Pastor, Can You Spare Us? (Mike Huckabee/John Hagee)

National Review Online ^ | Deember 21, 2007 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

[fkabuckeyesrule]

With great power comes great responsibility. And Mike Huckabee, once and future Baptist preacher, could afford to watch where he’s taking to the pulpit.

That’s “future” because the former evangelical pastor will be at John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church on Sunday.

According to a San Antonio Huckabee meetup site, Huckabee will be speaking at two Sunday services at the Texas megachurch.

He’ll be making the appearances just days after he told CBS News that “It’s not like [I’m] stepping from the pulpit last Sunday and running for president.”

But maybe next Sunday . . .

The problem with this particular church is its pastor. It is no secret that evangelicals and Catholics have their theological differences. If we didn’t we’d all be under the same church roof like once upon a time. But Hagee has been particularly outspoken beyond his Cornerstone Church, as a supporter of Israel and a prolific writer. His activism has brought some attention to his views on the Catholic Church.

In Hagee’s “black history” of the Catholic Church, for example, Catholics were far from only guilty of sins of omission when it came to the Nazis, they also gave Hitler his blueprint, according to Hagee. In a speech this year, Hagee pointed to the Catholic Church as having provided the jumping-off point for the Holocaust, claiming: “That was really drawn by the Roman church. [Hitler] did not do anything differently. He only did it more ruthlessly, and on a national scale.” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has long been concerned about Hagee’s rhetoric, calling him a “veteran bigot,” accusing him of distorting Catholic teachings and misrepresenting Church history. The League has cautioned that, “Tone matters … and Hagee’s tone is nothing but derisive.”

Hagee is politically active and has had candidates at his church before and is likely to again. It’s probably only natural that Huckabee would be among them. And certainly other candidates have courted or been endorsed by religious figures who are not known for their ecumenical diplomacy. But after weeks of being a divider, not a uniter — pretending to innocently raise questions about Mormon theology to a New York Times reporter, informing Today Show viewers that he is really the choice for evangelicals — Huckabee should be sensitive to his unnecessarily exclusionary tactics.

As the former governor of Arkansas, successor to the Little Rock Clinton administration, Mike Huckabee above all people should understand the importance of having a strong coalition to BEAT HER in the fall.

Speaking like a man seeking to be president of evangelical America, not president of the United States, Huckabee told Meredith Vieira earlier this week: “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican party. They wanted us to be a part of it, and then one day, one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh! Now they’re serious.’”

Huckabee, meanwhile, is leaving some non-evangelical conservatives wondering, “Oh, my gosh. Maybe they never wanted to be allied with us.” Huckabee is working right now, intentionally or not, on breaking down a winning coalition of religious conservatives.

When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, some of the most moving statements coming out of congressional offices were from evangelical conservatives who viewed him as an important leader in defending the sanctity of human life. Many of them had adopted his “culture of life” language and thinking. They saw him as an ally and were inspired by his leadership. They joined him, despite theological differences, in important cultural and political fights. It was and is a natural pairing. Mike Huckabee, who is not a conservative on all things, but is on social issues, should know that and treasure and protect and foster these alliances. He’s a riveting speaker who could rally social conservatives, at least to whip them up to fight another day. Instead, he’s executing a divide-and-conquer strategy.

When Mitt Romney was convinced he had to give a “Mormon speech,” he gave a speech about religious liberty and America. It wasn’t, in other words, about him. Of course, that was, in part, a political calculation — how much could be gained by talking about Mormon theology during a political campaign? But it was also just the right thing. It’s a political campaign and people want to hear about his political thinking — what America means to him and how he fits into it all, what he can offer Americans in terms of leadership. Since Mike Huckabee has found himself at the front of the Republican field, it’s been more The Mike Show than not. In a treadmill interview with the New York Times earlier this week, he claimed “I’m being questioned about the details of my faith like no one else.” Mitt Romney and Barack Obama might legitimately argue that point, Gov. He’s cast aspersions on another candidate’s religion. He’s highlighted hostilities among evangelicals and others in the Republican party. If he keeps this up, he’s going to do some unholy damage.

With all due respect to Hagee and his congregation (who are, of course, entitled to believe and say as they choose), Mike Huckabee should cancel his Sunday plans with Hagee. It can be his Christmas present to his party — to hold it together instead of continuing to tear it apart.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Interesting. Not a fan at all of Hagee.

[doc1019]

Hagee might be a great preacher, but I would rather vote according to the candidates history, voting record and current stance or world events.

[Responsibility2nd]

At least it’s genuine when Pastor Mike speaks at a Church.

OTOH, when Hillary steps inside a Church to speak....

