All Comments for: Bush's Heresy | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > July (Web-only)

Christianity Today, July (Web-only), 2007 |

Speaking Out

Bush's Heresy

His hope for Iraq is "more of a theological perspective," he says.

Ted Olsen | posted 7/19/2007 09:08AM

David Brooks's New York Times column Tuesday has launched a fascinating theological discussion among some a-list bloggers. At issue is a statement Bush made while meeting Friday with ten conservative ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 36 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

lr howard

Posted: August 01, 2007 12:50 PM

the diversity of opinion re the spiritual/biblical/political/philosophical/practical understanding of what freedom just exactly is reflects the dilemma any president/preacher/christian/citizen/common-ordinary-commonsensical-thinker faces. It's an "on the one hand but then again on the other hand" quandry - which I don't think will find final resolution until He comes . . . but which doesn't mean we should quit chewing on this bone and doing the very best we can in view of the situation at hand.

Paul	Posted: July 30, 2007 7:22 PM

Kathleen, you were not attacked by Iraq. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he was not an al-Qaeda supporter. The current war shows little sign of transforming Islam and its people with any love for the US version of freedom. I am not justifying Islamic abuse of women or of freedom, but this is not the way to change them. There may be just wars, but this one is a long way from fitting into the category. Freedom is a theological principle, and a gift from God, but it is not one that has ever been aquired under the auspices of global empires, or at the hands of breath-taking military expenditure.

Andrew

Posted: July 29, 2007 5:45 PM


if only we could become the Church Acts portrays....... http://andrewkreider.squarespace.com/

stever

Posted: July 29, 2007 1:58 PM

I have lived in Africa with some of the poorest people in the world under dictatorships and yet the Christians there had hope. In our own country there are so many people suffering addictions and despair and many without hope. Who is better off? Someone who lives in a country with hopeless leadership who knows Jesus Christ? Or someone in a well governed country with all kinds of liberties who has lost hope and doesn't know where to find it? I have lived in the middle east and muslims there are more concerned with western secularism than they are about Christian imperialism. What the west is trying to export is messianic secularism. Do you think the Middle east is better off with a western style democracy? or an effective Christian witness. Is Jesus the hope for the world, or is our way of living what will really set people "free." Christian freedom is way different than how most people view freedom. It is freedom to love and serve God and neighbor. Justice is a good goal for government

Ron	Posted: July 27, 2007 10:57 AM


"Are we all a bunch of heretics?" Yes.

Dave	Posted: July 26, 2007 10:25 PM

I've been reading this stuff for a few weeks and I hope my wife didn't pay for a subscrition. There is not alot we can do about the world in general, but I do wonder if any one reading this stuff puts as much effort into leading the lost to Jesus Christ or do you just work the politcal angle. There is a lasting real peace promised to us through faith. If one were to spend as much effort following Matthew 28 as I see following the politial agenda of CT, maybe someone's world would get better.

David H

Posted: July 26, 2007 6:32 PM

Working for peace, at least for me, has less to do with what God loves and more to do with what Jesus told his followers to do. Love your enemies and do good to those that harm you doesn't leave much room for killing to promote freedom. As for exporting freedom in the name of God, I think our president is once again confusing concepts. The US concept of freedom and the biblical one are different. The freedom Jesus talks about could be enjoyed even by those under a Roman dictator. Most important, as Jesus emphasized with his life, the kingdom of God is not a political system. It isn't my intention to judge the President's faith -- that is between him and God. But clearly his theology stinks if for no other reason that it is self-contradictory. Bush and religious conservatives frequently point out how freedom in this country has gone wildly astray. It is that freedom that allows people abortions and untapped phones. So what is it really that God wants him exporting to other countries?

