Pastor John Hagee: "Thank you, Pope Benedict"

Perhaps you've already seen this column in The Washington Times, written by John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and author of several "end times" books based in premillennial dispensationalism. Hagee has been accused of being anti-Catholic, but he takes pains to counter those accusations:

During his recent visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI not only conducted mass and met with the Catholic faithful, but he made a series of public statements about the role that our Judeo-Christian faith can play during these challenging times. As an evangelical Protestant I happen to disagree with Pope Benedict on many issues of Christian doctrine and ritual. But when it comes to his moral vision for America and the world I have one thing to say in response to the Pope's visit: Amen. <snip>

My reaction to Pope Benedict"s visit may surprise some who have come to accept certain caricatures of my views of the Catholic Church. But as I have noted from the start, my critics have ignored the real point and strong emphasis of my words. I have indeed been quite zealous about condemning the past anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church. But I have been equally zealous in condemning Protestant anti-Semitism. Furthermore, as I noted in my 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown," I have long viewed Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI as partners in this "righteous work" of overcoming our shared legacy of Christian anti-Semitism.

For decades I have taught that we Christians need to recognize that our roots are Jewish. As Christians we can only understand ourselves if we understand the Judaism from which we sprang. Pope Benedict made this very important point when he visited the Park East Synagogue in New York and shared that: "I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this." With visits and words such as these, Pope Benedict is continuing the important work of recognizing our enormous Christian debt of gratitude to the Jewish people.

Fair enough. I have no interest in questioning Hagee's sincerity, and his ecumenical attitude here is a pleasant surprise; after all, it's not something you'll likely find in the writings of, say, Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey. But a couple of things should be kept in mind:

• Hagee's beliefs, which flow from what might be called a "traditional" form of premillennial dispensationalism (as opposed to "progressive dispensationalism"), lead to the conclusion that the Jewish people have no need of the New Covenant because they already have a sufficient and equally valid covenant. Which means, strangely enough, that Hagee has more in common with Abraham Foxman than he does with many or most Evangelicals when it comes to the issue of evangelization and Jews. But Hagee's position is rooted in a rather logical take on John Nelson Darby's teachings, which were based on a heavenly-earthly dualism that insisted on a radical distinction between Christians (the heavenly people, according to Darby) and the Jews (who he called the earthly people of God). (See this June 2003 ZENIT interview for more.)

• Hagee has stated that Jesus was not the Messiah. This is apparently one of the key positions he defends in his recent book, In Defense of Israel. I've not read that book, but I suspect that his argument is simply a continuation of the first point: namely, (according to Hagee) since Christians and Jews have radically different covenants with God, it is wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews—that is, until they accept Him as such after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming. Other dispensationalists have adopted similar views. For example, Charles Ryrie, author of the very influential work, Dispensationalism Today (first ed., 1965), wrote this in his 1986 book, Basic Theology:

“Gabriel announced to Mary that her Baby would have the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32-33). Throughout his earthly ministry Jesus’ Davidic kingship was offered to Israel (Matt. 2:2; 27:11; John 12:13), but He was rejected. . . . Because the King was rejected, the messianic, Davidic kingdom was (from a human viewpoint) postponed. Though He never ceases to be King and, of course, is King today as always, Christ is never designated as King of the Church . . . Though Christ is a King today, He does not rule as King. This awaits His second coming. Then the Davidic kingdom will be realized (Matt. 25:31; Rev 19:15; 20)” [Basic Theology, 259].

Ryrie's position is both confusing and untenable, but it is made necessary by the presuppositions of the dispensationalist system, at least in its older forms.

• Finally, the dispensationalist system is not only contrary to many key Catholic doctrines, it has often understood the Catholic Church as either being a system of antiChrist, or at least being the sort of global institution/religion that will facilitate the rule of antiChrist and a false, "one world religion." This perspective is not understood by those who hold it—as I once did—as being "anti-Catholic," but as simply being realistic about "Bible prophecy" and the world we live in. For Hagee and like-minded folks, salvation is about having a "personal relationship with Christ," which they believe has little or nothing to do with being a visible member of this or that church.

