I agree, in general, with that comment. It's not modernity, though, but the principle of individual interpretation of scripture that is the difference. The Bishop clearly speaks of the theology of the leadership of the Methodist Church and out of that tradition. Bush speaks, well, I'm not certain out of which tradition. Some have said an evangelical tradition. Perhaps..
Of God, and Man, in the Oval Office
washingtonpost.com
By Fritz Ritsch - pastor of Bethesda Presbyterian Church.
Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page B03
...>> "It bothers me that he wraps himself in a cloak of Christianity," said Lois Elieff. "It's not my idea of Christianity." To them, Bush's use of religious language sounds shallow and far more self-justifying than that of other recent political leaders -- including Bush's father.
The most striking characteristic of the younger Bush's use of religion is its relentless triumphalism. American triumphalism is nothing new, of course. Many of the earliest Christian settlers were religious zealots who viewed America as the New Zion, the Promised Land. Today's Americans, whether overtly religious or not, are their spiritual heirs. In my experience, secular Americans are as likely as religious Americans to believe that we are the rightful beneficiaries of some kind of manifest destiny.
But some on the religious right have built a theology around this hope. Many of them believe that America will be at its best if its government submits to their understanding of God's work on Earth. What they have longed for is a Davidic ruler -- a political leader like the Bible's David, who will unite their secular vision of the nation with their spiritual aspirations. All indications are that they believe they have found their David in Bush -- and that the president believes it, too.
Bush's religious supporters are his greatest cheerleaders. Rather than his spiritual guides, they are his faithful disciples. He is the leader of the America they think God has ordained. Contrary to popular opinion, the religion that this group espouses is Triumphalism, not Christianity. Theirs is a zealous form of nationalism, baptized with Christian language. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was martyred by the Nazis, foresaw the rise of a similar view in his country, which he labeled "joyous secularism." Joyous secularists, said Bonhoeffer, are Christians who view the role of government as helping God to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. He viewed this as human arrogance and a denial of God's sovereignty; but joyous secularism has an appeal that crosses religious boundaries, and now has added force in the United States because it has found its political messiah.
In the aftermath of 9/11, people came to church in droves, looking for larger meaning, and then they left again, frustrated. That's a problem churches need to address, not least because our failure to give them what they were looking for may have lent potency to presidential theology. When people were searching for meaning, the president was able to frame that meaning. In a nation of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In a secular society, a president who can confidently quote scripture is that man.
The president confidently (dare I say "religiously"?) asserts a worldview that most Christian denominations reject outright as heresy: the myth of redemptive violence, which posits a war between good and evil, with God on the side of good and Satan on the side of evil and the battle lines pretty clearly drawn.
War is essential in this line of thinking. For God to win, evil needs to be defined and destroyed by God's faithful followers, thus proving their faithfulness. Christians have held this view to be heretical since at least the third century. It is the bread-and-butter theology of fundamentalists, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
In contrast, the Judeo-Christian worldview is that of redemption. Redemption starts from the assumption that all of humanity is flawed and must approach God with humility. No good person is totally good, and no evil person is irredeemable. God's purpose is to redeem all people. Good and evil, while critical, become secondary to redemption.
While most Christian denominations do not reject war altogether, diplomacy becomes integral to our understanding of the practical application of redemption. War becomes the bluntest of blunt instruments because it can never be fully justified. If I can't claim to be completely good, and no one is so evil as to be irredeemable, what right do I have to kill?
Despite our secularism, the United States has rarely been so publicly and politically "Christian" as it is today. Or perhaps it is because of our secularism. We can no longer tell good theology from bad. We mainline denominations need to take our share of the blame: For decades we took it for granted that Christianity and citizenship were inextricably linked, that American power was the natural outgrowth of American righteousness. For too long we, too, preached American triumphalism. We did not remind people of the overarching guidance God gives all people in search of redemption: the necessity of the examined life. Ironically, our triumphalism may have fueled America's secularism. With God on our side, there didn't seem to be much need for self-examination and humility.
It is clear now that a sectarian Christian view of history, a dualism that views war as a kind of redemptive purgative, is having at least some influence on the administration's rhetoric. It is characterized by a stark refusal to acknowledge accountability, because to suggest accountability is to question American purity, which would undermine the secular theology of "good versus evil" inherent in present U.S. policy.
The dominance of the religious right in political affairs makes it appear that a Christian worldview dominates American politics. But if, as I believe, this worldview is really American triumphalism, Christianity has taken a backseat to joyous secularism. Within Christianity and Judaism in this country there are denominations and branches with the philosophical and institutional power and authority to challenge that triumphalism, but bold stands such as the NCC's are still the exception.
With the political emergence of joyous secularism, the churches are challenged to preach an alternative message: grace, hope and redemption -- the truth of Biblical faith. This is both our pastoral and our political responsibility. In a nuclear age, American triumphalism is not only spiritually bereft, it is, quite possibly, apocalyptic in its implications. <<<
...and another...
March 08, 2003
Bush fights the good fight, with a righteous quotation
timesonline.co.uk
Ben Macintyre
>>Not for Bush the grimly inspired ironies
of Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, nor the
poignant, painful questioning of Wilfred Owen.
Instead, every morning at dawn, the US President
devotes himself to the exhortations of Oswald
Chambers, a Scottish evangelist who died while
serving as an army chaplain in Egypt in 1917.
Chambers’s little book, My Utmost for the Highest,
provides a daily devotional commentary alongside a
biblical text. It is uncompromising stuff, “full of
spiritual pluck and athleticism” in the writer’s words,
advocating absolute devotion to the will of God. That
Bush should be reading this before going into battle
says much about the religious belief that permeates
his Administration, and much about the way the
conflict will be fought and interpreted. It is also
central to explaining the disquiet of nations with
embedded secular political traditions, most notably
France, when faced with the most overtly Christian
American President of modern times.
>>The comparisons drawn between Bush’s belief and
Tony Blair’s religious commitment are facile. Blair’s
religion is private, the result of a lifetime’s interest in
theology; that of Bush is all-embracing, public,
intimately linked to his decision to give up drinking
and thus to his rise to the presidency. The key to
Bush’s emotional brand of religion (utterly different
again from the restrained Episcopalianism of his
father) is what one associate calls the “Goodbye
Jack Daniels — Hello Jesus moment”. Bush believes
that God put him in the White House. “Beware of
giving over to mere dreaming once God has spoken,”
is the advice of Chambers. Since the age of 40, it
has also been the guiding principle of Bush’s life.<<
Religion as used by most folks is simply a means to cope with existential dilemma, fine, but when it comes to nation building, the separation of Church and State, the fundamental Idea, can only be upheld through willful conviction. Just like the Constitution, Bush makes no bones about where he stands in this regard.
There is an aspect to Bush’s Christian line that amounts to nothing more than a transparent cloak of morality covering up a dubious, political agenda. Not that he’;s insincere in his beliefs or anything, but in the moral stakes you don’t get points for killing people. Whether you are for or against, the very sad fact of the matter, is that anti abortion programmes that do not include contraception,safe sex education, lead to more pregnancies and abortions not less. I heard on PBS that Saddams mother tried to abort him several times, but this dude has a strong will to live, and I spend too much time thinking about whether he has finally decided to die or not. I wonder how GWB feels about his Saudi friends who outlaw his religion, but whatever I’m fed up to here with moral clarity and two bit self-pronounced messiahs each attempting to promote and profit from their own particular Brand of "end time" scenarios. Marketing a solution is not the same as solving a problem - why are we taking our democracy and exporting it to Iraq?
February 24, 2003
Raze the Church/State Wall? Heaven Help Us!
By Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington Law School.
latimes.com
It is not uncommon for a president to work to undo the policies of his predecessor. Certainly, George W. Bush surprised no one by systemically undoing the work of Bill Clinton. More unnerving are Bush's recent efforts to undo the work of two other former presidents: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Though others, like Thomas Paine, were influential, it was Jefferson and Madison who laid the foundation for our long-held doctrine of the separation of church and state. In recent days, Bush has revealed a comprehensive effort to create his own vision of church-state relations. If successful, Bush may bring about the most fundamental change in American democracy since its creation.
edit: I see LindyBill beat me to it. |
