Here’s the thing, though, and it’s not as Halloween-y as the whole witch-hunting thing sounds. It has been fun, in a sad way, to think that Gov. Palin has so little discernment that she allowed a witch-hunter to lay hands on her (see video below). But that makes the whole thing too easy to dismiss. Anyone could make that mistake, couldn’t they? I mean what if you are sitting in the synagogue, or at the local zendo, and the rabbi or roshi or priest brings in a visiting spiritual celebrity with great fanfare and says, here is Reb Nusskopf, or Sensei someone or other, and he is going to do a special ceremony… And then you are suddenly chosen as Senator McCain’s running mate and it turns out that Reb Nusskopf believes he has been alien-abducted and wants you all to join him in a cornfield at midnight.
But this man, pastor Muthee, could not have been unknown to Palin when he showed up as a visiting preacher at her church in Wasilla. He is a sort of celebrity in the spiritual warfare circles, the star of a 1999 video called Transformations, meant to introduce the evangelizing work of C. Peter Wagner of the World Prayer Center. It is in this video that Muthee’s now-notorious witch-defeating exploits in Kiambu, Kenya are chronicled.
The Christian Science Monitor wrote about Muthee, back when the video came out, and what really stands out about that article now, when we have someone like Sarah Palin in the spotlight, (or in the headlights, a stunned moose) is that these spiritual warfare types believe that anyone who is not their kind of Christian can and must be ‘targeted’ for conversion.
Through “spiritual warfare” and an in-depth research effort called “spiritual mapping,” they aim to bring people to Christ and, in their words, “break spiritual strongholds” holding communities in their grip, whether they be vices, “false religions,” or “territorial spirits.”
The three levels of spiritual warfare, according to Wagner, include the casting out of demons from individuals, “occult-level warfare” against “powers of darkness” like…um…New Age thought and Tibetan Buddhism, and, finally, “strategic-level warfare” against whole geographical areas thought to be controlled by Satan. Spiritual mapping is the practice of gathering information on patterns of belief and unbelief in cities and communities, and trying to gain territory for God. (Note to professor-types: spiritual mapping often finds demon-inspired unbelief to be centered around an area’s universities.)
The CSM quotes a horrified Abraham Fox, director of the ADL, who is very nervous about Jews being specifically, even individually, selected as targets of this kind of prayer campaign.
But the article gives the last word to Martin Marty, who points out in his typically genteel way that it really does not do to target one’s neighbors for conversion in a pluralistic society such as ours. Especially as the cornerstone of one’s theology.
So the important take-away here is not that Sarah Palin worships with loony exorcists, but that this ambitious woman has accepted the spiritual direction and leadership of a religious group that is conducting what you could call a ‘soft inquisition’—if you’re not with us, you’d better get with us or we’ll run you out of town. It’s paranoid. It’s cruel. It’s based on an apocalyptic mythology that seems to lead its adherents to wish the worst for their neighbors.
And in some strange backward reverso-rhetorical deconstructionist logic, when we read ‘witch-hunter’ over and over in connection with Sarah Palin we begin to think of her as the hunted witch. And, while we don’t generally approve of the persecution of odd women, we begin to become attached to this association: Palin-Witch. But we must resist. It is a distraction.
What really matters is that Palin might not actually believe in religious pluralism. And that, given the choice (and the power) she might well choose spiritual warfare over religious tolerance.
If you picture the discussion of religion in the public square, really try to imagine a square, and people gathered around talking, well…what’s happening on Cho’s blog is sort of like a bunch of people hurling…er…manure. But I mean that in a sort of amused way, not in a tut-tut kind of way. It’s just a funny image.
Here at RD we are trying to project some kind of earnestness. In the public square we are the ones wearing black jeans or tweed or natty preacher suits. And we are talking to one another in a quiet but impassioned way—while checking our Blackberries. (And maybe drinking beer out of a brown bag.)
Over at margaretcho.com the knives are coming out, and, like I said, some bags of poo for throwing. Someone over there just invited Cho to “move to the Middle East.” Or, more precisely, “f**ing move to the Middle East.” Because she loves the desert? I don’t really get this. No, I do. It’s just that it’s really such a leap, from pro-choice feminist to Lady Bin Laden.
Right now, after covering the latest Palin-alia (including the recent discovery that Palin, as mayor of Wasilla, billed rape victims for the kits required to gather evidence) they are arguing over the meaning of “Christian.” Which signals that the discussion (or wild screeching) is getting distilled down to elemental particles. Or that everyone is squinting and looking down their rifle sights, getting ready for some serious War on Culture...er…culture war.
So there’s Christian as code-word for ‘evangelical.’ Like when Republican politicians say it. And there’s Christian meaning Protestant, as opposed to Catholic. And there’s Christian the way a missionary might mean it, (as opposed to heathen?).
And there are those “anonymous Christians,” or involuntary Christians…was that Rahner who devised that category? Does anyone outside of seminary or grad school read mid-century German Catholic theologians? We all might as well, if we’re going to debate terms. It might open up some possibilities.
Anyway, Margaret Cho is a Christian. And she has delivered a gorgeous, eloquent rant to that effect—“I’m a Christian, you F***ers.” It is too profane to reprint in its natural state. Not because we are squeamish here at RD, but because I am a gentle soul and don’t want to upset anyone. Which is also why I am not a great figure on the world stage, or a performer, or a dissertation-finisher. But I digress.
Anyhow, this rant is such a beautiful blend of sacred and profane that it’s actually a theological act. It performs a holy truth, about the hi-low nature of the divine (transcendent-immanent in other terms), about divine forgiveness (“God bless you, even you. You f***ing f***ers,” she offers to her critics) and about the radical inclusivity of God’s love. Cho’s God sweeps everything into Her big heart—everything. It’s Liberation Theology on MDMA. You know, the God who loves junkies and bankers and drag queens and hockey moms alike.
God wants us all to just get along. He doesn’t give a s**t about the profanity. The b***h f**king invented profanity. He thinks it is hilarious. He just wants you to talk to him, and he doesn’t care what you have to say. He just wants to keep the conversation going. Like Jay-Z, he just wants to love you. He just wants you to be able to make your own decisions. God is all about you and what you need. God is happy that you are gay. God made you f**king gay cuz he thinks it is awesome. God understands if you need to have an abortion. That is why he created abortion, on the 8th day. God accepts. God forgives. God loves all of us, even though some of us might have a problem with each other.
