All Comments for: Bush's 'Theological Perspective' | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > September

Christianity Today, September, 2007 |

TIDINGS

Bush's 'Theological Perspective'

U. S. presence in Iraq is 'allowing for the inevitable to happen.'

Ted Olsen | posted 8/28/2007 08:43AM

Why is President George W. Bush still so upbeat about the war in Iraq? In his own words, it's his theology.

In a July 13 meeting with nine conservative journalists, the President described his belief in ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

David Cockburn

Posted: September 05, 2007 7:46 AM

Where is the Jesus who was prepared to suffer and die for his beliefs - but not to kill - in this? In shock and awe? Love God, neighbours, and ENEMIES. The whole of Jesus life, death and resurrection was the demonstration of God loving his enemies enough to do what it took to transform enemies firstly into friends, then into family. So do GWB's actions reflect the faith and actions of Jesus? it seems to me that the evidence indicates they do not.

Ohlman

Posted: September 05, 2007 6:47 AM


Thank you for your comments. They reflect ground than that of the other commentators. It's about time that people stop demonizing our President. Marv Beukelman

Daniel

Posted: September 04, 2007 11:45 PM

It is one thing to act out his convictions as a professing christian and to totally disregard the entirety of the biblical principles a Christian should and ought to live on - Love God and to love others. To use democracy and freedom as excuses to war, and sending thousands of innocent soldiers on his own agenda on the pretext of Christian faith and some random quotes from the bible is simply unacceptable. How can this president use one small part of what's required of us from the Scripture and so conveniently neglected the overwhelming majority of the scriptures for his own agenda? Can he by all godly conscience testify that he did not bear false witness to the WMD as the reason for war, or that this war has nothing to do with any plots to control the oil flowing under Iraq or the billions of commercial opportunities that are opened as the result of this war?

InChrist

Posted: September 04, 2007 1:20 PM

I agree with the above poster(http.whatwouldntjesusdo). I have never supported Mr. Bush and have found it hard to believe his Christianity. It is not for me to judge, but with "faith comes works," i.e., love, peace, compassion, etc. "By their works ye shall know them." I gave him a chance, but I gave up shortly after the duct tape and plastic on your house windows advice came out! I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ are "wising up." I pray that they are. Too many Americans do not seek out the truth themselves, but just listen to the local preacher, or the local newspaper (if that), or their neighbors. The best advice I can give to those younger than I (as I am an elderly person) is to consult your Bible, read/listen to various news sources, pray, and then make an opinion. We have done that and have been led away from this administration.

rockonjd

Posted: September 01, 2007 11:12 PM

The last paragraph, a quote from President Bush, seems to create more questions that he apparently is trying to address: if one takes the time to really read it. "Government can pass law (yes, that is it's function), and it can hand out money (yes, depends on what laws are passed), but it cannot love (Mr President, when did anyone in 200 years expect our goverment to love?). He continues: "But without love (who said there is none? It was,never should be expected), can it do good? (let's look at history, has the USA government done any good), or can it merely avoid doing evil". (Mr President, given the image the US has on the world stage, we are evil doers with an open wallet). What exactly, President Bush were you, are you trying to say? Do not call those of us who question you, or your personal beliefs, many of us share them to guide our daily lives, but sir, please don't label us as "traitors" when our theology is the same as yours, yet we demand and deserve an answer on the war.

John	Posted: September 01, 2007 10:45 AM


I don't really know if Bush is sincere or not-he could be sincere, yet deluded. Nevertheless, "by their fruits, ye shall know them...". Let's look at some of his fruits. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians either killed or injured, along with millions displaced from their homes for no good reason.

Jeannie

Posted: August 30, 2007 10:56 PM

I get so tired of all the Bush-bashing going on...............whatever happened to American loyalty? The President admits to his faith in God, and since 9/11, America is fortunate to have a leader who does. Terrorism is a fact of life in the world today, and with a "divided" country, as a citizen of my Country, I am fearful as to our future...a "house divided against itself, will fall". God help us !!!!

Martha Huntley

Posted: August 29, 2007 2:43 PM

All right, I'll give Bush credit here for maybe believing some, if not all, of what he was telling these conservative journalists. BUT his choice of countries to which he would "spread" Democracy is certainly selective. There were something like 90 heads of state who were as corrupt as Saddam Hussein; many countries could benefit from being democratic. Why invade Iraq to try to make it so? Where do you start and where do you stop? It isn't the ideals here that are Utopian -- it's Bush's blindered view of what he meant or thought he could accomplish (against all facts, all history, almost all advice, and most theology) by the invasion that was Utopian -- totally delusional as a matter of fact.

http://whatwouldntjesusdo.blogspot.com

Posted: August 29, 2007 12:24 PM

Some who have commented seem disturbed that other's who have commented have done so with less than kind words of understanding. Unfortunately, this simply reveals their naivety. George Bush has all but wrapped himself in the cloak of his faith, but his actions do not match those of his faith. Mr. Bush has constantly lied about what he is and is not doing. He has broken the law. He has caused the death of untold innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as if one American life was worth 20 non-American lives. He has not exhibited any characteristics that mark him out someone who is sincere about biblical principles. So, why should anyone take him seriously? Let alone be nice? This comment is nonsense. It is an act of desperation by a man appealing to the only people who still take him seriously, those among the religious right. And now many of them are finally wising up to how they have been duped by Bush and his nonconservative buddies, most of whom now have seen fit to get out town.

A Hermit

Posted: August 29, 2007 10:59 AM

This article is good to provoke discussion. People are called by the Gospel to act with love. All governments simply are people authorized to act for the communities they represent. Loving, caring and intelligent individuals will create loving, caring and intelligent governments. As each of us is called to live out Gospel values in this life, so are governments called to this as well. The problem is that individuals/governments often use stated ideals and values to cover motives that aren't good and decent. Burmese citizens have suffered government repression for decades, but America has not acted because Burma is of no economic and political interest to us. While saying we invaded Iraq to free its people, we really invaded to secure our own political and economic interests in having another source of oil controlled by a government friendly to us.

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: August 29, 2007 4:04 AM


If one is genuinely spiritual, one would not use (or abuse) Holy Scriptures judging and waging wars on others for economic and political ends!

Christo

Posted: August 29, 2007 2:43 AM


Good to see an article that once addresses what George Bush believes in...we have had everyone target him in a one-sided way....I too believe that not all right decisions will please everybody....some decisions for the temporary good/pleasing one section- eventually bring rot in our society...liberty and freedom is a higher good that God also desires. All good decisions come with a price...

Jerry

Posted: August 28, 2007 11:08 PM

I think it boils down to this: Either we are Old Testament Jews who believe in the Joshua way. Or we are New Testament Christians who do what Christ taught. One can argue rather convincingly that we are in Iraq today solely because of the threat it posed to Israel, and that it is a direct result of President's Bush's personal theology. Does the President believe that Israelis are God's super-race rather than God's chosen people to tell the world of Christ, and who rejected The Message and Messenger? The White House support for the Israeli war against Lebanon and it's tremendous destruction to civilian infrastructure and people proves that his actions are not always moral when it concerns Israel. All religion, no matter it's label, kills.

Sam Andress

Posted: August 28, 2007 5:57 PM

"But America must never lose faith in the capacity of forms of government to transform regions." This line says everything. This is why his theology is deeply flawed. It's not Christian theology. Christians believe that the resurrected Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit to the will of the Father transforms nations into freedom. But it's not a freedome which governments give. It's a freedom to worship God. The God who holds everything together. Bush is Deistic like the Founding Fathers.

caveatBettor

Posted: August 28, 2007 3:42 PM


The president takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US. He must also keep his oath, which is obedience to government authority. Does the decision to go to war in Iraq fit under this role, responsibility, and oath? I think that is the question.

Atencio

Posted: August 28, 2007 2:25 PM

There is a lot of distrust for our president. Lately he has made liberals and conservatives alike scratch their heads. HOWEVER, Romans 13 tells us to obey the governing authorities for they have been established by God. When we raise our voices against the president, we are actually raising our vices against God... it is rebellion, even if it comes only from our hearts, not from our hands (compare the ten commandments with the sermon on the mount to figure out how that works). Before you go criticize Bush for using the weapons in the US arsenal, consider that God put the man where he is, put weapons and armies under his control, and expects us to trust his (God's) judgement regarding the leader appointed to us. Bush may make good or bad decisions, but the outcome of those decisions is entirely up to God. Complaining is useless; in fact it is anti productive. Instead, we should encourage our people, and our soldiers, to trust our leaders. This is pleasing to the Lord.

Tony Jordan

Posted: August 28, 2007 2:01 PM

President Bush, is, I believe sincere in his beliefs, though somewhat 'unlearned' regarding what JESUS and His Word, the NT Scriptures tell us will happen, and is unfolding before our very eyes, daily throughout the world. It is simply folly to believe that anyone can change this state of affairs, especially in the Middle Eastern countries, which are the very apex of consummation of all 'end-time' prophetic revelation. The only true answer, is the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, this and only this can have any true meaning in a region that is essentialy governed by Islamic tyrants, whose philosophical foundation is in 7th century Arabian cultural imperialism, which is really what Islam is all about. Many in this region are coming to know and accept Christ as Saviour and Lord. The season, era, generation, for the cataclysmic end, is at hand. Let us not be side tracked by political and other deceptive ideas, as it will hinder where our true focus should be!

