Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Rodriguez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rodriguez. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Pentecostal/Charismatic self-criticism

Self-criticism and self-analysis is a sign of health for individuals and groups. Every person and movement is open to growth and prone to temptation and decay. The best and most productive criticism is that which comes from within a movement because it demonstrates clearly that such criticism is not "anti" the cause, but is rather deeply concerned for the integrity of the cause. Because a focus of my writing has been with trends in charismatic and Pentecostal circles some, most notably Samuel Rodriguez, have accused me of being somehow "anti-Pentecostal" or secretly uncomfortable with the growth of Pentecostalism around the world. To those critics I offer these words from Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine which is arguably the flagship publication of the charismatic movement. Grady raises concerns that I have never even touched on in my writing and does so with a level of concern and condemnation that is significant to see.


In some charismatic circles today, people are claiming to have spiritual experiences that involve communication with the dead. One Michigan pastor told me last week that some church leaders he knows promote this bizarre practice…Although little is said about these experiences from the pulpit (since the average believer is not ready to handle this "new revelation"), people in some streams of the prophetic movement are claiming to have visitations…And we are expected to say, "Ooooooo, that's so deep"-and then go looking for our own mystical, beyond-the-grave epiphany. That is creepy….Those who seek counsel from the dead-whether through mediums and séances or in "prophetic visions"-are taking a dangerous step toward demonization.
Not long after ecstasy became known as a recreational drug, someone in our movement got the bright idea to promote spiritual ecstasy as a form of legitimate worship…Recently I told a friend in Pennsylvania that when people get tired of this drug imagery it won't be long before we see some Christians having sexual experiences at the altar. "It's already happening," my friend said. He described a recent "worship concert" in which one of the musicians simulated sex while stroking a microphone and whispering sensual phrases to Jesus. What is next-orgasmic worship? God help us…I know of a case where a man was caught planting fake jewels on the floor of a church. He told his friends he was "seeding the room" to lift the people's faith. I know of others who have been caught putting gold glitter on themselves in a restroom and then running back in a church service, only to claim that God was blessing them with this special favor. Where is the fear of God when Christians would actually fabricate a miracle?
This is a time for all true believers with backbones to draw clear lines between what is godly worship and what is pagan practice.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Am I "Anti-Latino"?


Over the past sixteen months I have written six different pieces of what I would characterize as serious reporting on Samuel Rodriguez, with a number of other shorter blog posts/ responses. I am glad to see that Timothy Dalrymple has become the first reporter besides me to interview Rodriguez and to ask him for the record some difficult questions about his public statements and organizational commitments. I wish the interview had been done differently (to say the least), but I do appreciate that some key questions were asked and that Rodriguez was invited to give a thoughtful response. Unfortunately, instead of careful responses what Rodriguez has given is inflammatory charges, with not even a shred of evidence quoted or linked to, of anti-Latino and anti-Pentecostal bias on the part of either me or Mark Silk. Given the context of Rodriguez’s smear, it seems quite clear that Rodriguez was referring to me and to my work reporting on him and on broader issues about the New Apostolic Reformation. I am quite disappointed and dismayed that Dalrymple did not ask any follow up questions about these accusations and did not challenge Rodriguez to give documentation. Dalrymple also allows to go unchallenged Rodriguez's claim that I have lost "any sort of legitimacy as a commentator on issues of the public sphere." Tim mentions that he will share his opinions on the interview on Monday, but would it have been to much to ask that he press Rodriguez for any type of substantiation for his charges? I want to respond clearly and concisely to the anti-Pentecostal and anti-Lation charges in the hopes that readers will then turn to my actual reports and see for themselves the content of what I have written. I earlier responded to the charge that I am anti-Pentecostal, now I turn to the charge that I am anti-Latino, again noting that Rodriguez gives absolutely no evidence for this charge and that Dalrymple did not press him for any substantiation. All we have is the assertion that I am “a very discriminating, very bigoted anti-Pentecostal, and in my opinion anti-Latino” writer.

Of course, there is no evidence given because there is no evidence to be found. I could bore you with details of my extensive work with Latino students and families from my time in Southern California, and I could dig up criticism of Rodriguez from Latinos, but this would only serve to dignify Rodriguez’s remarks. My writing about Rodriguez, which is the only writing I have done specifically referring to the Latino community, is no more anti-Latino because it criticizes aspects of his public ministry than it is anti-male because Rodriguez is a male, or anti-American because Rodriguez is an American. My criticism is about specific words and actions that Rodriguez has spoken and done in his public ministry, not about his ethnicity. If criticizing a person who happens to be from an ethnic minority makes someone “anti” an ethnic group, then Rodriguez must be quite the anti-black leader because of his withering criticisms of the Obama administration. But of course that is nonsense—some of Rodriguez’s closest ministry partners are African-American just as some of my closest friends are Latino.

What I would urge everyone to do is to look carefully at the six articles I have written that seek to investigate the public record of Rev. Rodriguez and see for their self if any of the criticism is anyway based on the ethnicity of Rodriguez. The interested reader might also read my essay on Alan Hirsch, or my criticisms of Eric Metaxas---neither of whom are Latino but with whom I take serious, substantive issue with.

For convenience, here are the six essays I have written about Rodriguez:



**This post was updated on November 18.

Am I Anti-Pentecostal?


Over the past sixteen months I have written six different pieces of what I would characterize as serious reporting on Samuel Rodriguez, with a number of other shorter blog posts/ responses. I am glad to see that Timothy Dalrymple has become the first reporter besides me to interview Rodriguez and to ask him for the record some difficult questions about his public statements and organizational commitments. I wish the interview had been done differently, but I do appreciate that some key questions were asked and that Rodriguez was invited to give a thoughtful response. Unfortunately, instead of careful responses what Rodriguez has given is inflammatory charges, with not even a shred of evidence quoted or linked to, of anti-Latino and anti-Pentecostal bias on the part of either me or Mark Silk. Given the context of Rodriguez’s smear, it seems quite clear that Rodriguez was referring to me and to my work reporting on him and on broader issues about the New Apostolic Reformation. I want to respond clearly and concisely to these two charges in the hopes that readers will then turn to my actual reports and see for themselves the content of what I have written. This post will focus on the charge that I am anti-Pentecostal. My second post will look at the anti-Latino charge.

Anti-Pentecostal? 

My reporting on the charismatic movement and Pentecostalism has been with regards to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a movement that key Pentecostal figures and denominations agree is very problematic. For Rodriguez to say that criticism of NAR means that a person is against charismatic/Pentecostal expressions of Christianity is absurd on its face. Consider just two examples of criticism of NAR written by Pentecostal leaders. First, from a post I did a while back when similar charges were made against me:


        I am hardly alone in viewing the New Apostolic Reformation, as envisaged by C. Peter Wagner, as a significant movement and a troubling one. I would point readers to none other than Vinson Synan, the noted Pentecostal leader and highly regarded scholar of Pentecostalism. In 2010 Synan wrote a fascinating memoir entitled An Eyewitness Remembers the Century of the Holy Spirit. The 12-chapter, 206 page book includes three chapters that touch directly on Wagner’s life work. The most important of these chapters is called “The New Apostolic Reformation” and it is dominated by Synan’s reflections on Wagner. I would encourage anyone who has questions about this movement’s importance and potential danger to the Pentecostal movement to read that chapter and reflect in particular on these words from Synan:

From the outset, I was concerned about any movement that claims to restore apostolic offices that exercise ultimate and unchecked authority in churches. The potential for abuse is enormous. Throughout church history, attempts to restore apostles as an office in the church have often ended up in heresy or caused incredible pain. These attempts seemed similar to the Discipleship/Shepherding movement that had done so much damage to the charismatic movement….In 2005, in the General Conference of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, I warned the bishop and delegates about adopting apostolic language in the manual of the denomination. I predicted that we might see “short-term growth, but long-term confusion.” (183-184)


A second example that shows major Pentecostal leaders expressing serious concern about NAR and similar movements within Pentecostalism comes from the leadership of the Assemblies of God. I would refer you to the complete statement titled “Endtime Revival—Spirit-Led and Spirit-Controlled”, but here is a key quote from a section titled “Deviant Teachings Disapproved”:

The problematic teaching that present-day offices of apostles and prophets should govern church ministry at all levels. It is very tempting for persons with an independent spirit and an exaggerated estimate of their importance in the kingdom of God to declare organization and administrative structure to be of human origin. Reading in the Bible that there were apostles and prophets who exerted great leadership influence, and wrongly interpreting 1 Corinthians 12:283 and Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, they proceed to declare themselves or persons aligned with their views as prophets and apostles. Structure set up to avoid a previous structure can soon become dictatorial, presumptuous, and carnal while claiming to be more biblical than the old one outside the new order or organization. (emphasis in original)

I have always tried to be quite clear in my writing that I am concerned about precisely these wrong interpretations and dangerous structures that I see in the New Apostolic Reformation. Rodriguez’s attempt to equate those criticisms with criticisms of the entire Pentecostal and charismatic world is understandable given his own considerable activity in the NAR and his active and spirited collaboration over many years with one of the most controversial NAR figures, Cindy Jacobs. But any reader or writer who allows themselves to be confused by Rodriguez’s baseless charge against me will be doing a real disservice to the genuine concerns of many thousands of people, Pentecostals and charismatics most definitely included, who are concerned about NAR.





