Those Dangerous Dispensationalists

Interesting art exhibition by one Jill Greenberg who has caused a sensation by making a political statement out of photos of crying babies. To get the photos, she had to get the kids to cry, ususally be giving the kids a lollypop and then taking it away. One might argue this does no permanent harm to the kids, but it does seem rather - shall we say - insensitive? But that isn't the gist of this post.

Quoted in the press release for the exhibition is Bill Moyers' 2005 piece There is no Tomorrow, which gently savages evangelicals and all politicians who are supported by evangelicals.

"For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. The offspring of ideology and theology are not always bad but they are always blind. And that is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts. "



Much of Moyers' problem with certain evangelicals in the article are related to dispensationalism, which leads to unwavering support of Israel and a belief that events in the mid-east may well be the beginning of the final chapter of Earth's history. He makes the point that for some he has talked to, there is an agenda (akin to what has been alleged to be the Muslim belief of the leader of Iran?) that the sooner death and destruction come to the players in the mid-east, the sooner Christ will return, so, in a word, "bring it on".

That dispensationalism is a fragment of Christian theology even today is not mentioned by Moyers, nor is the possibility mentioned that even among dispensationalists, few think that war or Armegeddon is something we should welcome and strive for. It is enough for Moyers, in an example of painstaking journalistic integrity, to simply imply that because folks like Bill Frist and Rick Santorum and G.W. Bush himself are strongly supported by dispensationalism influenced Christians, the world truly is in grave danger and these politicians must be part of the evil plot.

Greenberg herself provides the final stroke:

"The most dangerous fundamentalists aren’t just waging war in Iraq; they’re attacking evolution, blocking medical research and ignoring the environment. It’s as if they believe the apocalyptic End Time is near, therefore protecting the earth and future of our children is futile. As a parent I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come.”

Somehow I just can't see that opposing unfruitful research using fetal stem-cells on the grounds that it disrespects human life or believing that a mind-numbingly complex genetic code implies a Creator makes one a more dangerous fundamentalist than someone who hacks the head off of a journalist or hangs a teenager for "crimes against chastity". But if one really believes such silliness, then making babies cry for the camera to make a political statement is a small price to pay.