Posted on 02/12/2003 8:35:27 PM PST by rwfromkansas
In the spring of 1999, as George W. Bush was about to announce his run for President, he agreed to be interviewed about his religious faith -- grudgingly. "I want people to judge me on my deeds, not how I try to define myself as a religious person of words."
It's hard to believe that's the same George W. Bush as now. Since taking office -- and especially in the last weeks -- Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern president. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology – from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.
On Thursday (Feb.6) at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence. ... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
Calvin, whose ideas are critical to contemporary evangelical thought, focused on the idea of a powerful God who governs "the vast machinery of the whole world."
Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:
-- After Bush's Sept. 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the president and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought -- God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the president responded.
In that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.
At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty" while comforting the families of the shuttle astronauts during the Houston memorial service on Feb. 4.
-- In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said the nation puts its confidence in the loving God "behind all of life, and all of history" and that "we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now."
In addition to these public statements indicating a divine intervention in world events, there is evidence Bush believes his election as president was a result of God's acts.
A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported, "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.
"All sorts of warning signals ought to go off when a sense of personal chosenness and calling gets translated into a sense of calling and mission for a nation," says Robin Lovin, a United Methodist ethicist and professor of religion and political thought at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Lovin says what the president seems to be lacking is theological humility and an awareness of moral ambiguity.
Richard Land, a top Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the White House, argues that Bush's sense of divine oversight is part of why he has become such a good wartime leader. He brings a moral clarity and self-confidence that inspires Americans and scares enemies. "We don't inhabit that relativist universe (of European leaders)," Land says. "We really believe some things are good and some things bad."
It's even possible that Bush's belief in America's moral rightness makes the country's military threats seem more genuine because the world thinks Bush is "on a mission."
Presidents have always used Scripture in their speeches as a source of poetry and morality, according to Michael Waldman, President Clinton's chief speechwriter, author of "POTUS Speaks" and now a visiting professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Lincoln, he says, was the first president to use the Bible extensively in his speeches, but one of the main reasons was that his audience knew the Bible -- Lincoln was using what was then common language. Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1912 speech to the Progressive Party, closed with these words: "We stand at the edge of Armageddon." Carter, Reagan and Clinton all used Scripture, but Waldman says their use was more as a "grace note."
Bush is different, because he uses theology as the guts of his argument. "That's very unusual in the long sweep of American history," Waldman says.
Bush has clearly seen a divine aspect to his presidency since before he ran. Many Americans know the president had a religious conversion at age 39, when he, as he describes it, "came to the Lord" after a weekend of talks with the Rev. Billy Graham. Within a year, he gave up drinking and joined a men's Bible study group at First United Methodist Church in Midland, Texas. From that point on, he has often said, his Christian faith has grown.
Less well known is that, in 1995, soon after he was elected Texas governor, Bush sent a memo to his staff, asking them to stop by his office to look at a painting entitled "A Charge to Keep" by W.H.D. Koerner, lent to him by Joe O'Neill, a friend from Midland. The painting is based on the Charles Wesley hymn of the same name, and Bush told his staff he especially liked the second verse: "To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill; O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will." Bush said those words represented their mission. "What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves."
By 1999, Bush was saying he believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." He talked of being inspired to run for president by a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mark Craig, pastor of Bush's Dallas congregation, Highland Park United Methodist Church.
Craig talked about the reluctance of Moses to become a leader. But, said Mr. Craig, then as now, people were "starved for leadership" -- leaders who sacrifice to do the right thing. Bush said the sermon "spoke directly to my heart and talked about a higher calling." But in 1999, as he prepared to run for president, he was quick to add in an interview: "Elections are determined by human beings."
Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999.
At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next president. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK." Land points out that Bush didn't say that God actually wanted him to be president. He said he believed God wanted him to be president.
During World War II, the American Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about God's role in political decision-making. He believed every political leader and every political system falls short of absolute justice -- that the Allies didn't represent absolute right and Hitler didn't represent absolute evil because all of us, as humans, stand under the ultimate judgment of God. That doesn't mean politicians can't make judgments based on what they believe is right; it does mean they need to understand that their position isn't absolutely morally clear.
"Sometimes Bush comes close to crossing the line of trying to serve the nation as its religious leader, rather than its political leader," says C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a clergy-led liberal lobbying group.
Certainly, European leaders seem to be bothered by Bush's rhetoric and it possibly does contribute to a sense in Islamic countries that Bush is on an anti-Islamic "crusade."
Radwan Masmoudi, executive director of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, worries about it. "Muslims, all over the world, are very concerned that the war on terrorism is being hijacked by right-wing fundamentalists, and transformed into a war, or at least a conflict, with Islam. President Bush is a man of faith, and that is a positive attribute, but he also needs to learn about and respect the other faiths, including Islam, in order to represent and serve all Americans."
In hindsight, even Bush's inaugural address presaged his emerging theology. He quoted a colonist who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Then Bush said: "Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, `our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.'
"We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.
"This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
Jesus is against war??? Oh really!!