Randy Myers

Posted: July 25, 2007 12:28 PM

It is interesting to see Evangelicals finally paying attention to Mr. Bush's underlying theology which is more in line with the American Civil Religion than with Christianity. God in Christ does not deliver us to political freedom or economic freedom, for that matter. What God offers in Christ is freedom from condemnation, i.e., salvation. What freedom a Christian has is the freedom to act with responsiblity to the will of God within concrete situations, what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called responsiblity, standing with the most vulnerable in any society. It is here that the present administration has failed in a multitude of ways. The church whether in a democracy or under a totalitarian regime can act as proclaimer of the Word based on its justification and that alone. Mr. Bush and company are espousers of ACR and not historic Christianity. I recall a leader in the Christian Coalition saying you can espouse both ACR and Christianity, but I have always really doubted it.

bobtr900

Posted: July 25, 2007 1:10 AM

Bush, the Republican Party and their enablers; the big corporations, the neocons, and the two big religions, Catholicism,my religion, and the evangelical fundamentalists are all egregiously guilt of all the death for profit they have perpetrated in their destabilizing and possibly complete destruction of the ME. WWJD, He sure would not be killing hundreds of thousands of human beings. And to those who keep insisting Bush and the Rethugs went to war for american security reasons you must ask yourselves every day the same question which is, Why is bin Laden still on the loose when they had him trapped in Dec, 2001. Our Special Forces did a great job of trapping OBL and then Bush let him go. WHY, why and did I ask WHY. Bush and the Bush family are totally complicit with the Saudis, the perpetrators of 9/11, they are all close friends. And again, the neocons and the two big religions are totally complicit in all of this. 'We the people in order to form a more perfect union' are screwed.

Pete	Posted: July 24, 2007 4:46 PM

The cause of freedom will go forward. No matter what. No matter the circumstances. No matter how much effete armchair pontificating. If the whole Iraqi endeavor goes south as it seems it will if/when we pull out, it will go forward because the Iraqi people who last voted will never forget that experience. The image will stay in the mind of the little Iraqi girl I saw in Balad as she looked up to the female police officer wielding the instruments and symbols of authority along side her male counterparts. Come chaos or caliphate, the seed of freedom will germinate and broach the soil ten, thirty, or one hundred years from now.

Gaige M

Posted: July 23, 2007 12:49 AM

Since when are we calling Andrew Sullivan a Christian? The man supported the Iraq War fully until 2004, when Bush floated the idea of a "definition of marriage" Constitutional Amendment, and he's been against it on those grounds alone ever since. The man is one of those, "I can be gay and still a follower of Christ" types, and we're going to him for his opinion of theology? And, Robert, the Commandment is, "Thou shalt not MURDER", which is something entirely different. And come on, people, we follow a guy called the "Lion of Judea", he wasn't the "Hippie of Antiquity" much like to paint Him as.

BobH	Posted: July 23, 2007 12:43 AM


Indeed freedom is a gift from God. Perhaps political freedom is not, but the freedom to receive or reject God and His offer of salvation surely is (sorry Calvinists...). Since such an important decision is ours to freely choose or reject, then certainly God has made us free.

Brian B

Posted: July 22, 2007 10:18 PM

Wow! A bunch of people commenting on a bunch of things that dont matter. Last I checked there are people starving and even worse perishing without the Gospel of Christ. Well when it comes time to check into the kingdom, at least I can tell the Good Lord that I thought Bush was a heritic and I read a bunch of articles from Christianity Today that are trivial at best. I'm sure that will get a long awaited "well done good and faithful servant"

Kathleen Mary

Posted: July 22, 2007 9:16 PM

I think it is despicable for Christians to debate whether God wants all men & women to be free - women are barely citizens in those muslin countries & don't give me PC nonsense. They can be raped & killed to defend their family's honor, they can be hung by the neck from lamp poles for things we might regret but ultimately survive. (premarital sex.) I just despise all you smug Christian theologians who do not hear the screams of women world-wide as they live under the rule of a religion that not only belongs in the dark ages but wants us all to return to the dark ages! I could give you a hundred links & all of them would show you abused womanhood. You all need to do some research into how women are treated & threatened & Islam & come down from your Ivory stone towers and harden hearts - as for war, It is a justifiable war. We were attacked. If we can transform Islam & its people into freedom- loving we will far more good with this war, than bad. There are just wars, people!!!

