Power is a wonderful aphrodisiac
Henry Kissinger
Given that these are amongthe few words of Henry K that are true, I was little interested in the affairs of John Ensign, Mark Sandford or their house sharer Tom Coburn (aka the three stooges) until Troutfishing's diary came along.
Troutfishing makes some interesting points.
1/ The three stooges share a house that is registered as a church. I had heard that zoning laws in America could be lax, but having a building serve simultaneously as a house, a church and a love hotel seems over the top.
2/ The house is owned by a person connected with the Christian parachurch organisation, Youth with a Mission (YWAM).
3/ YWAM founder, one Loren Cunningham, has a program to advance Christianity and, possibly, take over the world.
To deal with these points in turn:
I am sure the three stooges/ elected officials will soon go the way of Wilbur Mills, James and Tammy Bakker and Aimee Semple McPherson, ie off the stage of history. I urge Kossacks not to lose sleep over them.
America does have a problem with rightwingers, mostly religious, sometimes secular who pose threats to democracy. Frank Rich seems to me to be one of the most astute, accessible commentators on that issue and I look forward each week to his column. But although I agree that Sarah Palin is scary, we had a similar figure in Australia, Pauline Hanson, whose story Kossacks may find reassuring.
Secondly, I would be interested to know how much contact the three stooges have had with YWAM. I know from personal experience that one's tenants can cause embarassment, even if one is totally innocent of their misdeeds, so more evidence is required before saying that YWAM is in league with right wing politicians in America, or anywhere else. I say this especially because I actually know some YWAM people and, I must say, the allegation surprised me.
Thirdly, YWAM's theology, which can be neutrally labelled postmillenialism. In my view, postmillenialism is wrong, but people who hold it are mostly honorable. It is interesting to note that most American fundamentalists are dispensational premillenialists who would regard postmillenialism as anathema.
My conclusion from Toutfishing's diary is that Loren Cunningham is certainly colorful in his use of language and also has a revolutionary's understanding of how to make change in society. But any activist, maybe even Markos Moulitsas, would have a similar understanding of how to change society if their mentality was revolutionary. What would differ would be their choice of languge, which would be determined by their culture. The question to ask of a Christian revolutionary is, what is their theology of how to act in the world?
The first point is that Jesus has been quite credibly described as a revolutionary. His program comes from the Old Testament, especially the prophet Micah, who foreshadowed a society where
they shall all sit beneath their own vine and their own figtree
Micah 4:4
His method was to simply to speak. No lies, no manipulation, no violence. Just by speaking, he managed to offend every conceivable authority and was therefore executed. The Christian hope is that he was subsequently resurrected and promises to return.
The second point is that Satan offered Jesus
all the kingdoms of the world...if you will fall down and worship me.
Mark 4:8-9
Jesus refused that KoolAid, but unfortunately not all Christians follow him in that matter. There is a doctrine called antinomianism, which holds that Christians are exempt from the normal rules of morality (I am not making this up). It seems apparent that antinomian Christians in politics would lose their moral compass and end up drinking the KoolAid. Further, the KoolAid may well manifest by participating in nefarious conspiracies to take over the world using lies, manipulation and violence (Satan is described in the Bible as the Father of Lies.
To summarize, there is a test for the bona fides of Christians active in politics and culture and a dialog to be had with the likes of Loren Cunningham. Let us see how he answers the questions.