Numbers 31
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
Deuteronomy 20
1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
2 And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people,
3 And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them;
Ecclesiastes 3
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Jean
"War is evil. But it is necessary when peace and good order are threatened. This basic fact has been glossed over by years of leftist propaganda in the media and especially in education.
No longer the transmission of the body of knowledge, education has been used as a brainwashing tool to teach an anti-Christian and amoral philosophy. The Holy City of Jerusalem has been replaced with the Liberated City of Sodom.
And do not think for one moment that we as Orthodox Christians have not been touched or influenced by these seeds of secularism. Even in the Church, today there are many who have become totally secularized, thinking that they can indeed serve God and Mammon. In the 1920s, Archpriest Valentin (see below) preached fervently about this.
St John the Baptist when asked by the soldiers what should they do, answered: “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3: 14).
St John did not tell the soldiers to lay down their arms.
Pacifism is not a Christian principle. St Sergei of Radonezh blessed the soldiers before they went into battle. During the combat the saint prayed for the souls who died bravely fighting against the Tartars.
St Nikolai of Japan blessed the Orthodox soldiers in the Japanese Army before they fought the Russians. For this the Tsar decorated St Nikolai for defending his adopted country. During WW2, the late Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco served in the trenches with the Serbian Army. He ministered to the wounded and dying, not just in the safety of the Field Hospital, but in the trenches. It is said that he was communing a dying soldier when a bullet glanced off the chalice. What did Fr Anthony do? He did not run off and seek cover. He continued his prayers and then only then did he retreat to safety.
And what of Vanya, a lieutenant in the Polish Army at Monte Casino? He prayed that he would not have to kill anyone during combat. God heard his prayer.
Single-handed he stormed a German machine-gun nest and took the enemy prisoner. He told me that he fired into the air, hoping that he would not hurt anyone. The surprised Germans gave up without a fight. Vanya was decorated for bravery. Later St John of Shanghai awarded him a gramota for loyal service to the Church as choirmaster and warden. I had the honour of knowing this brave ‘pacifist’!
Of course these values are totally lost on a generation that has been brought up on left-wing history texts. Should a boy show any signs of manhood, he is immediately referred to the shrink for a course of Ritalin. If this fails, he is made a pariah in our effeminate hedonistic society.
When the Russian writer Solzhenitsyn first came to the west, he warned us that what had happened in Russia would happen on American soil. At that time I thought that what he was predicting was far-fetched nonsense. Today I think differently.
The forces of the antichrist have already gathered in Europe and are making their demands known.
Was Europe founded on sodomy and immorality? Was western civilization the product of socialist serfdom and godless humanism? No. Europe was founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition.
America too was established by God-fearing men who founded that great nation on the basic Christian values, paying tribute to the virtues of sacrifice, honour and courage. Now we are being told that this is all bigotry and we have to consider other religions. We must not offend others with the truth. Not that the left cares about religion. The left hates absolutes except in its own godless religion of socialism.
When I see the ‘No War’ stickers, I wonder whether these people driving their SUVs would start riding bicycles to avoid our need for oil. Would they stop flying in jets? Do they ever consider the brave men and women who gave their lives for the peace we enjoy?
Perhaps we as Orthodox Christians are waging a rear-guard action. Nevertheless it is our duty to sacrifice ourselves as did those before us for what is true, honest, just, pure, is lovely, or of good report.. (Phil 4: 8)
Fr Serafim
Nice try. You ~KNOW~ that's not reality. But you guys just luv to hide behind that every time.
It would seem to me that there SHOULD be NO "opinion" among Romanists if "THE" church's interpretation is, as you say, "inspiried."
If the interpretation is "inspired", there should be NO other opinion.
But we both know that ain't the facts, Jack.
Jean
The bible was written by men under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But I don't think G Larry was alluding to this. There was no protestant Calvinist church until the 16th century. The Catholic Church, as we first heard it called by Ignatius of Antioch in his writings dating back to 107 AD, preserved and stewarded the Sacred Scriptures for all time. Read about the scriptoriums, Mom. That was the Church under the Divine protection of the Holy Spirit. Of course none of this is our doing; all that we are, all that we can do that is good is from God. But it was the Catholic Church nonetheless.
as for the non canonical books..they are not a part of the inspired Hebrew Cannon
Please tell me how you know the difference between the Hebrew Canon and the Septuagint Canon and how you can tell one is Inspired and the other is not. And you can't use the Council of Jamnia (so-called) as an example.
St Jerome...
Everyone who has studied canon knows that Jerome didn't agree on the Deuterocanonicals (at first). So what! There had been four centuries of discourse and debate.
However, as you are always quoting Augustine as if he was some quasi Calvinist; he was the leading proponent of the deuteros as being Inspired and it was the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Hippo ( Who was the Bishop of Hippo? ) that did define the same 73 that we Catholics use today. That, BTW has never changed. The exclusion of the seven was innovative with Protestantism.
Yep.
Polycarp signed up 2002-05-10.
This account has been banned.
BigMack
Polycarp signed up 2002-05-10.
Sorry
BigMack
BigMack
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.