« Green Acres | Main | Misspoke » Bush's Religion24 Mar 2008 02:44 pm Bloggingheadsing with David Frum, Jacob Weisberg explains that there's almost no content to George W. Bush's understanding of his Christian faith: Of course one might note that there's little real content to Bush's understanding of anything, so it's no surprise that he has a vacuous take on faith as well. Comments (36)
I lived in Texas in 2005 and saw every day what Toynbee called the American religion. They worship themselves, America the Good. 
A gay liberal male Jew and a straight conservative male Jew debate how much Bush knows about Christianity? When do we get to see a couple of Christian bloggers debate what some Jewish pols know about Judaism?
I don't know much about Bush's particular case, but I'm always astonished at the number of self-described religious people who seem to know nothing about their religion. Almost all of the Christians I know (there are a few exceptions)know less about the Bible and about the history of Christian thought than I do, and I don't even go out of my way to learn about these things. Evangelical protestants tend to think in terms of a self-justifying "personal relationship" with Christ that trumps all matters theological and philosophical.
Well, at least he has a deep faith in vacuosity. That's worth something, isn't it?
It's called "objective distance" Fred. As soon as some Jewish pol wins elections based on people voting for him because of his religious beliefs (that he's a good, God-fearin' sort of feller), then perhaps Christian bloggers would be precisely the people who'd have the objective distance to talk about those beliefs. But, other than Holy Joe Lieberman, which pol has been able to do that? Moreover, it seems ter me that, given the uproar over Obama's beliefs, unless you are the right kind of Christian, you wouldn't even get to the Presidency. I think there is a power differential here about which you're being a bit obtuse. We'll see Christians debate about Judaism (and not raise a stink about it) when we Jews have the same political power as Christians (and I don't just mean in the mind of paranoid quasi-anti-Semites).
When do we get to see a couple of Christian bloggers debate what some Jewish pols know about Judaism? When Christian bloggers demonstrate any understanding of the tenets of Judaism, beyond tacking "Judeo-" on the front of right-wing Protestant doctrines? And it's not really that hard to set up contrasts between, say, the Gospels or the Epistle of James, and virtually everything George W. Bush does. (Yeah, that's true of a great many religious adherents, especially politicians, but there's supposed to be at least a smidgen of aspiration. Even Paul would probably consider mocking someone you've condemned to death as being a bit beyond the pale.)
I've heard that Bush has an extremely nuanced understanding of towel snapping.
American's are without question the most theologically inept and ignorant of religious peoples. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
David Frum is a loathsome liar. Not as bad as Ari Fleisher. But pretty doggone bad.
This has been one of Bush's greatest, most glaring idiosyncracies since his first appearance on the national stage. It was obvious from the start that his religious views, and their influence on his political message, were based in no way on Christianity as presented in the scriptures. When, during the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush identified Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher, it was perplexing to see Evangelicals flock to him as one of their own. As an Evangelical, albeit one with very extremely liberal political views, I laughed. The statement was ridiculous. For us, Jesus transcends such nonsense. In fact, He transcends every conceit of the mind of man. He is our Savior. He cannot be defined by politics. During his re-election campaign in 2004, Bush was asked by a reporter if he believed non-Christians - Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews - were bound for hell, or if they could get into heaven along with Christians. He said he believed that everybody was going to heaven, but that non-Christians were simply pursuing a different path to get there. Now, well-meaning people can disagree on this as a matter of theology, but according to the Bible, there is only one way to get to heaven, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. Period. No Evangelical Christian with even a superficial understanding of the faith would say such a thing. The fact that Bush said it indicated one of two things: The quote received almost no coverage. If it had been widely publicized, I have always wondered, would it have cost Bush any support among his loyal Evangelical constituency? The answer is: probably not. As shallow and content-free as Bush's religious views seem to be, they are no more vapid than the demonstrated views of the majority of politically-active Evangelicals. The policies that these people have supported through the seven years of George W. Bush's presidency are unrecognizable as anything Christians are taught in the scriptures. Whom, for example, would Jesus torture? Whom would he bomb? Whom would he refuse to feed or clothe or heal? As a messenger of Christianity, I have always considered Bush a complete fraud, and have marveled at the inability or unwillingness of my brethren to see through his charade.
This has been one of Bush's greatest, most glaring idiosyncracies since his first appearance on the national stage. It was obvious from the start that his religious views, and their influence on his political message, were based in no way on Christianity as presented in the scriptures. When, during the 2000 Republican primaries, Bush identified Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher, it was perplexing to see Evangelicals flock to him as one of their own. As an Evangelical, albeit one with very extremely liberal political views, I laughed. The statement was ridiculous. For us, Jesus transcends such nonsense. In fact, He transcends every conceit of the mind of man. He is our Savior. He cannot be defined by politics. During his re-election campaign in 2004, Bush was asked by a reporter if he believed non-Christians - Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews - were bound for hell, or if they could get into heaven along with Christians. He said he believed that everybody was going to heaven, but that non-Christians were simply pursuing a different path to get there. Now, well-meaning people can disagree on this as a matter of theology, but according to the Bible, there is only one way to get to heaven, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. Period. No Evangelical Christian with even a superficial understanding of the faith would say such a thing. The fact that Bush said it indicated one of two things: The quote received almost no coverage. If it had been widely publicized, I have always wondered, would it have cost Bush any support among his loyal Evangelical constituency? The answer is: probably not. As shallow and content-free as Bush's religious views seem to be, they are no more vapid than the demonstrated views of the majority of politically-active Evangelicals. The policies that these people have supported through the seven years of George W. Bush's presidency are unrecognizable as anything Christians are taught in the scriptures. Whom, for example, would Jesus torture? Whom would he bomb? Whom would he refuse to feed or clothe or heal? As a messenger of Christianity, I have always considered Bush a complete fraud, and have marveled at the inability or unwillingness of my brethren to see through his charade.
Least favorite Canadian.
I don't see Evangelicals as less intelligent, per se, than those of other persuasions but there is a definite anti-intellectual bent. I remember an article a little while back illuminating how evangelicals were embracing the reasoning of certain Catholic intellectuals because their own circle had so denigrated critical analysis that there were precious few Evangelical intellectuals left.
Wow, UncommonSense. Well said. (And I'm an atheist.) Glad to have well-spoken guys like you on our side.
....Evangelical protestants tend to think in terms of a self-justifying "personal relationship" with Christ that trumps all matters theological and philosophical. Precisely. Individualism has always been the appeal therein, no "Papist" as gatekeeper about you what you should and shouldn't know about the Bible, no Anglican/King aristocracy filtering everything and muddying it up with ritual and liturgy. There's you, the text, and god. Getting other opinions/interpretations from group meeting with your favorite preacher personality leading, or "Bible Study Group" are merely "sharing." Evangelicalism is both populist and individualist through and through, always has been. The growth of its appeal in "the new world" as opposed to "the old world" is no mystery. It's the same reason "cafeteria Catholicism" is a problem for the Vatican in the U.S.
Fred: "When do we get to see a couple of Christian bloggers debate what some Jewish pols know about Judaism?" Ever heard of a guy named Hagee, Fred?
If I'm not mistaken, there's a semi-famous quote about Abraham Lincoln to the effect that Lincoln was not a Christian but that he was a Protestant. Perhaps one could say similar a similar thing about the current president: Bush is not a Christian, but he is an Evangelical. -- Which, of course, is not literally true, but it might help to get at the difference between Bush's relative disinterest in the content of belief and his belief "in religion" itself as a political and moral(izing) force.
I think this is probably true for all politicians who wear religion on their sleeves. That's why the authors like Amy Sullivan who focus on advising Democrats on how to win the evangelical vote are full of shit.
Maybe the word you're looking for is "depth".
Jacob Weisberg is gay? You sure about that, Fred? (Or are you saying Frum is?)
Re: The fact that Bush said it indicated one of two things: There are Christian churches (including very major ones like the RCC, the Orthodox and the Anglicans) who allow for the possibility that non-Christians may be saved. So I think you need to cut Bush some slack here. He's in good company.
Uncommon Sense, The Anglican and Catholic churches allow that one may be not be a Christian but yet be saved through the grace of Christ. I believe that the same is true of the Orthodox? I'm a believer in Christ but I don't believe one must be a member of the church to be saved. "In my Father's house are many mansions."
Evangelical protestants tend to think in terms of a self-justifying "personal relationship" with Christ that trumps all matters theological and philosophical. But doesn't this capture *an* essence of Christianity, this anti-intellectualism? I think it does. Desptie Bush's dontrinal ignorance - or more likely, dissembling; he's very good at that - Bush, in a sense, embodies perfectly the marriage of Christianity and politics. Naturally, disaster ensues.
jacob not gay unless deborah needleman is male
So, is Weisberg's gambit the same as those Republican's who publicly doubt the religious convictions of their partisan rivals? Have we relinquished the high road?
Yes, Weisberg and Frum are secular Jews. But more importantly, they really don't seem to know very much about religion and I wonder if they've thought about it much more than Bush himself has. Kraz is right. American Christianity is itself atheological. This is not a Bush thing. American church goers don't know much about theological differences, the history of their particular demoninations, etc. So Bush's lack of sophistication is not just the same as his lack of sophisitication in other things, it is about at the same level as American Christians' lack of sophistication. The kind of theological fastidiousness you see in people like Richard John Neuhaus is not even universal at First Things. Damon Linker was very far from being a theological thinker. There actually almost zero political commentators who know anything about religion in the sense that Weisberg expects Bush to know about it. There are some good religion journalists out there, but these people don't get to be pundits. I also think Weisberg's point about Bush using his Christianity is grossly unfair. It's the kind of point made about any politician who is a really good fit with some particular form of ethnic or cultural identity that the speaker happens not to like. So Obama is very skillfully "using" his race; or perhaps he just is the kind of person that African-Americans can identify with and like.
A key point is being missed here by people trying to defend Bush: His religious beliefs seem to have nothing there because he's a complete contradiction of basic Christian beliefs. Sit down and read the gospels and then try to figure out any way in which Bush's political, ideological, or personal actions reflect the lessons of Jesus Christ. The criticism is not that he doesn't know the difference between Methodist and Southern Baptist. The key criticism is that he claims a deep spiritual life that he says guides his every action, yet there seems to be no underlying structure or system or even common thread to his beliefs. He's said he loves Jesus and that's all he's said. Years and years ago he talked about faith-based initiatives but his argument was simply that religion is good. He seems to have no opinion on what Jesus requires or wants of him to be saved. Jesus' works for the poor and demands that the rich will have the hardest time getting into heaven are not even considered by him. In short, Bush uses "God" as a vague bludgeon to justify anything he does. After 10 years in the public eye as a self-avowed born again Christian he has not demonstrated in even the slightest detail just what effect Jesus has supposedly had on his actions or beliefs.
Uncommon sense is right. Evangelicals are individuals belonging to Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ. Evangelicals therefore take the "no man comes to the Father but through me" command very seriously. Jesus is the Savior for them. Period, no discussion. If Bush is running around saying that other religions who don't believe in Jesus as the Savior are going to heaven then he is not an Evangelical. Hence the reason the Evangelicals were miffed at his statement. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35787 It's difficult to determine what is in someone's heart regarding faith. But we can see alot of it through thier actions. And Bush's actions do not correspond with what many people would define as Evangelical or even Christian. I think Politics is his religion.
Perhaps one could say similar a similar thing about the current president: Bush is not a Christian, but he is an Evangelical I can't remember who said it, but there is a quote that goes something along the lines of, "In Italy, everyone is Catholic, even the atheists." Bush is a cultural evangelical. It's all the more bizarre because he wasn't raised evangelical, and his family isn't evangelical, but he adopted the evangelical identity just as he adopted a west texas identity... and particularly with his evangelical identity, he didn't adopt this until later in life. Bush's identification with evangelical Christianity is particularly odd because if we had a president who was of Irish or Italian descent and nominally-Catholic-but-not-devout, his identification as a Catholic would be credible, in that he was raised in the religion and surrounded by it. By contrast, Bush manages to be a nominally-evangelical-but-not-devout person seeped in evangelical-culture by choice. Instead of converting to a faith, he adopted a culture, and "converting" to a cultural-Christianity you're not devout about but taking it as an identity you publicly proclaim just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Weisberg isn't gay? Sorry, then. His lisp and voice made me assume he was. Though if he it turns out he is gay and is in the closet, I will retract my apology.
I lived in Texas in 2005 and saw every day what Toynbee called the American religion. They worship themselves, America the Good. (Gary Sugar) Yeah, very good. And, furthermore...Toynbee is on record for essentially calling Judaism a gutter religion. (his 'Playboy' interview- sometime in '67)
Bush's religion is privilege, power and money - and occasionally booze.
But more importantly, they really don't seem to know very much about religion and I wonder if they've thought about it much more than Bush himself has. This would be the Jacob Weisberg who wrote an opinion piece that argued that: 1-Adherents of religions with weird beliefs should be disqualified from being president. 2-Unless, of course, the religion and the weird beliefs in question are thousands of years old.
I think he's the type of "christian" who says, "I've been saved, I can do whatever the fuck I want as long as I ask for forgiveness on my death bed". I know a hell of a lot of that type.
Not all men who lisp are gay, Fred.
Comments closed April 07, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Touche'
Posted by steve duncan | March 24, 2008 3:08 PM