’t it Ron, but what I meant is maybe someone who is an expert on Muslim theology but with no stake regarding foreign policy.
Aaron on 11 Jul 2011 at 7:13 pm #
Not to get into evangelical theology, but how could that passage be meaningless today to someone who believes the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect? I agree with the point that it’s not clear that blessing/cursing the State of Israel is blessing/cursing the nation of Israel. That’s arguable. But the passage is explicitly about blessing the “great nation” of Israel, and that nation’s undeniably still around today.
Again, I’m no theologian, but it seems to me that if you’re a Christian who takes Genesis as the word of God, then either you believe the Abrahamic covenant was superseded by a later covenant (note that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, unlike the covenant at Sinai), or you’re a “Blesser,” in the sense of blessing the “great nation” of Israel, whether or not that means blessing its nation-state. That’s just from my naive reading of the text. Is there a third alternative I’m missing?
Bruce on 11 Jul 2011 at 7:28 pm #
“and that nation’s undeniably still around today.”
It is? A people of pure bloodlines descended from Abraham? Aren’t most modern Jews of mixed European and Middle Eastern ancestry?
Christians believe THEY are now the seed of Abraham. Abraham was the first Evangelical. Justified because he believed God.
So not superceded. Fullfilled. God delivered what He promised and we believe Him.
Bruce on 11 Jul 2011 at 7:31 pm #
I’m sure Sean could describe the Roman Catholic position better but I don’t think it’s entirely different from the Evangelical position except that Israel is the Catholic Church rather than the communion of believers.
Kirt Higdon on 11 Jul 2011 at 11:28 pm #
Ron,
It sounds to me like I have it right as regards to what the Israeli government and its supporters such as Bachmann want – a nuclear attack on Iran. You are probably right that the initial attack would be made with a relatively small tactical nuclear weapon which would kill only thousands. But the follow on attacks aimed at regime change and destroying any means of Iranian retaliation would quickly up the slaughter. And since the nuclear threshold would have been crossed already, the use of larger nuclear weapons against defenseless populations would cause little comment.
And there is not a shred of excuse for any of that. Iran is not a threat to Israel, let alone the US. You refer to “their nukes” with respect to Iran, but they don’t have any. Israel has hundreds, the US thousands and far too many politicians in both countries just itching to use them. The main reason the Israeli government wants a US attack on Iran is to provide distraction so that the remaining Palestinian population west of the Jordan can be driven out.
As far as dispensationalism is concerned, I won’t get involved in the argument. As a Christian and member of the Catholic Church, I oppose mass murder. My religion does not give any dispensations for that.
Weaver on 12 Jul 2011 at 6:46 am #
If one were to decide we have a duty towards Jews, the highest form of service would be seeing to their conversion…
It’s perhaps a double edged sword for Jews to push the idea if they don’t want to risk forced conversions. I don’t say that as if forced conversion is the logical conclusion, but conversion attempts certainly are. And it’s natural for people to get carried away. Really that might lead to a new Crusade to free the Holy Land from the infidels, Jewish and Muslim alike.
Weaver on 12 Jul 2011 at 7:27 am #
The traditionalist view of Judaism is it’s better than atheism and chaos. To the extent we serve Jews (in today’s sense of the word), it should be because they’re not part of the mass machine. The greatest enemy we all face today is mass society and more generally the Abyss.
I also find homogenous societies produce more virtuous people who are more likely to be saved and generally serve the Good. So, I don’t personally find Israel objectionable. If we say Israel must end and a new “democratic” secular state is to replace it, would more good truly be served?
Aaron on 12 Jul 2011 at 6:13 pm #
Bruce, you make my point more strongly than I did, that the blessing/curse of Genesis 12 still seems to be meaningful to anyone who takes that text seriously. Whoever that “great nation” of Genesis 12 is today, the Jews or the Church or the Black Hebrews or whoever, that unconditional covenant is still in effect. So if, for instance, the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 12 was fulfilled at Calvary, wouldn’t that mean that whoever curses/blesses the Church will be cursed/blessed? Again, that’s my naive reading, I’m not pretending to be a theologian. I can see how Christians can disagree among themselves on the subject of the covenant, but I can’t see how they can think it’s been rendered meaningless as others have said here.
