Recently, during an interview with ten conservative journalists, the president made the following remark:
The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it’s hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It’s idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.
Over at Christianity Today, Ted Olsen surveys conservative responses to Bush’s remark, including this potty-mouthed response by Russ Douthat:
I think Andrew lets Bush off too easily when he says "as a very abstract theological principle, it’s hard for a fellow Christian to disagree" with the President’s contention that "a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom." On the one hand, there’s nothing ‘abstract’ about that particular Christian principle: The gift of freedom that Christ promises is far more real than anything else in this world, if Christian teaching on the matter is correct. On the other hand, there’s nothing that’s political about that promise, and the attempt to transform God’s promise of freedom through Jesus Christ into a this-world promise of universal democracy is the worst kind of "immanentizing the eschaton" utopian bull****. It’s Hegel meets Woodrow Wilson meets James Kurth’s ‘Protestant Deformation‘ meets the American heresy [Douthat apparently means David Gerlernter‘s "Americanism" more than Pope Leo XIII‘s], and Christians and conservatives alike ought to be appalled by it.
To which, Ted Olsen responds:
We’ve seen similar statements from Bush throughout his presidency, and we’ve seen conservative Christians disagreeing. But it is new that people like Douthat, who supported the war, are declaring Bush’s rationale heretical.
This hits on what I think is the biggest question for western Christians right now: Should Christians in democracies work to make governmental actions reflect biblical priorities? If God loves human "freedom," should we then get the government to act for "freedom" worldwide? If God loves the poor, should we get the government to enact polices aimed at reducing (or eliminating) poverty?
Touchstone provided an interesting answer in a recent editorial. "[W]e know abortion is murder but do not know what God would have us do about global warming," the magazine stated. The implication is that we know what God would have us do about abortion — but even prolife allies who agree that God wants his people to work for a governmental ban disagree on what the ban should look like and how to work for it.
Many evangelicals who agree with Douthat’s criticism of Bush argue that it is their Christian obligation to work against the Iraq war because "God loves peace." Thus they employ the same logic as Bush. Are we all a bunch of heretics?
That’s a good question.
GeorgePWood.com 
“Should Christians in democracies work to make governmental actions reflect biblical priorities? If God loves human “freedom,” should we then get the government to act for “freedom” worldwide? If God loves the poor, should we get the government to enact polices aimed at reducing (or eliminating) poverty?”
These are good questions that my friend Ted asks. My sense is that we have to be careful in identifying the correct principles from Scripture and then not dogmatic or foolish in applying them. I am more confident in the principle Bush identifies than in the way he has applied it.
To be specific, there are principleS–plural–of freedom in Scripture, and not all of them are political, as Douthat rightly points. The chief is the Apostle Paul’s teaching about freedom from sin, the freedom of a believer in a right relationship with God, which only indirectly, circuitously impacts politics. To be sure, there is a principle of liberation–running from Exodus through Philemon and, I would argue, even the Apocalypse of John–but, again, God covenantal activity in history is consistently seen as the primary agency, with us serving as subordinate actors. Unless you want to be a heretical Hegelian, the Christian must insist that the freedom of a nation is not equivalent to the agency of God. Politics, politicians and parties are indirect, and rather blunt agents of liberation. Then, there is the imago dei, which is related to the liberation narrative and grounds a basic respect for human dignity, and–by extension, ‘human rights.’ Again, there is a political implication of this principle, but we have to be careful of aligning it too much with political ideologies and agendas, because our ways are rarely God’s.
One final thought: I do think Bush is less of an evangelical than most think. His comments smack of the patrician Episcopalian faith of his father. That kind of civic religion defines the president’s faith, I suspect, more than a evangelical, biblical Christianity.
Steve:
I agree with the thrust of your reply. Like you, I think we must be careful–even wary–about the theological significance politicians attach to words such as freedom, peace, and justice. I am quite skeptical of Democratic pols when they do so, and I’m becoming more skeptical of Republican pols when they do so. (As a Republican, I’m a bit slow to see the faults in my own people, which is why I read your blog. You’re a much more critical reader than I.)
Whether Bush is an evangelical Christian is beyond my ken. One the one hand, his self-described deliverance from alcoholism fits into the master narrative of evangelical conversion; it is highly personal and practical. On the other hand, you’re probably right that “civic religion” also drives his actions. But I’m wondering if you’re not overlooking a third alternative, namely, that Bush’s religion is an expression of the evangelical civic religion that dominated American politics throughout the 19th Century.
George
To my knowledge, President Bush has only admitted to drinking to excess, and he has never applied the words “alcoholic” or “alcoholism” to himself. So, he couldn’t have a self-described deliverance from alcoholism, but I guess I know what you mean.
We miss you at SCG.