Total hypocrisy.

[Eccl 10:2]

If someone like Bloomberg runs third party, the evangelicals are going to be a HUGE force.

Just stating fact.

[Ingtar]

If someone like Bloomberg runs third party, the evangelicals are going to be a HUGE force.

So who do you vote for when three Socialists run?

[CharlesWayneCT]

"Huckabee told Meredith Vieira earlier this week: “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican party. They wanted us to be a part of it, and then one day, one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh! Now they’re serious.’”"

I don't know about every evangelical, but I certainly thought of George Bush as being "one of us". And I don't remember the party being put off by that.

In fact, I haven't seen the party being put off by Huckabee being "one of us". I see them being put off by his attacks on the President, and his insistance that he's the only real pick for evangelicals, simply BECAUSE he is one.

I'd prefer a strong christian, or at least a man of faith who practices their faith, but I don't pick my candidate simply because they belong to my church, or have the same hair color I do either.

[wardaddy]

Not a fan at all of Hagee.

I am...mostly. He tells it like it is on many cultural issues without remorse

Preachers in the race really brings out the anti-Christians and in particular the Anti-Prods round here

and no....I don't like Huckster and shame on him for not standing up to his cross in the as thingie

he shoulda said...damn straight that's a cross folks....so what?

[TexasCajun]

I'm a Hagee fan.

Rush has some good policy questions for "The Christian" candidate.

Answers I'm looking forward to hear.

[Zionist Conspirator]

With all due respect to Hagee and his congregation (who are, of course, entitled to believe and say as they choose), Mike Huckabee should cancel his Sunday plans with Hagee. It can be his Christmas present to his party — to hold it together instead of continuing to tear it apart.

So, since all Fundamentalist Protestant churches are by definition "anti-Catholic" and anti-ecumenical, I suppose NR now is going to say that speaking at any of them should disqualify a candidate? (And btw, I'm not for Huckabee.)

I can't help but wonder if the real reason for this blow-up isn't Hagee's long history of strong theological support for Israel.

[gpapa]

Hagee is an anti-Catholic bigot.

[Mr Rogers]

Why do you think that?

[Running On Empty]

You have it right. Straightforwardly so.

[epow]

He’s cast aspersions on another candidate’s religion.

When? Where? I must have missed that. Either I missed Huckster "casting aspersions" or someone is not being entirely truthful.

I'm not backing the Huck because he's too liberal or moderate to suit me on many issues like immigration and taxes, but columnists shouldn't fib about his campaign speeches or anyone else's. Maybe he did "cast aspersions" on another candidate's religion, but if he did I haven't heard anything about it until now.

[Mr. Mojo]

I’m with you — Hagee is a straight shooter and spot-on when speaking about cultural issues. He’s also one of the very few in his position who speaks the truth about Islam without fear. ...and as you mentioned, without remorse.

Wish there were more like him.

[A. Morgan]

Just what we need a Holy Roller Socialist! /sarc

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

HUCKABEE = The Anti-REAGAN

.

[Picklezz]

I totally agree with you and I would add, he’s spot on about Israel as well.

[incindiary]

I may be misunderstanding his position, so someone correct me if I’m wrong... but hasn’t Hagee said that Jesus is not the Messiah? Again, not making an accusation, I just want that to be clarified.

[fish hawk]

I suppose you would say that of anyone who criticized the Catholic Church. The fact is that it did make lots of mistakes and screw ups that they are paying for and will be paying for in the future. I have nothing against Catholics but hiding your head in the sand is ludicrous also.

[elk]

Yeah, isn’t Hagee the one who said that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah.... I believe I read that. I’d be curious if that’s indeed true.

[SeaHawkFan]

I’m not a fan of Hagee and would not attend his church. That said, he does have a lot of followers and it certainly will not hurt Huckabee to speak at his church. I doubt that Huckabee agrees with much of Hagee’s theology, and I would not hold it against Huckabee if he speaks there.

Huckabee is about my 3-4 choice, but no one can question his ability to bring out the evangelical vote in numbers far surpassing any previous election.

[incindiary]

I should have said, “was not”, not “is not.” I don’t think he’s claiming that Jesus IS not the messiah. But I’d still like some clarification on what he believes.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Here is a page on Hagee from a group called the Christian Research Institute

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2871113/k.B45A/DH005.htm

[GOPPachyderm]

Following excerpt from: http://www.olivetreeviews.org/articles/Jans_eUpdates.shtml#newsitemEEAZAkpllutLuNjchI

But in Hagee’s new book he almost goes beyond all of that. In the book he states, (1) The Jewish people as a whole did not reject Jesus as Messiah; (2) Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah; (3) Jesus refused by word and deed to claim to be the Messiah; (4) How can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered them? He further states there was a “Calvary conspiracy” between Rome, the High Priest, and Herod. The conspiracy was to execute Jesus as an insurrectionist who was too dangerous to be allowed to live.

