Posted on 10/27/2001 4:03:19 PM PDT by Pokey78
Everyone who knows him will tell you the same thing. George W Bush is a deeply religious man. That's not to say he's pious. His easy nicknames for journalists, his tangled baseball analogies, his constant outbursts of chuckles do not connote a man of solemn devotion. Compared with the ostentatious sanctimony of Jimmy Carter, Bush seems urbane, even sassy.
But this shouldn't fool you. Bush believes that he was personally saved by God from a life of heavy drinking and irresponsibility. From the day Billy Graham took a walk with him and urged him to start his life anew, Bush has been a different man. And since September 11, he has been a different man altogether.
Nobody seems to doubt the spiritual context for this. The day of his speech to Congress on September 20, Bush did not spend the afternoon conferring with aides or even speech-writers. He spent it with religious leaders of all denominations. And at the end of the day, a telling moment occurred. James Merritt, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, told the president: "I believe you are God's man for this hour. God's hand is on you." The president nodded. "I accept the responsibility," he replied. Whatever others think, this is what Bush believes; not in a messianic way but as one of those odd occurrences that the Almighty sometimes decides to bestow on the unlikeliest of people.
He was like this before September 11. His inaugural speech, when you look back on it, was full of religious imagery. He spoke of an "angel riding in the whirlwind". He invoked "a power larger than ourselves, Who creates us equal in His image". He spoke of "history's Author, Who fills time and eternity with His purpose".
These words come naturally to him. Bush begins most days reading the Bible and is as regular with his private prayers as with the treadmill. "I don't think anyone out there truly understands how important his faith is to this man," one of his aides told me a few months back. Perhaps part of this is due to Bush's life story. He was the first son, but he wasn't the first child in his family. His elder sister died of leukaemia when he was a child, thrusting him into the first-child role he never sought, while his mother grieved and leant on him. He never expected to be in public life and goofed off for years. His younger brother, Jeb, was supposed to be the next president, not W.
And from then on, surprise after surprise. He was not expected to beat an incumbent vice-president at a time of unparalleled prosperity. He did not win the popular vote, and asked himself what it meant that he had become president in such awkward circumstances. He carried on as if the riddle of his good fortune and awesome responsibility would at some point be solved for him.
September 11 solved it. "I think, in his frame, this is what God has asked him to do," a friend of his told The New York Times. "It offers him enormous clarity." Another friend opined that Bush had "begun a new life that is inextricably bound to September 11 and all that it implies". Look at the language Bush has employed. He uses the word "evil" with constant emphasis. Osama Bin Laden is an "evil man", the "evil one".
As Fred Barnes, the political journalist, noticed, the September 20 speech was also an exercise in psychological projection. "In our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment," Bush said. "The country is called to defend freedom." Nobody needs to ask who had done the calling. Or who, apart from the country, had been called.
Nobody should confuse the faith of George W with more conventional Christian right belief. There are times when Bush seems almost embarrassingly ecumenical. One of his most beloved policy initiatives is the creation of "faith-based" social policy. But, apart from his campaign disaster of giving a speech at the uber-Protestant Bob Jones University, he has bent over backwards to avoid denominational edge. He has insisted that the focus of pro-life work (a view he shares) should not be imposing laws but changing hearts. His early insistence after September 11 that American Muslims deserved respect and protection was not merely good politics and good policy. It was heartfelt.
Like Tony Blair, we ignore this man's spiritual core at our peril. Its main consequence right now has been what insiders are calling a laser-beam concentration on the war on terrorism. Bush believes this is now his mission. It is not a job; it is not an adventure. It is a vocation. Bush seems determined to avoid any hostility with the Democrats. This has many conservatives worried, and it may indeed mean more public spending than is prudent. All this, in his mind, must be subjugated to what God has called him to.
And this, I think, explains the uncanny composure of the man. No president since John Kennedy in 1963 has been put under such intense stress in a national emergency. Yet Bush seems calm and happy. He doesn't stay up all night; he exercises and plays with his dog. His underrated wife plays a part in this. And so, too, do Bush's well-honed executive skills. He knows how to delegate. Above all, like many former drunks, he knows psychologically how to delegate to a higher power.
I don't think it's too great a stretch to see this war as a religious one. It's between the frenzied fanaticism of one man, and the calm, sustaining faith of another. I have no doubt which one will crack first.
BTW, the word "pious" has changed it's meaning radically in the last century. The original meaning was reverent, religious or devout. But so many people have only heard the word used in phrases like "pious hypocrite" or "pious fraud," that they presume it means hypocritical or fraudulent or sanctimonious.
Actually a slow going war may be better since we are in such upheaval now. It will allow us time to adjust to the reality of war.
A good article by Andrew Sullivan.
George W.Bush is trying his best to be the President to all American's and I believe he is succeeding very nicely.
The President may have been dealt a bad hand by Satan on 9-11, but his faith in God, along with his strong character, solid integrity and love of America will enable him to make it through this extremely difficult time.
His name is James Robison, and I am very glad these two are friends. Robison is from Texas. When W decided to run, Pastor Robison said W told him he'd "heard the call," he was going to run for president, and said James was the sixth person he called to tell. And he specifically called to ask James and Betty (his wife) to pray for him.
From what I've seen of James and Betty Robison, I really like them and their heart for God and His people. They seem very balanced, decent, and loving.
But the author knows that this is not an unkind comment to a Christian who knows he has been saved by God's grace. Regardless of the author's personal beliefs, he understands that Christians believe that God sometimes calls the most unlikeliest of people--Paul, of course, being the prime example.
Who would have thought, when Dubya was drinking heavily, that he would go on to become president of the United States?
I also was uncomfortable with the implication that he wasn't really a believer until that talk with Billy Graham, whereas in his biography he talks about that moment as being a time that he "recommitted" his life to Christ. There is an important difference, IMO.
The final comment in the article again draws a very uncomfortable parallel between GW and "former drunks" that I find rather offensive.
The overall gist of the article I like. I think it's long past time that people began writing articles about the President's strong faith, because it's very obvious in his leadership and IMO it's the only thing that's going to see him and us through this crisis. But it would be nice if there weren't all these backhanded slams against him, particularly when they're unsubstantiated and there is no real evidence presented.
-penny
I live in Seattle, and practically any mainline church up here is unbearably liberal including the United Methodist Church. I'm so thankful to know it's not like that in other parts of the country.
-penny
While I can grant the author that, if the veiled accusations about GWB's drinking aren't verified he shouldn't have mentioned it the way that he did. Perhaps it was not meant unkindly, and the author felt he needed to make the conversion story more dramatic so he played the drinking angle up in order to add to the drama. IMO, it was not an ethical way to do so and was entirely unnecessary.
Is there any real proof to the seemingly widely-accepted idea that GW was a heavy drinker prior to his giving up drinking altogether? I mean, beyond that DWI that hit the press in the middle of his campaign.... I don't like assuming that just because people act as though it's true I should just believe it without seeing any evidence myself, but I also don't want to make an idiot of myself by continuing to question it if it's a proven fact.
-penny
The restraints of law and future Clintons have little in common...
Remember my bumper sticker "Help is on the way." We desperately needed a man who walks with God and enough of us prayed for him even before he became president and still do. Enjoy your Sunday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.