Already 3000 years ago, people had a more sophisticated concept of nation than you do. By your standards, the “great nation” of Israel was probably never a nation. For instance, shortly after the return from the Exile, Nehemiah complained that intermarriage in Judah was so prevalent that many Judean children were unable to speak “Judean” (interestingly, a complaint about culture, not race). This was centuries before St. Paul wrote about grafting branches onto olive trees, and I’m sure Paul was familiar with Jewish history. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all mainstream Christian churches identify the people Israel today (the Jews) with the people Israel of three thousand years ago, regardless of their relation to biblical covenants.
Bruce on 12 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm #
I figured my “pure bloodlines descended from Abraham” standard was a bit over the top and would draw some criticism.
But aren’t most Jews (the Ashkenazi) as much European as they are Middle Eastern? I’m not saying they’re not or can’t be a nation, it just seems hard to believe that they’re the same nation identified in Genesis.
I couldn’t tell you what my Church teaches since my priest is a “social gospel” type that doesn’t actually teach us anything that I haven’t already heard on MSNBC.
Aaron on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:21 am #
Your implicit definition of nation is common among nationalists. It’s a case of believing your own PR. It’s indispensable for nation-building purposes, but it’s descriptively false. Objectively, few nations have anything close to the ancestry they claim. “Turn Time’s cinematograph back far enough, and the Germans are found to be French and the French Germans.”
One traditional definition of nation is, a group of people united by a common error of ancestry and a common dislike of their neighbors. The point is that the myth of ancestry is subjective and nonrational. The nation of Israel, called the sons (and daughters) of Israel in the Bible, has always said that it’s descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a.k.a. Israel). That includes someone who just converted today, which would be ridiculous from the point of view of objective, biological ancestry.
Only this subjective definition of nation makes any sense when you try to understand nations and nationalism. Your objective definition doesn’t work; scholars of nationalism have shown that persuasively. So even if not a single member of the nation of Israel today were biologically descended from any of those living 3,000 years ago, it would still be the same nation. That’s the case whether you use the traditional Jewish definition of the nation of Israel (“who is a Jew?”) or the subjective, scholarly definition of nation.
Bruce on 13 Jul 2011 at 12:23 pm #
Aaron,
Intermarriage occurred before the Exhile. The Moabite women are the most famous example. Here’s a question. Were the Jews a nation because they were Abraham’s seed, i.e. was it patrilineal descent that mattered? The Biblical references I can think of off the top of my head involve Jewish men taking non-Jewish wives or are non-descriptive as to whether it’s Jewish men or women intermarrying. I thought Jewishness only came to be defined by matrilineal descent with the rise of the Rabbis.
Your discussion on nationalism is interesting, but I think the discussion we’re having centers around how Christians define the nation of Israel as defined in the Torah (the nation that’s to be blessed or cursed). We’re not talking about modern definitions and critiques of nation. No matter how valid your objections are from a modern, rational point of view, Christians are going to believe that Israel was a nation and not subjectively so. God’s purpose wasn’t akin to German nation-state building or contemporary white nationalism.
So should a Christian, who doesn’t see God’s definitions as subjective, view the Ashkenazi, for example, as the same nation described in the Torah? Maybe the Jews lost their “nation” at some point when they disobeyed God one too many times. I don’t know.
BTW, I didn’t intend to insult you and Ron by implying that you’re not really Jewish in any meaningful way. I always imagine I’m being an “inclusive” nationalist when I claim the Ashkenazi as a product of Europe (albeit a unique one with roots in a particular people from the Near East).
Kirt Higdon on 13 Jul 2011 at 2:45 pm #
The problem with Bachmann and the Christian Zionists (aka “cursers”) isn’t their biblical theology; it’s their (im)moral theology. Committing mass murder on behalf of the Israelis is a very serious sin no matter what the genetics of modern Israelis are compared with Abraham. It is not a blessing on the Israelis and will not bring God’s blessing on the murderers. How many in this forum would consider themselves “blessed” if someone committed murder on their behalf?
Weaver on 13 Jul 2011 at 5:26 pm #
Kirt,
mass immigration also leads to murder – just less obviously so. Defend our children or another’s from the Great Satan?
The US government doesn’t act on my behalf…
Bruce,
what does it mean for one to be perfect in all generations then, merely patrilinear or matrilinear and not both?
Kirt Higdon on 13 Jul 2011 at 11:43 pm #
Weaver,
You seem to have contracted Captain Chaos style mono-mania. This theme wasn’t even about immigration until you brought the subject up, asking “Is there another issue?” Yeah, there are – plenty of them. You say mass immigration also leads to murder. So do family relationships and a lot more frequently. But the commandment is “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not immigrate”. You also ask “Defend our children or another’s from the Great Satan?” What does that even mean? And who are you referring to as “the Great Satan”? The US? Israel? Iran? All or none of the above?
Aaron on 14 Jul 2011 at 4:24 am #
Bruce, no offense taken at all. On definitions, I’ll just repeat that by the time St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, the people Israel was already racially very impure. It’s comparable to how they are today due to intermarriage in Europe. I don’t presume to know the correct Christian view of that, but I do know that past large-scale racial admixture into the people Israel did not seem relevant to St. Paul.
Kirt, even if an attack on Iran were out of the question, the problem of the “Blessers” remains. Should the US bless Israel (the nation and/or the state) at all, regardless of whether an attack on Iran is a blessing? The point that seems to be lost here is that if the Blessers’ theology is correct, then blessing Israel is in America’s own national interest, narrowly defined. In other words, the Blessers are not (only) working for a foreign nation-state or nation. They’re acting as patriotic Americans, given their belief in their (incorrect) theology.
Weaver on 14 Jul 2011 at 6:48 am #
Kirt,
I meant the US as Great Satan – it wouldn’t make sense otherwise. Isn’t that what the Muslims call it? It was half in jest. If Great Satan wishes to attack either my folks or Iran, I’d rather it went with the latter. I’m well aware you cheer on the destruction of Old America – which isn’t to say you intend evil.
I’ll never stand in the Fed’s way nor in the way of other great powers like some fool, but I’ll not serve it either. It is not mine. It is a beast people like you help create with your mass immigration. Sensible people learn to work with what they cannot change. Y’all kill each other; I’ll defend my folks as best I can, without otherwise getting in your way. As an Attacker, you’re not among the Defenders; so you’re part of the “y’all” so far as I’m concerned. I realise you see yourself as separate from those wanting to attack Iran, but that’s not the issue that concerns me. What “y’all” do in Iran is “your” business.
Weaver on 14 Jul 2011 at 7:43 am #
If the Devil offers you the choice of saving a far off mother’s life with the sacrifice of your own wife, you’ll defend your wife. It’s the right thing to do.
It’s the Devil who has blood on his hands, not I.
Bruce on 14 Jul 2011 at 11:01 am #
Demographic change is THE most fateful political issue so I don’t have an issue with it being brought up frequently.
Kirt Higdon on 14 Jul 2011 at 11:04 pm #
Aaron,
Bachmann and attacking Iran was mentioned in the original post I was commenting on. But why is it not a blessing for the US simply to maintain normal friendly diplomatic, trade and tourist relations with Israel, without either subsidizing Israel or facilitating the bad behavior of their government? No need to examine lineages and genetics and get into controversies of covenant theology in order to observe God’s moral law and treat people well. I do friendly business with both Israeli and Palestinian merchants at my local mall, who incidentally seem to get along very well with each other. Isn’t that a blessing? Who would object to it – other than the anti-immigration thread hijackers who see any decent treatment of foreigners as an attack to bring about the destruction of Old America?