Jeff	Posted: August 28, 2007 1:08 PM

Ted Olsen often askes these sorts of questions in his columns, but rarely states an opinion as to what he thinks the answers should be. This article attempts to be provocative, but I would like to see the author actually take the risk of making a stab at anwsering the questions he asks. CT seems to put these little prods out there to push its readerships, but I think that the CT staff is afraid of actually taking a stand against on questions like this for fear of alienating its predominantly Republican, Bush and military-supporting base. It's much easier for CT to take a stand against the usual wipping boys, e.g. gays and abortion. But when finances are at stake, it's a lot more difficult. Ted, tell us what you really think.

Terry Cairns

Posted: August 28, 2007 12:15 PM

Sorry, but I can't imagine that the President didn't have a good deal more to say than the few quotes that appear here in said meeting. I've no doubt he was but expressing the basis of his decision-making as regards what was best for the security of the nation he was elected to serve was to endeavor to plant a democracy in the heart of tyranny! I do believe it was worth a try--and as I heard David McCullough tell Tim Russert: "If we had today's press at the time of the Revolutionary War--we'd still be a British Colony!" I hope Russert was listening. The Monday-morning quarterbacking of the press and Congress hasn't impressed me. I quite concur w/ Dean Ohlman's observation as per the inalienable rights of man --as well as our President's oft-spoken belief as to what lies in the hearts of the Iraqis who risked their lives to gain those purple fingers. Desert them now? Outrageous. Surely we'll not betray another nation to which we made a commitment!

Stan Baldwin

Posted: August 28, 2007 12:00 PM

One line caught my attention: "The President's belief is that there's a moral imperative to treat human beings with dignity and decency." Maybe it should add: "Except when that's inconvenient." This war in Iraq is essentially undignified and indecent, killing and injuring milions of innocents. The administration's attitudes toward "old Europe" and toward human rights, and toward political comity with those having different views--all lack dignity and decency. I haven't even mentioned torture. "Moral imperative" means not optional!

John	Posted: August 28, 2007 11:46 AM

ACKKK!!!! I am having a stroke here...where do we begin to deal with the errors in this article? First, I HIGHLY doubt Bush is truly inspired by any religious mandate in his foreign policy. The Bush administration panders to the religious right in its language but almost never in its actions. Second, somebody point me to the part in the Bible that suggests democracy is the greatest of all systems, much less that we should impose it on other countries through smart bombs and tanks? When is Bush going to impose democracy on his close friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of the world's worst human rights abusers? Third, Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor, Saddam was in a box with UN inspectors on the ground when Bush decided to go in. Finally, it is disheartening to see the disingenuis babblings of Bush about wanting to spread freedom, the rule of law, and respect for human rights (none of which he truly believes) labled "utopian." These are truly noble goals.

Dean Ohlman

Posted: August 28, 2007 11:27 AM

One may conclude that it was hopelessly idealistic for the President to think that Iraq was capable of the sort of democracy characteristic of the West. But to accuse him of being hopelessly religious and out of line in his desire for Iraqis to be free is to also deny the words of Thomas Jefferson--who was not accused of being too religious. Are the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" given all people by our Creator now to be seen as "'high minded' biblical priorities"? And regarding peace, it might be helpful to remember the conclusion of Jacques Ellul that all states--even ours--were formed by violence and are maintained by violence. Bearing and using arms to punish and restrain the evildoer was considered by the apostle Paul to be legitimate. Yes, we can question the President's motives and criticize his actions, but I don't think we should demonize the ideals he says he is motivated by.

http://morebonghits4jesus.blogspot.com

Posted: August 28, 2007 11:20 AM

I honestly don't know how CT could even think to ask: should Christians in democracies work to make governmental actions reflect "high-minded" biblical priorities? Where do Jesus or Paul suggest that Christians should work to make governmental actions reflect biblical priorities? Just because Bush has shamefully chosen to hide behind his Christianity to cover his numerous failings, doesn't meant that we should stoop to do the same. If CT keeps feeding this nonsense to its readers, it will be doing them a great disservice. Bush is an absolute embarrassment to the Christian faith, and to evangelicalism. I'm tired of his pandering to the conservative Christian base and white washing his crimes in the guise of doing God's work, etc. I'm also relieved that finally, even the conservatives have had with him and his nonsense. Hopefully, CT will also wake up to realize that calling yourself a Christian does not make your acts Christian no matter how you try to dress them up.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment