Imagine a candidate for public office so shameless that she’ll make up a nonexistent devotion to religion to try to appeal to voters.
Now imagine a candidate who doesn’t have to do it, because a local newspaper will do it for her.
The Boston Globe in its shilling for U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Morrissey Boulevard) has sunk to depths that not even the object of its affection has gone to.
Here’s the money paragraph in the Globe’s profile this weekend of Elizabeth-Warren-as-religious-person:
“The senator’s personal religious views are [a] part of her life that few if any of her supporters or detractors think of when they contemplate the Massachusetts lawmaker, who has built a national reputation on the strength of her populism and is on many political observers’ short list of likely 2020 White House contenders.”
In 53 words you have the story (Warren’s religiousness), the reason for the story (she’s running for president), and a refutation of the story (nobody thinks Warren is religious because she isn’t).
How do we know that she’s not that religious?
If we didn’t get a clue from her support for abortion or her opposition to religious freedom, there’s this tidbit: Warren, we learn, was raised a Methodist but “doesn’t have a home church she regularly attends.”
The reporter is apparently so unversed in religion that she never even thought to address which denomination Elizabeth Warren currently identifies with. If the answer is “none,” it begs a question: How many religious people neither have a church nor subscribe to a particular set of religious doctrines?
Warren makes unpublicized visits to certain black Baptist churches in Boston, the story says. Maybe she’s there to worship. We don’t pronounce. (“Judge not let ye be judged,” Matthew 7:1.) But isn’t it plausible that those are political stops? The kind of visits that would be helpful in a friendly profile from a left-wing publication seeking to make her palatable to certain Midwest swing voters?
Warren, to her credit, apparently did not actively participate in this charade. (She “declined to be interviewed for this story,” the Globe reported – but doggedly proceeded anyway.)
Where did this story come from? Let’s take the charitable view (“If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other also,” Luke 6:29) and presume that it wasn’t cooked up by a Democratic political consultant in connection with allies at the Globe. Let’s assume that the origin of the story is legit.
If that’s the case, the story (“Religion Is Constant Part of Elizabeth Warren’s Life”) apparently came to the reporter’s mind when she attended (or, more likely, watched online) an appearance Warren made at a Baptist church in Atlanta in late August sponsored by The King Center (named after Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.).
It was a political stop, through and through. Warren was interviewed about political matters by Reverend Bernice King, the daughter of the late civil rights leader, and then took a few phony questions from members of the audience.
But Warren at one point turned the discussion to the Bible.
Warren is familiar with Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:31-46 of the sheep and the goats (“That which you did to the least of my brethren you did unto me”) – so familiar, the story tells us, she apparently quotes it at every church she speaks at. You might even say that it’s part of one of her stump speeches.
Here’s what Warren did with the parable when talking to King:
“And the way I hear that is that, he’s saying to us first, there’s God in every one of us. There’s Jesus in every one of us. However you see it in your religion, but that inside there’s something holy, in every single person. And the second thing he’s saying, is: ‘And I call on you to act, not to sit back and proclaim your faith, but to get up and to make a difference.’ And the third thing I hear him saying, is: ‘And it is every one of you. When the final day comes, that every one of you will be judged by what you did for the God in others’.”
You mean, like, what we did for the God in unborn babies?
King, who is a preacher and pro-life, took the bait and asked Warren about another Scriptural passage, one that King said she was having a tough time with: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).
King told stories about people who attacked her father physically, whom he refused to hate and instead showed concern for. Then she likened that time long ago to the toxic atmosphere we find in our country nowadays.
“How can people, in this season of all this hate, learn to do good to those that hate us?” King asked.
There was silence in the audience.
“That’s a holy hush,” King said, to laughter. “… ‘Cause that’s what we’re being called to, I believe, in the midst of all of this. And it’s a tough Scripture.”
Here’s what Elizabeth Warren did with it:
“It’s a tough Scripture. But notice, it’s not a Scripture about being passive. It’s not a Scripture that says ‘lay back and just let hate roll on through.’ It’s not that. It’s a Scripture that says do good. It’s a Scripture that says act. It is a Scripture that says make your love strong. It is a Scripture that says to me, ‘Raise your voice. Make sure you are heard.’ That’s how I hear that Scripture. Not in anger. Not in anger. But make your voice heard in strength for what is right and what is holy. … Not in anger. … But in determination.”
If you notice, she turned Matthew 5:43-44 into Matthew 25:31-46: Each in her hands becomes a call for social action.
But that’s not even remotely what “love your enemies” means. It means to forgive them and to wish them every good thing.
Now: It’s possibly the hardest of all of Jesus’ teachings. The murderer of your hopes and dreams and loved ones is supposed to get not only your forgiveness but also your prayers and your love.
We don’t judge Senator Warren or others on their ability to live up to this standard. (“For the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you,” Luke 6:38.) The point of these observations isn’t to evaluate her soul (which we leave to a Higher Authority), but to evaluate the accuracy of the information we’re being given about her.
Warren’s response to King’s question doesn’t sound Christian.
