A.D., a former Jesuit friend, wrote:
What bothers me, maybe more than anything else, is that Paula White-Cain is not lying. She's very evidently sincere and deeply believes what she's saying. She very evidently also thinks she knows what she's saying is true.
She also believes what she's saying—and what she is declaring to Trump—is true, so her declarations don't violate my ethical values or the obligations placed on me by my conscience with regard to truth-telling.
But her believing does violate my epistemological values, what my conscience requires me to think I know to be true, and what my conscience requires me not to think I know to be untrue.
She thinks she knows certain facts about the mind of God—and about the will of God in particular---and, evidently, she feels obliged to pass this information onto Trump and others. I, on the other hand, don’t think I know to be facts any of the things Paula thinks she knows to be facts about the mind of God.
My theological epistemology and Paula's theological epistemology—or, in other words, the theological method by means of which I believe one can acquire knowledge about the mind of God, and the theological method which Paula thinks gives her knowledge about the mind of God—are radically different, one from the other.
Paula White-Cain is supposed to be the "spiritual advisor" of Trump, and I have no doubt that she does her level best to do that job. The problem for me is that I don't think her spiritual advice, though sincerely proffered, is wise. This is part of the reason the world needs not just "spiritual direction" but wise spiritual direction.
I think this is true, but whether or not it is, it leaves the question wide open: Who gets to decide when spiritual direction is wise and when it is unwise?
Smart people only? But smart people disagree, fervently, about what's wise and what's unwise. And smart people can be pretty unwise sometimes.
So then, who gets to decide what's wise and what's not wise?
__________________
Dear A.D.*, I am very sympathetic to your robust, serious analysis of the epistemology supporting the utterances of Trump’s spiritual advisor, Paula White-Cain. I need to be reminded when I dismiss, for example, the faith narrative of the Latter Day Saints as bunk, or the beliefs of the Branch Davidians as an evil cult. I agree that Ms. White-Cain’s sincere emotional tone opens the question “Who gets to decide when spiritual direction is wise, and when it is unwise?” It even calls into question, frankly, my off-the-cuff Buddhist analysis that Ms. White-Cain is just deluded. Who am I to say that intoning “Ata ratta ambu rata” doesn’t conjure up powerful prosperity deities to vanquish what Spiro Agnew, himself a beacon of ethical conduct, labeled “nattering nabobs of negativism"?
I am so taken by your analysis that I would like to broaden the target. When we examine the mechanism of assent, we should also consider what she is assenting to. What White-Cain says about Trump is so outrageous that it borders on what might be insanity, though most mainline Christians would just call it blasphemy.
The Reverend White-Cain is no outlier. She belongs to a branch of the American Evangelical Pentecostal Church known as the Prosperity Gospel. I was fascinated with these brothers and sisters when I was on Holy Hill. I read widely. Napoleon Hill wrote “Think and Grow Rich,” a central text of the movement, in 1937. The New Agers practice a form of mantra called affirmations; for example, “I deserve abundance” opens the generosity of the universe and makes us rich. A black prosperity preacher with the wonderful name Creflo Dollar (his real name is Creflo Augustus Dollar Jr.) preached a sermon, "If I want to believe God for a $65 million plane, you cannot stop me," after his Gulf Stream Jet was involved in a runway collision. The bulk of his fortune apparently came from insisting that followers pay a 10% tithe early in his career. He was subsequently investigated by a Senate Committee chaired by Chuck Grassley (who must have softened his qualms under the influence of the current administration).
The prosperity preachers’ roster includes the former star of “The Love Boat,” Gavin MacLeod, to give it a Hollywood slant, but other names have become familiar due to the mega-church TV phenomenon: Oral Roberts, Reverend Ike, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and Joel Osteen.
Some point to the role of Trump’s first pastor, Norman Vincent Peale, as central to his theology. Trump’s parents were members of Peale’s “Positive Thinking” Marble Collegiate Church. If I were to look at the glamorous rhinestone and sequined liturgical garb of White-Cain, I’d conjure up the wildly popular Aimee Elizabeth Semple McPherson of the famous Foursquare Church in Los Angeles in the early part of the last century.*
Rev. White-McCain traces her spiritual lineage to the predominantly black Pentecostal Church. Her mentor was Bishop T.D. Jakes, of Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies. He was converted to Oneness Pentecostalism, which affirms the Divinity of Jesus. White-McCain also acknowledges Nicholas Duncan-Williams, Archbishop and General Overseer of the Action Chapel International (ACI) Ministry, as a spiritual guide. Headquartered in Accra, Ghana. Duncan-Williams is a proponent of spiritual warfare prayer. (Real Exorcism stuff, demons, devils, fallen angels, and what we recognize as Santa Maria). The lack of African-American and African representation on stage at the White House is not surprising given the transactional nature of White-McCain’s theology. When racists seize control, just blend in.
I’ve studied the sayings of Jesus carefully, and it is totally offensive to tie our immoral president to the gospel narrative of the Lord’s passion, death and resurrection. Supporters of the materialistic prosperity gospel have completely abandoned common sense and whatever critical thinking skills have not been devoured by their greed. That might be the price of an actual office in the West Wing, with a budget and staff, but I have to admit that this is an opinion, a strong one that I try to back up with more facts than hearsay, but still an opinion.
The sanctification of capitalism is very American, and perhaps inevitable. The Jesuits Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa examined the origins of the prosperity gospel in the United States and described it as a reductive version of the American Dream and the Protestant work ethic (La Civiltà Cattolica). I would further argue that it is not an impossible leap to associate our tax-cutting billionaire POTUS with the Second Coming. A “new thought” Christian, Og Mandino, wrote the influential “Greatest Salesman in the World” in 1968. Though Mandino was not a prosperity preacher and does not directly reference Saint Paul’s evangelization of Jesus's message, many people have used this analogy to sanctify the role of the salesman. My own preference would be Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman,” or Sinclair Lewis’s “Babbitt,” given the thin veneer of our greed and the depth of our unhappiness.
Nonetheless, here we are wondering how this apparently sincere, composed, sequined lady preacher can stand in front of a national audience and claim Trump was “betrayed," "falsely accused,” and that his political resurgence mirrored the resurrection, saying, “Because [Jesus] rose. . . you rose up." She declared, "No one has paid the price like you have paid the price," . . . that because of divine victory, "you will be victorious in all you put your hands to."
I was shocked and dismayed, and when I went online to search for her exact language, I pulled up a broader picture of other notable divines who graced the stage alongside White-Cain and the new Messiah, I was even more shocked. There he was, one of my favorite Catholic ecclesial right-wingers, Bishop Robert Emmet Patrick Barron! The blasphemy is not confined to a small subset of Pentecostal preachers but has infected the Catholic hierarchy.
Pope Leo has made it known that he is unequivocally against Trump and Netanyahu’s war. As the former head of the dicastery that nominates bishops, Leo knows he can’t revoke Bishop Barron’s consecration unless he were convicted of a heinous crime, such as Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick.
Is Barron’s sharing the stage with the Rev. White-Cain and our new Messiah President blasphemy? He took the microphone and intoned a few words; he didn’t go so far as to second Trump’s messianic nomination or ask to stick his hands in the stigmata, nor did he add his own “Ata ratta ambu rata,” but he remained silent during White-Cain’s remarks, called the afternoon "a great joy, great privilege," and lauded Trump for gathering faith leaders to celebrate Holy Week.
Where was the fire-and-brimstone condemnation of his “Word of Fire” podcast? Bishop Barron didn’t object. It was the perfect opportunity for him to simply leave the stage or say, “I’m sorry, Paula, but this is not the Good News that I have pledged my life to proclaim.” But he just stood there, the picture of abject cowardice, and kept his mouth shut. I checked Canon Law to see if he could be censured for heresy or blasphemy. Canon 1369 (or Canon 1386 in some interpretations) allows for the punishment of individuals who, in public speech or media, utter blasphemy, gravely injure public morals, or express contempt for religion. Barron might have avoided penalty by keeping his mouth shut, but in my view, his presence and silence sent a strong message.
__________________
"In America, you call it the alt-right, in Germany, we call it 'why Grandpapa lives in Argentina now'" —Angela Merkel
A.D., there is only one thing that I would challenge with regard to your analysis of White-Cain’s position. You say she is not lying; you presume that a person couldn’t muster her level of sincerity, passion, or conviction if he or she were making a false statement, a series of misstatements, or conscious fabrications. I would argue that she doesn’t recognize that she is lying and that her belief system is predicated on a seemingly coherent set of lies and unchallenged assumptions. That’s pure cult behavior.
Is this an impossible position? Of course not. If it were not possible, or if forgiveness were not within our reach, we could never forgive the millions of Germans who supported the Third Reich and turned a blind eye to the antisemitism that was one of the tenets of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” Can masses of people believe a lie? The Nazis used subterfuge. Germans who supported Hitler might say, “We thought we were voting for something else,” or “We were swept up in a mass movement,” supported by censorship and propaganda. The existence of the death camps was hidden. To a large extent, this is true. Trump is fostering this kind of lie right now. He’s following the maxim of his mentor, Roy Cohen: “never apologize, never admit fault,” and continue to lie until it becomes a reality.
White-Cain provides spiritual cover. She treats Trump’s lies as truth and cloaks them in the language of the Gospel. In the current etiquette of public discussion, we are not allowed to scrutinize belief statements rigorously. You might say politely to the Mormon missionary or Jehovah’s Witness who has rung your doorbell, “I’m sorry, but I am not interested,” or, as I say, “Sorry, but I’m Buddhist.” It would be more honest if I invited them into the sitting room, poured coffee, and began an inquiry into how they know that Joseph Smith actually dug up golden tablets, which were then interpreted by the Angel Moroni.
But I prefer not to invite that level of intimate conversation. I don’t have time to conduct the investigation I feel is necessary for that level of inquiry, and frankly, I have zero interest. Mormons can do whatever they want in their oddly built temples as long as they don’t bother me. I also don’t want to get into any sectarian or proselytizing argument. That’s way beyond my pay grade, and in a pluralist, diverse, and tolerant society, it is best to avoid conversations that might incite conflict or disagreement about subjects that might spark animosity, ill will, or physical confrontation. In the past, these kinds of incidents have been fought over for hundreds of years.
A.D. I like the rigor of your self-analysis. You say: “My theological epistemology and Paula's theological epistemology—or, in other words, the theological method by means of which I believe one can acquire knowledge about the mind of God, and the theological method which Paula thinks gives her knowledge about the mind of God—are radically different, one from the other.” I hold my sanity as a precious gift to be cherished and guarded: the ability to follow an argument, to pay attention to what other people are saying, to honor them, to check that I am listening carefully. It’s hard work. I have to monitor myself; one of the reasons I still schedule meditation into my daily routine after at least 50 years, and I do not claim infallibility.
But when confronted with an absolute lie, unlike our hier to the Apostles, Bishop Barron, you won’t find me muttering a few words that don’t rock the boat. Ms. White-Cain’s business model is a “Buy Your Ticket to Heaven” Ponzi scheme. She claims to receive no salary for spiritual labor on Trump’s behalf, but you can be sure that her rolodex has been stuffed with a whole new crop of potential investors to defraud. I am puzzled by Barron’s motivation. With Cardinal Dolan, it was easier. His connections to Kenneth Gerard Langone are well-known and worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps Barron is lining himself up to inherit Dolan’s rolodex. Regardless, there has to be a payoff.
So we might end up with something like Hamlet’s question: “So then, who gets to decide what's wise and what's not wise?” I say we have to trust ourselves and take action.
__________________
Notes and references:
*I have only used the initials of the former Jesuit A.D. because I do not have his permission to quote him publicly.
*Note: The Prosperity Evangelicals are not the Church of Religious Science (often associated with Ernest Holmes’s Science of Mind), and are distinct from the Church of Scientology and Christian Science, which are other American sects/cults.
noun · a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
I have been very much influenced by these two works: ”Lying” by Sam Harris and “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” by Sissela Bok
Trump’s Ten Commandments by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and co-author Steven Tian
Fear, Rage, and The Trump Tapes by Bob Woodward