stevew

Posted: July 22, 2007 6:50 PM


And Iraq was the least free country Bush could find in the whole world? Gimme a break. All the other reasons he used to convince us to invade Iraq have been proven false, so now he's trying the religion gambit. Why should we believe this any more any other he's used?

mike	Posted: July 21, 2007 8:48 PM

Just because a country does not have freedom does not mean we or anybody else should attack them. The Lord has used communism and other forms of harsh and dangerous leadership to bring many people into the Kingdom of God. The church has grown under this and is purer because they have to depend on the Lord to sustain them. Look at China, the church there is said to number over 100 million believers, most that meet in house churches because of the persecution. The same happened in Russia and other oppressive countries. When they see the church here they are suprised at how shallow our faith is. How many of us really depend on the Lord for our daily bread, and how often do we really give thanks for what we have. The Bible is something you can be put in prison for as well as meeting with our brothers and sisters if the government finds you doing this. How many of us would forsake the Lord for our freedom, Many are beaten and killed following Jesus. Let's pray for those whom persec

Len S

Posted: July 20, 2007 11:52 AM

It is amazing 2 me when you blame our Pres. 4 this WAR.We were attacked & eventually we retaliated. Remember the bullies U grew up around? They never quit until someone busted THEIR chops. Peace by strength is the only thing a bullie under-stands & we must remember this. Our youngest son is in the USMC & will be deployed 2 the Middleast in a matter of days & He wants 2 ensure that any children he may have in the future does not live under a dictators leadership. We did not start this fight BUT, if we surrender they WILL be in our own backyards.Is that so hard to understand? If you study War by the Biblical standards you will see that it was allowed so that the Bullies were put down.Many times the Isrealites were told to kill off every living thing so future generations would be able 2 live in Peace.They tried 2 come into our own yards several times during Clinton's term & we did nothing 2 stop them.Dad Bush didn't finish the job & we need 2.We're still in Germany & Korea.

mason

Posted: July 20, 2007 11:03 AM

i do not think that we should very easilty dismiss Jesus' teachings as not being political. i believe that Tom Wright has shown very clearly that Jesus was a political revolutionary and that his message was as political as religious. if i understand Bishop Tom correctly, Jesus would not have separated the two. to claim that Jesus is LORD is both political and theological. the early Christians had to live in that tension and so should we. do we evangelize by the sword or the cross. i think that Boyd is correct in arguing that we best evangelize with the cross (the way of suffering and serving) and not by the sword. i voted for Bush, but i think that he misses the mark here. he needs better advisors if he is going to enter into a theological debate. besides...the hope of the world is not the United States of America....the hope of the world is Jesus. we should never cofuse the too. America can never be seen as the Kingdom of God. it is a great place to live, but it is still fallen.

Lorie

Posted: July 20, 2007 10:08 AM

I have to believe that God is still on the throne and that He raises up leaders to bring about His good and perfect will. When I look at the book of Revelations and if you read the prophesy of Nostradamus and even some Indian cultures, there is a coming time not of peace with well fed, happy, healthy nations; but a time of global disaster. Soldiers in the military and many missionary groups are reporting many conversions in these war torn areas despite fanatical religious zealots on both sides. God is still in control, He still has a plan, and we all need to be in prayer and hold on tight to our faith as the coming times either due to war, natural disaster, or whatever science calls it; are not going to be pretty. Was it God's plan that Christ go to the cross? This was not the mistake on one man's part but God's divine plan.