There is another, closely related radical dichotomy at work here, which is that between the spiritual and the material realms—itself based on the heavenly-earthly distinction noted above (I examine this at length and in detail in my book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?). For the typical dispensationalist (and most fundamentalists), the "Church" consists of all those who are spiritually united in saving faith in Jesus Christ (here's a good example of what I'm referring to). The church you attend is a secondary issue. And so there exists the notion that one can be perfectly saved and yet belong to an imperfect, local church. Thus, from this perspective, a Catholic can be "saved," (by the skin of his teeth!) even if the Catholic Church is not just flawed, but even apostate and blasphemous.

Hagree is absolutely right to denounce anti-Semitism. But there are some serious problems with his theological ideas, especially how he understands the relationship between the Old and the New Covenants, the person of Jesus Christ, and the nature of the Church. For me, frankly, the key issue is not if John Hagee is anti-Catholic. Rather, it's whether or not some of his core beliefs are actually Christian, even in the most general, "mere Christianity" sense of the word.

• Eschatological Fact and Fiction: Catholicism and Dispensationalism Compared | Carl E. Olson
• The Jews and the Second Coming | Roy H. Schoeman
• The End Times: The Secret Hidden From the Universe | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Comments

[Stohn]

I take issue with the way 'anti-Semitic' is thrown around. To truly be 'anti-Semitic' would be hating any ethnicity that descends from Semitic speaking peoples, which would include Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, among others. So, a Muslim Arab who is 'anti-Semitic' would have to be self-hating. Let's pretend though, that Semites are only Jews. What constitutes an "anti-Semite"? According to "Pastor" Hagee, it would include those (like myself) who believe that Jews must convert if they wish to achieve Salvation. Without, Jesus, no salvation. Period. If that makes me an "anti-Semite," so be it.

[joe]

Wasn't Hal Lindsey the guy who played the title character in Barney Miller?

-J.

[Carl Olson]

That would be Hal Linden. They actually look somewhat similar: Linden v. Lindsey

[w.]

Theological differences aside, it should be noted that Hagee has done many good things with and in the diocese of San Antonio, including financial support of a convent.

That doesn't negate theological differences (some of which can be attributed to his conventional understanding of history in relation to the Inquisition), but it does offer some evidence to counter those who charge him with being an anti-Catholic. I do not think he is in any real and threatening sense.

[Brian Schuettler]

...but it does offer some evidence to counter those who charge him with being an anti-Catholic. I do not think he is in any real and threatening sense.

From CATHOLIC LEAGUE:

John Hagee: Veteran Bigot
December 21, 2007

Reporters have asked us what we think about Rev. John Hagee now that Mike Huckabee is going to appear with him on December 23 at Hagee’s church. Here’s a quick glimpse, written by Bill Donohue.

Over ten years ago, I wrote to John Hagee asking him to stop with his Catholic bashing. Specifically, I complained about the falsehoods told about the Catholic Church in his video, Southern Steps: Jerusalem & Bible Prophecy. Hagee never replied.

On April 3, 2000, a Polish Catholic Holocaust survivor, Michael Preisler (Auschwitz No. 22213), wrote to Hagee saying the following: “On May 11, July 11 and December 23, 1999, I asked you to remove the falsehood in your book, Final Dawn Over Jerusalem, accusing Polish Catholics like me of creating the ovens at Auschwitz.” Hagee never replied. Preisler is co-chair of the Holocaust Documentation Committee of the Polish American Congress and a member of the Catholic League.

More recently, Hagee, in his latest book, Jerusalem Countdown (revised edition, 2007), wrote (on p. 114) the following: “Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”

I could go on and on. Hagee has a long and disgusting record of Catholic bashing. Here are a few more gems from Jerusalem Countdown:

· “Anti-Semitism in Christianity began with the statements of the early church fathers, including Eusebius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, Origen, Justin, and Jerome.... This poisonous stream of venom came from the mouths of spiritual leaders to virtually illiterate congregants, sitting benignly in their pews, listening to their pastors. They labeled the Jews as 'the Christ killers, plague carriers, demons, children of the devil, bloodthirsty pagans who look for an innocent child during the Easter week to drink his blood, money hungry Shylocks, who are deceitful as Judas was relentless.'"

· "The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages.... The Crusaders were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade.... The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem."

· "The Spanish Inquisition was perhaps the most cynical plot in the black history of Catholicism, aimed at expropriating the property of wealthy Jews and converts in Spain for the benefit of the royal court and the Roman Catholic Church."

· "Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians 'Hitler's Pope,' joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, 'Pereat Judea'.... In all of his [Hitler's] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed—to them it's an electric chair."

Copyright © 1997-2008 by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
*Material from this website may be reprinted and disseminated with accompanying attribution

[joe]

Then I guess Tim LaHaye didn't play "Fish."

-J.

[JPn]

John Hagee is a bigot period. Any catholic who waterdown this image is a fool. I wont bother arguing with him about theology. This man has an intellect unworthy to be even called intellect. As a 24 year old catholic whose still trying to understand the faith this sort of thing is just useless noise. Its just sad some protestant converts still have symphathy over this man. John Hagee made that article coz McCain has disowned him for his vitriolic hate of the Church.

[Carl Olson]

Its just sad some protestant converts still have symphathy over this man.

Sigh. Yes, my "sympathy" for the man is outrageous, isn't it? As when I state:

For me, frankly, the key issue is not if John Hagee is anti-Catholic. Rather, it's whether or not some of his core beliefs are actually Christian, even in the most general, "mere Christianity" sense of the word.

I fully expect that a basket of fruit and chocolate will arrive soon at my home, sent by an appreciative John Hagee...

[Carl Olson]

By the way, JPn, I wrote an entire book documenting both the bigotry AND the bad theology taught by Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey, and Co. And explaining what the Church teaches about eschatology and related topics. Since you are, as you say, still trying to understand the faith, please consider reading it. And then consider revising your incorrect comments.

[Alexis]

I don't know what one does with the likes of Hagee, LaHaye, et al. I am a native San Antonian who has come in contact with Hagee himself as well as with many of his devotees. A strange lot, all. And I tried reading the first couple of books in the "Left Behind" series (of which apparently Hagee owns a large chunk)and was appalled. The plot was nuts on its face and when one character bought a loaded SUV with a stolen VISA card during the initial 'melt-down', I gave up. What I noticed about the books was the large print, big margins, and the fact that a significant part of the each volume was given over to the retelling of previous volumes. I can't believe people bought the entire series, at $14.95 each. Amazing. My impression of these folks is that they're in it for the money. Lord knows, Hagee lives (very) large.

[JPn]

Perhaps I failed to see that the purpose of the article was to argue Theologically in its purest level as we possibly could. For that I give my sincerest apology. Clearly i have a long way to go for theological commentaries. I was mainly carried away with Hagee's double talk politics. He can make all efforts to be seemingly "neutral" as much as he like (talks of ecumenical efforts, flaunting kind words of Judeo-Christian roots with all Christian denominations,etc.)but with his past records against the Church, the sincerity behind that man's article of praise is hardly sincere. How can he claim such righteousness when he spends almost all of his pastoral life injecting falsehoods against the Church (the only true instrument of Christian unity) which damages the image of Christ. Over and over again. Sincerity on this grounds is futile and dont deserve groundless praise.

[Carl Olson]

JPn: I didn't praise his sincerity; I just said I wasn't going to question it. I'll happily question his beliefs, theology, and attitude toward Catholicism any day, especially since I do think Hagee is mostly full of a mixture of nonsense and bigotry. And, like Tim LaHaye, he sincerely holds to it. Part of my point is that questioning his motives, while interesting, takes away from the important fact that his teachings are seriously flawed, to put it mildly. I think that Hagee is pulling a "van Impe" (my term, based on the approach taken by Jack van Impe), and is saying nice things about the Pope because he knows that a lot of his current and potential supporters are former Catholics. Or, sadly, Catholics who will eventually be former Catholics.