Friday, November 16, 2012

What the NHCLC Would Have Us to Believe


My last post reported on the NHCLC’s official statement in response to my open letter. As you’ll recall, my letter asked Samuel Rodriguez and the NHCLC to explain why they had joined in two separate amicus briefs in support of major power companies and to describe how this action fit with the mission of the NHCLC. The answer to this particular inquiry is rather stunning to me. The NHCLC, through its Legal Counsel the noted attorney Matthew Staver, issued the following reply:

Regarding the amicus brief, NHCLC worked with CORE, the Congress on Racial Equality, but CORE, not NHCLC, filed the amicus brief. NHCLC was unaware that its name was listed and did not consent to the name being listed. CORE has already issued regrets to NHCLC for listing its name. NHCLC would not have and did not give consent to be listed.

Let’s examine this statement carefully and line by line. First of all, there were two amicus briefs filed. One, filed on March 7, 2010, before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the other filed on February 7, 2011, before the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. It is in the nature of amicus briefs to be perfectly clear who filed the brief and whom the brief speaks for. The entire purpose of these briefs is to add an additional voice to the court’s record on the case and so it is vital that it be clear whose voice is represented in the brief. I believe that a simple reading of these briefs make perfectly clear who filed them and whose voices were intended to be heard. In the case of the 2010 brief before the Fifth Circuit, page one reads the following: “BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AND THE AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE” (caps in original, bold/underline emphasis added). CORE is not listed as being responsible for the brief, the Affordable Power Alliance (APA) is. And who is the APA? The first page of the brief immediately defines the APA this way: “comprised of the Congress of Racial Equality, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and the 60- Plus Association”. Of course, this is not a surprise since that is the makeup of the APA in all of its public statements. Any visitor to the APA’s website will find it identified as being composed of these same groups.

In the second amicus brief, the one filed for the Second Circuit, the cover page reads “BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE” (emphasis added). On page two of the brief the APA is defined this way:

The Affordable Power Alliance, an ad hoc coalition of civil rights, African American, Latino, small business, senior citizens and faith- based advocacy organizations. Its members include:
§ The Congress of Racial Equality, which was founded in 1942 and is the third oldest and one of the “Big Four” Civil Rights groups in the United States;
§ The High Impact Leadership Coalition, a national coalition of faith-based leaders, ministers and churches;
§ The National Hispanic Christian Leader- ship Conference, the largest Latino Christian organization in America, with 16-million Latino evangelical members and 24,000 member churches

In both cases the law firm that filed these briefs gave no indication that the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) was actually doing the filing, rather than the APA as a whole. It is very much worth noting that the law firm that represented the APA in these two filings is Troutman Sanders LLP, and the lawyer for this firm is in both cases presented as Douglas A. Henderson. Troutman Sanders is a major international law firm with “more than 600 lawyers and offices located throughout the United States and China”. Energy and Industry Regulation are one of its five primary areas of focus and its client list is a veritable whose who of major oil and power companies. In the two cases that the APA used Troutman Sanders for, the companies the APA was speaking in defense of included Shell, Exxon, BP America, Dow Chemical, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute.

What the NHCLC would have us to believe is really quite remarkable. They would have us to believe that a high-powered law firm filing in defense of some of the most powerful companies in the world in cases before two of the Supreme Court’s Circuit Court of Appeals made two interwoven mistakes: one, they made a mistake in their filing by listing APA as the filer of the briefs, not CORE which supposedly was really responsible for the filing; two, they made a mistake by clearly identifying the NHCLC as an equal member with the APA in its description of the APA. In each of these mistakes the NHCLC would have us believe that Troutman Sanders never checked with the NHCLC to gain its consent. This would be a remarkable set of errors, made by a remarkably competent lawyer, working for a remarkably respected law firm, on behalf of remarkably powerful companies, before remarkably prestigious courts, but I don’t see any other way to explain the situation if what the NHCLC is saying is true.

I find it quite extraordinary that the NHCLC expects people to believe its version of events and I note for anyone interested that neither the APA’s website or the NHCLC’s website make any public expression of the story that the NHCLC has told me. Samuel Rodriguez is still pictured on the leadership page of the APA, no mention of any regret is made anywhere on the APA or CORE websites, and the NHCLC continues to list without clarification its role as a member of the APA and a partner with CORE in its leadership. All of this fits the pattern of behavior I experienced following my last two encounters with the NHCLC, first over Samuel Rodriguez’s leadership role in the Oak Initiative, and second concerning the contradictory positions staked out by Rodriguez on the question of EPA regulation of mercury. I fear that the many good works of the NHCLC are threatened by a crisis of leadership and a radicalization of purpose deeply at odds with the public image presented to its member congregations, partnering organizations and the media at large. At a time when America needs voices of integrity and clarity on the major issues we face we find from the NHCLC anything but those virtues in case after case. 

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Rodriguez/NHCLC respond to open letter


Matthew Staver, NHCLC Chief Legal Counsel

My last post featured an open letter to Samuel Rodriguez and the leadership of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC). This letter, which was sent directly to Rev. Rodriguez and to his press secretary, featured four questions:

1.     When will you correct your website by removing Rev. Harkins from your Board of Advisors and taking down his picture from all promotional materials associated with your organization?
2.     Why has Rev. Harkins been listed on your advisory board when, according to him, he has “no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way”?
3.     Are there other figures on your publicity materials that are similarly unaware of the way that their reputation is being used to enhance the public image of your organization?
4.     The NHCLC has been a part of amicus briefs siding with major power companies. Is the leadership of NHCLC aware that the organization is siding with power companies in these lawsuits? How does this relate to the stated mission of the NHCLC?

Shortly after sending this letter and posting it at this blog I received communication from Matthew Staver, Chief Legal Counsel for the NHCLC. This demonstrated to me how seriously the NHCLC viewed my questions and I was pleased to correspond with Mr. Staver about the questions. After doing his own research into the questions, including the question related to the involvement of the NHCLC in legal briefs on behalf of major oil and power companies, Mr. Staver issued the following statement in response to my questions:

Regarding the amicus brief, NHCLC worked with CORE, the Congress on Racial Equality, but CORE, not NHCLC, filed the amicus brief. NHCLC was unaware that its name was listed and did not consent to the name being listed. CORE has already issued regrets to NHCLC for listing its name. NHCLC would not have and did not give consent to be listed.

Regarding the website, the list of Advisors was done some time ago regarding Mr. Harkins. NHCLC was unaware that he wanted to be removed. NHCLC has sent him an email to confirm his desire and upon hearing from him will remove his name if that is his desire.

No one else to our knowledge is on the Advisors list who desires to be removed.

These answers are extraordinary and are worthy of considerable dissection and analysis, which I intend to give them in the days to come. For now I want to briefly note a few facts.

First, while I am obviously not privy to any private correspondence or discussion between CORE and NHCLC, I have seen no indication of any public sign of “regrets to NHCLC” from CORE. Nothing was sent to me indicating regret by CORE, CORE’s website has no sign of that regret, and the Affordable Power Alliance which CORE and the NHCLC are key members of gives no indication of any disagreement between them at its website.

Second, Rev. Harkins is still listed as a member of the Board of Advisors, with his picture, ironically, just above Mr. Staver’s at the NHCLC website.

Third, the amicus briefs that I linked to in my open letter were quite clear in their inclusion of the NHCLC within the filing paperwork. In the amicus brief filed before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the very first page says the following: “BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AND THE AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES UPON REHEARING EN BANC and then reads “Counsel for Amici the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Affordable Power Alliance (comprised of the Congress of Racial Equality, the High Impact Leadership Coalition, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and the 60- Plus Association)”.

The amicus brief filed before the United States Supreme Court reads on page one “BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND AFFORDABLE POWER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS” and on page two defines the Affordable Power Alliance quite clearly:

The Affordable Power Alliance, an ad hoc coalition of civil rights, African American, Latino, small business, senior citizens and faith- based advocacy organizations. Its members include:
§ The Congress of Racial Equality, which was founded in 1942 and is the third oldest and one of the “Big Four” Civil Rights groups in the United States;
§ The High Impact Leadership Coalition, a national coalition of faith-based leaders, ministers and churches;
§ The National Hispanic Christian Leader- ship Conference, the largest Latino Christian organization in America, with 16-million Latino evangelical members and 24,000 member churches

While I appreciate the prompt and courteous response of Mr. Staver on behalf of the NHCLC, I believe his answers raise profound questions about the direction of the NHCLC and its stewardship of the trust and interests of the thousands of congregations and millions of individuals it claims to be working on behalf of. These questions must be raised with all clarity and candor precisely for the welfare of those congregations and individuals, as well as for the broader integrity of the other institutions that Rodriguez is a significant part of. I know that I will continue to raise these questions and I trust that more and more writers will be doing the same.   





Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Open Letter to Rodriguez/NHCLC


Dear Rev. Rodriguez and the leadership of the NHCLC,

On November 9, I published an article on Rev. Rodriguez and the NHCLC. In this article I noted that the Rev. Derrick Harkins, head of Faith Outreach for the Democratic National Committee, is listed and pictured at the NHCLC website as a member of your Advisory Board. Shortly after posting this article I received a public comment from Rev. Harkins, followed up by a personal email from him, both attesting to his shock that he was being publicized as a supporter of the NHCLC. Here are the exact words as they appear at my article’s web page:

I wanted to take a moment to let you know that that it came as a surprise to me that I was still listed as an Advisory Board member to the NHCLC. I have not had any connection with them or Sam Rodriguez in more than six years, and stand at polar opposites with Rev. Rodriguez on most issues. At the time when immigration reform was being debated in Congress (2006-2007), I was one of a very few African American clergy to voice my support. I gladly collaborated with a number of groups working toward the same end. Unfortunately since then Rev. Rodriguez has embraced some perspectives that differ from my own. I have no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way, and will inform them to remove any reference to me.
Thank You
Derrick Harkins

These comments from Rev. Harkins prompt me to ask the following questions of the leadership of the NHCLC:

1.     When will you correct your website by removing Rev. Harkins from your Board of Advisors and taking down his picture from all promotional materials associated with your organization?
2.     Why has Rev. Harkins been listed on our advisory board when, according to him, he has “no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way”?
3.     Are there other figures on your publicity materials that are similarly unaware of the way that their reputation is being used to enhance the public image of your organization?
4.     The NHCLC has been a part of amicus briefs siding with major power companies. Is the leadership of NHCLC aware that the organization is siding with power companies in these lawsuits? How does this relate to the stated mission of the NHCLC?

Given the public nature of these questions this letter will be published as an open letter, as will any reply you send to me.

Sincerely,
Greg Metzger

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Miller Lite (On Samuel Rodriguez)


Derrick Harkins and the DNC's Faith Outreach are publicly stating concerns about Samuel Rodriguez, but not Lisa Miller at the Washington Post. I have written in the past about the strange journalism of Lisa Miller on the subject of Samuel Rodriguez, but her latest column raises the issue afresh. Her dogged determination to portray Samuel Rodriguez as a combination of a victim of Barack Obama and the GOP is striking, as is her breathtaking ignorance of Rodriguez’s complicated, dare we say unstable, track record. For anyone still new to the story of Rodriguez, or in need of a refresher course on his delicate relationship with integrity, I offer the following links.

On Rodriguez’s relationship with Muslims:





http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/9/2/133338/8422




On Rodriguez’s various stances on Environmental Issues:






On Rodriguez’s unique blend of Christian nationalism and immigration reform:



Friday, November 9, 2012

Head of DNC Faith Outreach Disassociates Himself from Rodriguez


My article from earlier today, detailing the story of Samuel Rodriguez and highlighting the many individuals and institutions that have worked with him, has received a quick and significant reply from the Rev. Derrick Harkins. As I explained in my article, Harkins is publicized on the advisory board of Rodriguez’s NHCLC organization at the NHCLC’s website and promotional materials. Harkins’ seeming alliance with Rodriguez is one of the puzzling aspects of the Rodriguez story given the fact that Harkins has been the head of Faith Outreach for the Democratic National Committee. Fortunately, Harkins has immediately and unequivocally cleared up the story with his public comment to my article. I post here his comment in its entirety, noting that it corroborates the general timeline I presented in my article and that it once again calls into question the integrity of the NHCLC’s presentation of itself to the public. If Harkins has “no association with NHCLC” then why does Rodriguez continue to feature him as a supporter of his controversial mission? Are there other figures who the NHCLC publicly claims to be in support of them who are similarly unaware of their actions?

I wanted to take a moment to let you know that that it came as a surprise to me that I was still listed as an Advisory Board member to the NHCLC. I have not had any connection with them or Sam Rodriguez in more than six years, and stand at polar opposites with Rev. Rodriguez on most issues. At the time when immigration reform was being debated in Congress (2006-2007), I was one of a very few African American clergy to voice my support. I gladly collaborated with a number of groups working toward the same end. Unfortunately since then Rev. Rodriguez has embraced some perspectives that differ from my own. I have no association with NHCLC, or the advisory board in any way, and will inform them to remove any reference to me.
 Thank You 
Derrick Harkins

Questioning the "Hispanic Karl Rove of evangelicals"


In the wake of Mitt Romney's defeat and the historically low support he received from Hispanics it is high time that attention be given not only to Karl Rove, but to "the Hispanic Karl Rove", the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez. The benediction for the opening night of the Republican National Convention was given by Rodriguez, an Assemblies of God leader and the President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Council (NHCLC). Given that Rodriguez has been known for years as the “Hispanic Karl Rove of evangelicals” it was hardly shocking that Romney chose him for this symbolic task. This July Rodriguez declared that Romney had made a “180-degree turn” in his relationship with Hispanics after a primary in which he had staked out a position to the right of his key competitors. Of Puerto Rican descent, the 42-year old Rodriguez represents, as the Chicago Tribune put it in 2008, “a new generation of evangelical kingmakers on the political scene.” Due to his status as a prominent Hispanic Evangelical and his advocacy for a “compassionate” approach to immigration, Rodriguez has developed a reputation as a progressive-friendly evangelical leader. This reputation, and the privileged access he has enjoyed to the White House during Barack Obama’s first term, is surprising given his outspoken commitments to right-wing causes and organizations. More surprising, and troubling, are the grounds on which he argues for immigration reform, appealing to conservative Christians’ suspicion of Muslims and fear of Christian decline.

Rodriguez has been a prominent conservative activist throughout Obama’s presidency. In 2009 Rodriguez co-founded the Oak Initiative, a right-wing Christian advocacy group, and served until 2011 as its executive vice president. Rodriguez has described the Oak Initiative as a “Christian Tea Party,” and in 2010 he rallied the group with his claim that the Obama administration “has taken over the auto industry, the banking industry, the health industry, soon the energy industry. We have never been in this place before. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves. This is big government on steroids.” Like many conservative groups, the Oak Initiative made strident opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a central part of its mission. It produced a popular video in opposition to the ACA, which featured the controversial former Pentagon advisor Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin explaining that the ACA moved America simultaneously toward Nazism and Communism and was “laying the groundwork” for a Nazi-esque “constabulary force that will control the population in America.” Under Rodriguez’s leadership the Oak Initiative also distinguished itself as a virulently anti-Muslim organization committed to the notion that Obama is helping to advance an Islamic agenda in America.

In addition to his foundational role in the formation of the Oak Initiative, Rodriguez in 2010 became part of a five-person team leading the Affordable Power Alliance (APA). The APA has played a key role in resisting Obama administration environmental policies that they say would hurt the interests of business. The APA has made a name for itself by claiming that new EPA restrictions amounted to a “war on the poor” and declaring that “the civil rights challenge of our time is to stop extreme environmental policies that drive up the cost of energy.” Nowhere has the effect of the APA been more evident than in its attacks on the EPA’s efforts to decrease mercury poisoning, a regulatory effort that has received widespread report from USCCB and a host of other religious organizations. The APA views this regulation, and the religious groups that support it, as part of a misguided environmental movement that ends up “condemning legions of Third World children to death from real diseases” because of its impact on the global economy.

As his right wing stances solidified Rodriguez began to headline events important to conservatives in general and the religious right in particular. In 2011, Rodriguez promoted and spoke at Texas Governor Rick Perry’s controversial prayer gathering “The Response” and delivered the benediction at the Ronald Reagan award dinner at the CPAC annual convention. He is on the steering committee of the Freedom Federation, an umbrella organization of key conservative Christian groups founded in 2009 to, among other things, “secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.” And he has joined the coalition of Christians opposing the HHS Mandate, writing in the Washington Post that “the end of our religious freedom in this country has begun.”

Yet, while Rodriguez has been at the forefront of an array of religious right initiatives, he has also managed to maintain a counter-image as a kind of “new evangelical,” one open to progressive political action and worthy of considerable access to the Obama White House. Rodriguez was one of a small number of religious leaders who led a private prayer service on the morning of Obama’s inauguration. In July 2010, Rodriguez was one of a group of leaders of Hispanic organizations who met with Obama to discuss a push for immigration reform. That same year Rodriguez served on the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which published a report on “Fatherhood and Healthy Families.” In July 2011, even as he continued as a leader of the “Christian Tea Party” he had helped to found, Rodriguez visited the White House with Jim Wallis and ten other progressive religious leaders representing the “Circle of Protection” coalition, formed to resist Tea Party efforts to balance the budget by cutting aid to “the poor and suffering,” as Rodriguez put it at the time. He returned to the White House with a delegation from the National Association of Evangelicals to meet with the president later in 2011. In the spring of 2012 Rodriguez shared the podium with Michelle Obama at a Florida rally for her “Let’s Move” campaign. To this day, the Faith Outreach Director of the Democratic National Committee, the Rev. Derrick Harkins, serves on the Board of Advisors to Rodriguez’s NHCLC.

Rodriguez’s ability to simultaneously stoke the fires of anti-Obama extremism and maintain access to the White House mystifies observers of the Religious Right. He owes his paradoxical image to his unique position on immigration reform, the issue that brought him to national prominence during the George W. Bush administration. Beginning in 2006, Rodriguez’s public advocacy for the needs of undocumented Hispanics centered on convincing white evangelicals, whom Rodriguez accused of promoting “racial profiling, discrimination,” and ethnic hostility, to support immigration reform. Sydney Blumenthal credited Rodriguez with helping to defeat a Republican congressional plan calling for the potential deportation of 12 million Hispanics, a plan Rodriguez called an example of “political expediency, xenophobia and extremism” that “defeated reason, compromise and reconciliation.” Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy welcomed Rodriguez to high-profile meetings on immigration reform, and many religious progressives rushed to embrace a theologically conservative Hispanic who seemed to share their values.

Thus was born the image of Samuel Rodriguez, post-partisan evangelical and bridge to the burgeoning Hispanic Protestant community. Major media outlets like Newsweek, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal named him as a major Hispanic leader. He became a regular contributor at the Washington Post’s On Faith website and was featured on Bill Moyers Journal. In all cases Rodriguez was presented as a politically moderate, theologically conservative Pentecostal/evangelical whose opinions about the emerging Latino vote could be trusted. In some cases, as in a 2009 report on CNN, media outlets went so far as to describe him as the leader of millions of Hispanic evangelical. Individuals and institutions seeking to unite progressives and moderates seized on Rodriguez as an embodiment of the goal. In 2007 he was one of seven evangelical founders of the Come Let Us Reason Together movement, which sought common ground on culture-war issues. He also formed a bond with the progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis: he has lectured at Wallis’s Georgetown University class, he serves as a contributing editor for Wallis’s Sojourners magazine, and Wallis wrote a foreword for Rodriguez’s 2009 book Path of Miracles. Mainstream evangelicals have followed Wallis’s lead and embraced Rodriguez and his NHCLC as a key entry point to Hispanic Protestants. Rodriguez serves on the boards of an array of major moderate evangelical and Pentecostal organizations, including Christianity Today, Gordon Conwell Seminary, and the Assemblies of God, and his NHCLC is the official sister organization to the National Association of Evangelicals.

Rodriguez’s conflicting positions and dueling alliances have never been fully acknowledged in national media. When he signed a major statement by evangelical Christians in support of the EPA’s policy to increase regulation of mercury while at the same time heading up the American Power Alliance, which was decrying these regulations as part of a “war on the poor,” news reports focused only on his support of the progressive petition. This lack of scrutiny may be due to the fact that, while Rodriguez has staked out a number of policy positions far to the right of most Hispanics, on the need for comprehensive immigration reform he has generally pushed for policies clearly consistent with the desires of the Hispanic community and largely in keeping with his post-partisan image.

It is this essential issue, however, that raises the most troubling questions about Rodriguez’s positions and arguments. While religious and mainstream media have ignored his reasoning, an abundance of public documents and videos shows that Rodriguez’s pro-Hispanic-immigration activism draws explicitly on anti-Muslim ideology and the promise of a renewed Christian America. While he makes use of arguments focused on human rights and biblical compassion to justify his call for immigration reform, those concepts do not for him preclude arguments that denigrate Islam, promote the salvation of Christian America, or emphasize competition with Catholics.

When Rodriguez speaks to conservatives his appeal for immigration reform centers around three suppositions. First, he argues that support for Hispanic immigration will prevent the United States from becoming what Europe is becoming—a Muslim continent. By emphasizing the threat of a Muslim Europe, Rodriguez taps into a vein of conservative thought that has come to prominence post-9/11. He has spoken about the threat that he believes Europe faces from its growing Muslim communities, and the Oak Initiative continuously plays up the supposed threat to America from stealth efforts to impose sharia law. “There is a crisis in Europe,” he said in 2009, because “Europe is now the emerging Islamic continent in the world. It is not post religious. It is growing in religion but it is not Christianity. It is Islam. It is the Muslim faith. And in America we are blessed that the immigrants that are coming here still believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and have a strong Christian faith commitment.... I look at this community emerging in America as a firewall against…an assault on our biblical worldview.”

In public appearances, Rodriguez’s prayerful rhetoric occasionally gives way to crude caricaturing of Islam. In a 2010 sermon, Rodriguez repeated an aggressively Christian prayer he said he had offered at an interfaith rally for immigration reform. Boasting about his refusal to “compromise truth” in that “politically correct environment,” he explained that a Muslim imam had been asked to offer a prayer before Rodriguez. He described the Imam’s prayer this way: “I come in the name of Allah, Allah and the Prophet Mohammad, blah, blah, blah, pass the ammunition, all that good stuff.”

Second, Rodriguez claims, support for Hispanic immigration will be the salvation of Christianity in America. He speaks in near-messianic terms of the impact Hispanic spirituality will have on America if it is allowed to flourish. In a recent appearance with Pat Robertson on The 700 Club, Rodriguez said, “We are two syllables—‘His’ ‘panic.’ We are His, capital ‘H.’ We may very well be God’s ‘panic’ to the kingdom of darkness in the name of Jesus in America…. At the end of the day the Hispanic electorate may be the salvation of the conservative movement and the Christian Church in America.” An article by Lisa Miller in the Washington Post, “Why Are Evangelicals Supporting Immigration Reform?” quoted Rodriguez explaining that, in convincing the leadership of Focus on the Family to sign a pro-immigration-reform statement, “I spoke about the need. I talked about the possibility of deporting the very salvation of the evangelical community in the twenty-first century.”

Third, Rodriguez argues that support for Hispanic immigration will help Hispanic evangelical and Pentecostal churches gain converts from Catholicism. For example, The Washington Post’s Miller wrote that Evangelicals had not worked directly with Catholics in forming a statement on the need for immigration reform “because competition for Hispanic souls in America is so fierce,” adding that Rodriguez told her, “We call it strategic recruitment.”

Samuel Rodriguez is a prominent figure in Hispanic Christianity, in the debate over immigration reform, and in the Religious Right. Given his central role in Mitt Romney’s abysmal efforts to secure important Hispanic support it is time that he faces careful scrutiny in religious and political circles. While Rodriguez’s success in encouraging right-wing voters and politicians to consider immigration reform is on some level promising it should not be interpreted as representative of a broader progressive or moderate policy agenda and it should not be misconstrued as evidence of a commitment to religious pluralism. In fact, this may be the most distressing part of Rodriguez’s rising profile. By linking the cause of Hispanic rights to the denigration of Muslims he has exchanged one form of prejudice for another, and done so in explicitly Christian terms. While blending social justice for Hispanics with a type of religious supremacism has helped Rodriguez advance his standing among conservatives it is a recipe for further decay of Christian social witness and continued Republican ineptitude among the vast majority of Hispanics in America.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Rodriguez, Romney and the Politics of Immigration


Samuel Rodriguez has been back in the news in a big way over the last month. As regular readers will recall, I have quite a history of reporting on and writing about Rev. Rodriguez although I have been away from the topic for some time. I am drawn back to it in light of the recent statement by Rodriguez in which claims Mitt Romney has made a “180 turn” with respect to his relationship with the Hispanic community. This was a striking comment and one that cried out for substantiation given the fact that Romney has not made any public comments that would suggest waffling or backtracking on his stated positions with respect to key Hispanic issues like the DREAM Act, the President’s recent action regarding prosecution of children of undocumented immigrants, or the Arizona law. In the absence of facts such as these to point to, one is left with the impression that Rodriguez is again demonstrating his own loose speech. Here is how Bill Berkowitz weighs Rodriguez’s recent pronouncement on Romney:

Of all the leaders Team Romney has engaged, Samuel Rodriguez takes a back seat to none, although whether Rodriguez actually represents any voters is open to question. "I stand convinced the Governor appreciates the significance of the Hispanic electorate and he refuses to give up the Hispanic vote without a fight. He has made a 180-degree turn and is headed to a significant Hispanic outreach," Rodriguez told Brody.

It is unclear what kind of "outreach" Rodriguez is referring to given Romney's refusal to back the "Dream Act," and his predilection for pushing for the "self-deportation" of immigrants. In addition, a key Romney advisor on immigration issues is Kris Kobach, co-author of the Arizona's SB1070 law that was largely struck down by the Supreme Court, and who is considered "the intellectual architect of the draconian state-by-state approach immigration reform," as Tim Dickinson recently pointed out in Rolling Stone.
According to Brody, Team Romney's "focus now is on getting the conservative evangelical base motivated." The aim of a recent meeting of 70 conservative Christian leaders was "to figure out ways to get the conservative Christian base mobilized and excited about the GOP presidential nominee."

Rachel Tabachnick, drawing on Brody’s reporting for the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), notes that Romney’s outreach to Rodriguez is part of a wider effort to coalesce evangelicals behind his campaign. “Brody also reported that the Romney campaign has been quietly meeting behind the scenes with conservative evangelicals including Rick Warren, Richard Land, Gary Bauer, Samuel Rodriguez, and leaders from Focus on Family and Family Research Council.” All of this attention to Rodriguez is part of a pattern stretching back years in which Rodriguez is viewed as a vital cog in the Hispanic community. Questions about just how significant he really is, such as those raised by noted journalist Frederick Clarkson, are important but seemingly besides the point for writers like Lisa Miller who continue to puff Rodriguez as a “principled conservative” who President Obama would do well to listen to. Of course, this ignores two important facts: 1) Obama has actually given Rodriguez wide access to his administration especially when considering that 2) Rodriguez has been a vicious critic of Obama at times during his first term, especially when accusing Obama of leading “a government [that] has taken over the auto industry, the banking industry, the health industry, soon the energy industry. We have never been in this place before. Our founding fathers are turning in their graves. This is big government on steroids.”

I tire of the Rodriguez story because his standing in religious and mainstream media is so entrenched as to be impervious to hypocrisy and distortion that would have been the downfall of other Christian leaders. But when I see him poised to make another play at presidential kingmaking I must try again to raise the red flag to other media—why are you continuing to report on Rodriguez without even a mention of his scandals and distortions?