Sam	Posted: July 20, 2007 12:09 AM

All this "rights language" does not come from the Scriptures, it comes from Kant, furthered by the projects of Thomas Paine, and solidified in the Deism of the founding fathers. Sadly, Christians in America, are generally ignorant of an complexity within church history and theological development. Therefore they assume when a President speaks of God the Almighty he is speaking of the God incarnate in Jesus Christ. This we cannot be sure. This we can be sure is not the case when "freedom" is supposedly advanced by guns and violence in the NAME OF THE ONE WHO DID NOT COMMITT VIOLOENCE ON HUMANITY, BUT TOOK THE VIOLENCE OF HUMANS INTO HIS VERY SELF ON THE CROSS!

Allan

Posted: July 19, 2007 7:26 PM

Are none of us dumb-founded that a theological precept is suppose to correlate to political rhetoric in Bush's statement? How is promoting freedom to the "lost" any different than bringing the gospel to the "heathen?" Would we evangelize through the power of arms, or preach the message with our fingers on our triggers? If our response to the claim that freedom is God's gift to a fallen world is to (effectively) assume that we should enforce that claim through force, than surely we have become not heretics, but pagans whose gods do not describe a holy way of life, but exist to legitimate existing political ideologies. And if that is what the "evangelical" majority is willing to say, by their supporting Bush's rationale for war, then I have a serious critique to make about the "goodness" of the news they are supposed to be proclaiming. If we accept Bush's pro-life stance at the cost of Bush's war, than our notion of "Christian freedom" has truly become meaningless, useful to no one.

Tata	Posted: July 19, 2007 6:51 PM

Another aspect of the problem is that Bush does not have a Theology of his own, just like most of us. Bush's theology has been formed by other past and contemporary professional theologians and pastors. So it is not a matter of blaming Bush alone but the whole nation of US with its war-hungry prophets should be ashamed (ooops who knows what shame is here anyway) and guilty (here we go) with the current theological justification that Bush is suggesting for his continuous self-justified terrorism. This trend, added to the dirty story of the crusades, makes christianity look like a religion of violence like its counterpart Islam. Are we rerpresenting the Lamb of God who, though he could have responded with angelic miliatry might, chose the way of peace and nonviolence? Shame on 'christians' and may the followers of the Lamb live and endure till the end!

Michelle

Posted: July 19, 2007 6:31 PM


I think he means they are using theological reasons ("God loves Peace") to achieve political ends, exactly what Bush is doing.

Bryan

Posted: July 19, 2007 5:49 PM

President Bush's comment, while certainly expressing his theological conviction, was not and is not his primary rational for the war or our continuation in the war. If it were then certainly it could be theology gone a-muck. His view however does inform his decisions about the aspects of the war and what is righteous. He is our president and our country was put on notice by terrorist on, before, and since 9/11 that there are those who see our demise as a country and as a movement as a righteous goal. Our government and our president saw Iraq as one among several foreign govt fostering, quite possibly enabling and participating in that goal. This in addition addition to Hussein's repressive govt and tactics. So, my question is - what are really discussing here? If his recent statement where his primary or sole reason for staying in Iraq then we are onto something and have a substantive topic for discussion. But, I fear a mountain is being made out of a mole hill!

Glenn

Posted: July 19, 2007 5:17 PM

Quips and quotes aside, God does favor freedom. But did He appoint President Bush His personal emissary to bring that freedom to the world? I agree that Mr. Bush is skirting the edges of messainic heresy -- but, then again, all US presidents run perilously close to that. Every time the US enters the global stage, attempting to right some perceived wrong that could threaten world peace, we run the risk of being perceived ourselves as messianic imperialists. Where do we draw the line? I believe Mr. Bush crossed that line when we entered Afgahnistan and Iraq. Both were knee-jerk reactions to radical Islamic threats, and neither actually accomplished peace. Both countries are wracked by civil war between Muslims who also see the US as a threat. Is that a solution that brought "freedom" or peace? I pray that the next president is not so messianic in his or her foreign policy.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment