3 responses to “Is George W. Bush a Heretic?”

1. 

   Steve

   July 19, 2007

   “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.

   Reply
2. 

   George P. Wood

   July 19, 2007

   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

   Reply
3. 

   KS

   July 20, 2007

   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.

   Reply