[gpapa]

I am not hiding my head in the sand, and you can criticize the Catholic Church all you wish. My statement stands about Hagee. If you wish some proof go here (there’s more): http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php

Catholic Californian

[fish hawk]

I see you still don’t want to talk about Catholic mistake , instead you want to talk about Hagee. You are making my point.

[tang-soo]

Hagee might be a great preacher, ...

Sadly, I used to think so. However ...

See it with your own eyes.

Is There Serious Error in the New Book, "In Defense of Israel?"

by Dr. Michael Brown

Pastor John Hagee’s new book, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Florida: Front Line, 2007), was publicized by announcements stating that the book would “shake Christian theology.” The following positions are explicitly laid out in the book:

The Jewish people, as a whole, did not reject Jesus as Messiah.

Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah.

Jesus refused by word and deed to be the Messiah.

The Jews cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered. Statements like this must be evaluated in light of 1 John 2:22: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ [i.e., Messiah]. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.” As commentator Stephen S. Smalley explained, “The true believer is the one who accepts the Christhood of Jesus, whereas those who deny his messianic identity declare themselves to be on the side of the antichrist” (Word Biblical Commentary).

What could possibly be the motivation for teaching such error? First, In Defense of Israel desires to dispel once and for all the notion that all Jews are Christ-killers, a terrible lie that has fueled anti-Semitism in the Church for more than 1,500 years. Second, the book wants to refute the false teaching of replacement theology, explaining that, “Replacement theologians have said that ‘the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent.’” (See p. 132 of In Defense of Israel.) Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers and even leaders! are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well. Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error.

Here are three fundamental statements that all believers should be able to affirm without hesitation:

1) Jesus came to be the Messiah. This is the fundamental message of the New Testament, which is why we call him “Christ” (meaning, “Messiah”). And it is a fundamental message of the Scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and die if He was one day to rule and reign (see, e.g., Luke 24:25-27, 44-47), a biblical truth that most of the Jewish people of Yeshua’s day missed, a biblical truth that most Jews through the ages have continued to miss, and a biblical truth that In Defense of Israel has now fed into as well.

In the clarifying statements that were made since the publication of his book, it was explained that Jesus came to be the suffering Messiah but not the reigning Messiah something, of course, that we all knew, and something that would hardly “shake Christian theology” but these statements have simply introduced another nuance to the error, since nowhere in the New Testament is such a distinction made.

In other words, God did not say to Israel, “It’s fine that you rejected Jesus as Messiah because He did not come in the political way you expected. He had to die in order to be the Savior of the world, so you are not guilty.” There is not a hint of such a message in the Scriptures, which simply proclaim him as the Messiah, period.

That’s why Jesus explicitly identified Himself as the Messiah in the Gospels (see, e.g., Matt 16:16-17; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 7:20-23; John 4:25-26; 5:39, 45-47; 10:24-25) not as the suffering Messiah, whom his people were supposed to reject so that He could die, as opposed to the reigning Messiah, whom they would one day receive, but simply as the Messiah and that’s why the Gospel authors frequently announced Him as the Messiah (in Greek, the Christ; see, e.g., Luke 2:11, 26; John 1:41; 3:28; 11:27; 20:31). And that’s why the apostles proclaimed Him as the Messiah in Acts (see, e.g., Acts 2:31, 36; 3:18, 20; 4:26; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:2-3; 18:5, 28; 26:23).

I would encourage you to look up every reference cited here. It is all quite simple, forthright, and easy to understand, and nowhere is any distinction made between the suffering and reigning Messiah. To repeat: Jesus is proclaimed as the Messiah of Israel, period, and because He is the Messiah of Israel, He is the Savior of the world.

2) The Jewish people rejected their Messiah. Although all Jews are not Christ-killers (God forbid!), and although the entire Jewish nation did not play a role in the crucifixion of Jesus, God held the Jewish people in Jesus’ day responsible for His death and, more significantly, He held them responsible for rejecting Jesus the Messiah after His resurrection. The New Testament witness is explicit and consistent on this.

That’s why the apostles preached to “the people of Israel” that they were guilty of rejecting the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23, 36; 3:13-15, 17, 19; 4:10-11; 5:30; 7:52; 13:27-28; see also John 1:12), and that’s why Paul spoke of Israel’s hardening, breaking off, stumbling, transgression, and rejection (see Rom 9:31; 10:3; 11:7, 11-12, 15, 20 although with the full expectation of Israel’s future redemption; see Rom 11:11-15, 25-26). Again, I encourage you to take a moment to look up these passages. They are striking in their force and consistency.

Because of this rejection, severe judgment came on the Jewish people in the first century, as prophesied by Yeshua with tears (see Luke 19:41-44; see also Matt 23:29-37) and as taught in his parables (see, e.g., Matt 21:33-46; 22:1-14).

As painful as this witness is, it cannot be rewritten, nor can anyone lessen Israel’s guilt because it was God’s will that Jesus died on the cross. To the contrary, just as it was God’s will that Joseph be sold into Egyptian slavery and yet at the same time his brothers were guilty of sinning against him (Gen 44:16-45:5; 50:14-20), so also it was God’s will that Yeshua die for our sins while at the same time the Jewish people, along with Herod and Pilate and the Romans, were guilty of having Him crucified (see Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28).

It is scripturally impossible to claim that “the Jews cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered.” A glorious offer was made and refused, and that’s why Paul’s heart was broken (see Rom 9:1-5).

3) Jesus remains the Jewish Messiah, and there is no salvation for the Jewish people outside of faith in Him. Although Pastor Hagee has consistently stated that he does not teach “dual covenant” theology, referring to the false concept that Jews can be saved outside of faith in Jesus, his new teaching certainly aids and abets that error. After all, if “The Jews Did Not Reject Jesus as Messiah” (as stated in bold print in his book), and if “Jesus refused by word and deed to be the Messiah” (be it the “reigning Messiah” or not), then, not only can it be said that “the Jews [in Jesus’ day] cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered” but that the Jews in any day cannot be blamed for not accepting Yeshua.

This again is a fundamental denial of the Word of God, and although In Defense of Israel claims that the “message of the gospel was from Israel, not to Israel,” Jesus, Peter, and Paul declared that the message of the gospel was to Israel first, and then from Israel to the nations (see Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; 3:26; 13:32-39; Rom 1:16; in Paul’s words to the Jewish leaders in Rome, it was “for the sake of the hope of Israel” that he was bound in chains; Acts 28:20).

To be sure, there are a number of other errors found in the critical section of In Defense of Israel (including the myth that there was a so-called cup of the Messiah, the alleged fourth cup of the Passover meal that Yeshua supposedly refused to drink), but this is not the place to address those concerns, and to focus on the smaller problems would detract from the larger picture.

If you are not currently on our e-list, I would encourage you to sign up (http://www.revolutionnow.org/) today. And let’s continue to make the truth known: Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel, the King of the Jews, the Savior of the World!

In Him,

Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.

[gpapa]

What mistakes are you talking about?

[incindiary]

Thanks for the link. Wow...that kind of blows me away. He may be sincere in his (mis)interpretation, but what he is saying goes against the scriptures and is dangerously misleading.

Stuff like this, and Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani makes me wonder if we're getting closer to the end. The bible talks about people straying from sound doctrine and being deceived. Unless he has some valid explanation, it sounds like that may be the case here.

[Running On Empty]

The thread is about Hagee (and Huckabee), isn’t it? And if Hagee is considered an anti-Catholic, that’s going to concern Catholics. And it will be a consideration regarding Huckabee’s campaign.

This thread isn’t really about “Catholic mistakes”.

BTW, all denominations of Christian churches have and do make mistakes.

All of this should be easy enough to understand.

[Tolkien]

Hagee does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah so lets cut the cr*p.

Huckster will never receive my vote!!

[GOPPachyderm]

Pastor Hagee believes in a dual covenant, one for Jews and one for non-Jews. I don’t see where scripture says there is any other way to saved other than the one Jesus provided. I love Jews and Israel, but not telling the truth about salvation has eternal consequences.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

I’m with you — Hagee is a straight shooter and spot-on when speaking about cultural issues. He’s also one of the very few in his position who speaks the truth about Islam without fear. ...and as you mentioned, without remorse.

Unlike some of the fakirs and fleecers, Hagee takes a 35K salary a year.

[wardaddy]

when he lets loose on infanticide, I’m like “yeah baby”....something like....”one day those in our congress will answer to a higher authority for this abomination”....jowls trembling.....lol.....he’s old school

and he minces no words about Islam...thinks it the arm of the dark prince

and is a huge....maybe the most vocal Israel supporter btw

i am really ignorant of the issues Catholics have with him to be honest...

[wardaddy]

it’s Catholic backlash...and anti-fundamentalism here on FR

Hagee is a fundamentalist....and conservative culturally.....all evengelicals are not .........a nuance lost on many here

I AM NOT A HUCKSTER SUPPORTER

[wardaddy]

they have their own agenda...as u already know

[Gurn]

John Hagee hasn’t said anything about the Catholic Church that isn’t true. Kathy Lopez can whine about “tone” all she wants, but anyone who reads objective history on the subject knows that Hitler’s blueprint came from the Papists.

[jan in Colorado]

Thank you for exposing Hagee’s errors!

[incindiary]

What do you think about him saying that Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah in word or deed? And that he apparently believes in a dual covenant, as GOPPachyderm mentioned?

Btw, I always thought he was a good preacher (from what I've seen of him, which I admit isn't a lot) and I especially like that he has been a strong vocal supporter of Israel. But if he does believe those things and is teaching that, it's very misleading and has eternal consequences.

[FFranco]

Thanks. Interesting information on Hagee in that link.

[libbylu]

Huckabee’s immigration policy is why I can’t support him. Everyone who infers I am a racist for being against amnesty for illegals is off my list.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[narses]

(2) Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah;

Well then he is a heretic.

[narses]

As the nonprofit organization's president, Hagee drew $540,000 in compensation, as well as an additional $302,005 in compensation for his position as president of Cornerstone Church, according to GETV's tax statements.

He also received $411,561 in benefits from GETV, including contributions to a retirement package for highly paid executives the IRS calls a "rabbi trust," so named because the first beneficiary of such an irrevocable trust was a rabbi.

The John Hagee Rabbi Trust includes a $2.1 million 7,969-acre ranch outside Brackettville, with five lodges, including a "main lodge" and a gun locker. It also includes a manager's house, a smokehouse, a skeet range and three barns.

Taken together, his payment package, $842,005 in compensation and $414,485 in benefits, was one of the highest, if not the highest, pay package for a nonprofit director in the San Antonio area in 2001.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/tv_preachers/tv_preachers7.html

[libbylu]

Here is a link if you are inclined to read it you will probably understand. Krauthammer, and he is dead on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120601966.html
little excerpt:
The appealing aspects of Huckabee’s politics and persona account for much of this. But part of his rise in Iowa is attributable to something rather less appealing: playing the religion card. The other major candidates — John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson — either never figured out how to use it or had the decency to refuse to deploy it.

Huckabee has exploited Romney’s Mormonism with an egregious subtlety. Huckabee is running a very effective ad in Iowa about religion. “Faith doesn’t just influence me,” he says on camera, “it really defines me.” The ad then hails him as a “Christian leader.”

Forget the implications of the idea that being a “Christian leader” is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office. Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It’s a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext — who’s the Christian in this race? — would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear.

Well, Huckabee is running against Romney (the other GOP candidates are non-factors in Iowa), and he knows that many Christian conservatives, particularly those who have an affinity with Huckabee’s highly paraded evangelical Christianity, consider Romney’s faith a decidedly non-Christian cult.

Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. “If I’m invited to be the president of a theological school, that’ll be a perfectly appropriate question,” he says, “but to be the president of the United States, I don’t know that that’s going to be the most important issue that I’ll be facing when I’m sworn in.”

Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one. And he’s not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open — the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

And by Huckabee’s own logic, since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a “Christian leader” in an ad promoting himself for president? Answer: Having the issue every which way. Seeming to take the high road of tolerance by refusing to declare Mormonism a cult, indeed declaring himself above the issue — yet clearly playing to that prejudice by leaving the question ambiguous, while making sure everyone knows that he, for one, is a “Christian leader.”

[Eccl 10:2]

If a strong third party candidate like Bloomberg runs and splinters the vote, a voting bloc like the evangelicals (20% of the voters, give or take) could be large enough to decide the race.

If three Socialists run (say, Hillary, Bloomberg, and Rudy), a fourth party of Conservatives/Evangelicals could easily win.

[narses]

The swing vote will be the Catholic vote this year.

[unspun]

Obama can do it and Huckabee can’t?

[nwrep]

John Hagee hasn’t said anything about the Catholic Church that isn’t true.

Hagee's theological improvisations and inconsistencies are of greater concern to me than anything he has said about the Catholic Church.

[vaudine]

"At least it's genuine when Pastor Mike speaks at a Church."

Maybe! Maybe not!

What it is---is ill advised. This man who would lead the western world is going to have to be willing to be president to all. He will offend a lot of people--Catholic and otherwise, me among them.

I had a Catholic grandmother and a full gospel, evangelical grandmother. They were each devout and had a great respect for each other, and both were women of great faith and personal strengths.

This is truly Hucksterish.

vaudine