Aaron on 15 Jul 2011 at 3:24 am #
Why is it not a blessing to behave towards a nation the same way you normally behave towards other nations? Because it doesn’t fit the biblical text. Blessing is contrasted with curse. Both were special acts in that time, not default behavior. If the blessing you bestow were just normal behavior, then the blessing you receive would be nothing special either, so why bother even to mention it? But this isn’t some karma-like general rule of cause and effect; it’s a divine covenant with one particular nation.
Weaver on 15 Jul 2011 at 6:52 am #
Kirt,
from the very beginning this thread is about immigration, because that’s about the only reason anyone here would even consider her.
I can’t argue with Patroon on the merits of Bachmann’s foreign policy, but I can remind why we should still consider voting for her.
-
I should have said I value Israel for being Jewish-centric rather than homogenous. I appreciate that it has a national soul, even if I don’t agree with much of what it does.
Kirt Higdon on 15 Jul 2011 at 11:26 am #
Aaron,
OK, I guess at that point you would have to get into Christian theology in the sense of in the New Covenant, the blessings previously available and advocated for Israel are now available for all. And while the blessing you bestow on others (Israeli or not) should be normal behavior in the sense of following the norm or rule, unhappily it is often not normal behavior in the popular sense of usual behavior. In any event, it is never a blessing on others to facilitate their bad behavior.
Kirt Higdon on 15 Jul 2011 at 3:00 pm #
If we must speak of Bachmann and immigration, it’s worth noting that her website does not even mention the subject, while it does mention support of Israel. Ron Paul’s website has several recommendations on immigration, some of which I agree with and some not. But since it’s not a deal breaker issue for me, neither Bachmann’s apparent lack of interest nor Paul’s mixed bag of recommendations would affect my vote or support. Bachmann’s unwavering support of Israel and her militarism in general are deal breakers for me.
RedPhillips on 15 Jul 2011 at 8:37 pm #
Kirt has a point about what exactly it means to “bless” Israel. The problem, if that means what Dispensationalists believe it means, is how do you logically limit it. Are we sinning as a nation if we don’t give them a trillion dollars instead of a paltry few billion? Are we sinning by only providing them with a security guarantee? Wouldn’t we be blessing them greater and hence receiving a greater blessing in return if we just cut out the middle man and drafted US citizens directly into the Israeli military?
And if the US has some sort of religious imperative to bless Israel, don’t all other ostensibly Christian nations have an equal imperative? So shouldn’t Argentina, for example, also be showering Israel with aid and providing security guarantees? This never seems to occur to these folks except when they are claiming our affluence or whatever is a result of our support for Israel, which didn’t exist for the first 150+ years of our existence.
There is an assumed American exceptionalism in their thought patterns just like what underlies all interventionist thought. They presuppose that America has some sort of special role to play in the world different from other nations. They don’t even recognize this huge fundamental underlying assumption. They just take it for granted.
Weaver on 16 Jul 2011 at 7:31 am #
Kirt,
Tancredo backs her. Beck gives an A-.
Kirt Higdon on 16 Jul 2011 at 12:09 pm #
Beck?! From his recent radio broadcasts, I’m expecting any day that he’ll both renounce his US citizenship in favor of Israel and announce his conversion to Judaism.
Aaron on 16 Jul 2011 at 6:39 pm #
I don’t read Genesis 12 as implying any obligation to bless Israel at all. It’s a factual statement: those who bless/curse Israel will be blessed/cursed. Presumably, if you just treat Israel normally, as a lot of people here (including me) think America ought to do, you don’t get any blessings or curses on that account. That’s how I read it, but what do I know.
A Blesser would presumably answer your point about America’s history by saying, correctly, that America has been blessing Israel – the “great nation” of Israel, which is what Genesis 12 was about – ever since America’s inception. There aren’t many places in the world that have been as good to the Jews over the last couple centuries as America, and a big part of that has to do with American Protestant theology.
Weaver on 16 Jul 2011 at 9:24 pm #
Kirt,
Roy Beck, not that maniac who raves and cries on TV.