George W. Bush's Theology Of Empire

[BrotherRog]

Part II

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The point I’m trying to make is that we are not dealing simply with politics when it comes to the Bush administration. The progressive left, which often pays little attention to Christianity, and the moderate middle, which thinks “these things will balance out”; will be making a huge mistake if they overlook the religious ideology at the core of Mr. Bush personally and the movement he represents. And we are talking about a “movement” (a movement of ‘the people’ not just the elites). We are seeing today the emergence of a “fascist movement”. It is bankrolled and organized by Corporations, and articulated through the ideology of neo-conservatism. But the troops come out of the right wing church. And that church, drawing upon the Holiness/Holy War Biblical narratives of Apocalyptic-Dominionism theology, is growing in this country. This is not a battle between intellectual and institutional elites. It is far more intimate than that. It’s a battle in our homes, our families, friendships, neighborhoods and within our faith communities. Let me make a rather audacious prophecy: WHOEVER CONTROLS THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE WILL CONTROL THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION. In other words it’s the vision of Pat Robertson or Martin Luther King.

 

When Dave Korten (author of When Corporations Rule the World) says that we need a “new story”; he is talking about needing a transcendent authority in which we root our political culture. Human beings cannot live in societal form without a sacred narrative. Neither anarchy nor atheism can construct a house that will hold our future. The Republicans know this well. But the Democrats seem clueless.

 

What we need is a movement of spiritual justice. We need the language of those who can wed America’s civil religion with Biblical prophetic narrative. We need to expand that language so that it can include the language and stories that are emerging from the antiwar, fair trade and human rights movements. Together this language can form a unique new narrative that has the power to inspire imagination and courage. A language that can call forth a new coalition powerful enough to envision a new and better world. It will be a language that articulates “we are the ones we are looking for”. A language that proclaims “God with us in our diversity” not God above us threatening wrath and ruin.

 

FASCISM

1.) Rigid one party dictatorship

2.) Forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, minority groups, leftist parties etc.)

3.) Retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control

4.) Belligerent nationalism

5.) Racism

6.) Glorification of war (militarism)

7.) Forced mass political mobilizations

8.) Cult of the personality around the leader

 

CHRISTIAN FASCISM:

1.) We are a chosen people to rule the nations with a rod of iron for the purpose of peace

2.) We are ordained by God to fight evil, which is defined through the protection and expansion of our national interests.

3.) Private property IS economic justice.

4.) Individualized morality is institutionalized into law.

5.) The Church is mobilized to hang a “sacred canopy” over the actions of the State enforcing the above.

6.) The above characteristics of fascism are incorporated under the umbrella of Christian symbols fueled by Christian apocalypticism.

 

RESOURCES

Google: "Christian Reconstructionism & Dominion Theology"

 

Books:

 

Eyes Right edited by Chip Berlot South End Press (1995)

Spiritual Warfare Sara Diamond South End Press (1989)

*** great resource ***

Right Wing Populism in America Chip Berlot & Matthew Lyons

(Guilford Press, 2000)

American Dynasty Kevin Phillips (Viking Press, 2004)

Sorrows of Empire Chalmers Johnson (2004)

*** Last two are MUST READ books

Articles on Internet:

America As A One Party State Robert Kuttner www.prospect.org/authors/kuttner-r.html <http://www.prospect.org/authors/kuttner-r.html>

Christian Reconstructionism Fredrick Clarkson

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5722.htm <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5722.htm>

The Despoiling of America Katherine Yurica

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm>

(this is THE BEST and most frightening article I have read)

 

Note: the content of the past 2 posts was by Rev. Rich Lang of Trinity UMC, Seattle, WA (sent to me and many others via email)

[Cross_+_Flame]

I hate having my first post be a link to another website, but I trust the people here will respect that I mean nothing more than to add to the discussion.

 

One of my users at my forum has posted his thoughts related to the Theology of Empire, and I think they are written much better than I could express them

 

Here's the link: Dangerous Religion: Theology of Empire (crossandflame.com)

 

Hopefully that adds to the discussion, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with this community.

[pacigoth13]

I just hope we all go and vote and that we, as a nation, vote Bush out of office. One term was bad enough...

[BrotherRog]

Amen to that!

 

The fact is that George Jr. has single-handidly (along with Tony Blair), been the single best recruiter for al-Qaeda's gang of terrorists. By rushing us off to attack Iraq simply because they are "one of those Muslim nations," and by showing a blind and largely uncritical allegience to Israel, George Jr. has stimulated the largest catalyst for anti-American terrorist recruitment ever. Even if George Jr.'s forces have killed many Muslim terrorists, they have killed many more innocent civilians (over 11,000 and growing in Iraq) and this leads to more terrorists. So, even if al-Qaeda loses certain battles with our forces, they actually are winning a victory in that the Muslim world is growing more and more united against the U.S. Indeed, George Jr. has placed an even larger "Kick Me!" sign upon our nation's backside.

 

I actually agree with all of those conservative radio pundits who claim that "terrorism is the most important issue for the upcoming election" and this is why I favor Kerry; i.e. keeping Bush Jr. in will lead to further animosity among the radical Islamists who wish us harm. Moreover, Bush Jr's doctrine of illegal, unilateral, pre-emptive strikes would lead to greater anti-American animosity in the larger global community. In order to appropriately and effectively address the war on terror we need to get the world community back on board with us and the best way to do this is by voting George Jr. out of office.

[Lolly]

BrotherRog:

 

keeping Bush Jr. in will lead to further animosity among the radical Islamists

 

I certainly do agree with that. I have a hard time imagining that anyone could seriously believe that we are actually safer today than we were before Bush came into office.

 

The man has done everything possible to turn the United States into a unilaterally despised entity. The ranks of the radical Islamists grow because their "enemy" is doing everthing they say it is capable of. Duh.

 

It is certainly an interesting (and frightening) time to be an American. Not to mention, eye-opening.

 

As an American citizen, I am glad that today we have the internet; in many ways it's a good thing that the opinions of the rest of the world are also at our fingertips.

[DeborahDP]

What I don't understand is how/why so many supposedly "god-fearing christians" like/approve of bu$h and what he's doing. What am I missing here? I just don't get it. I keep getting this image in my head of Jesus shaking his head and weeping bitterly over what we are doing in his name. Come judgment day, America as a nation, and Christendom in general, is going to have a lot to answer for.

 

I agree. We most definitely need to get the Idiot-in-Chief out. From a local yahoo group I belong to:

 

The Last Word

W's Second Term: If you think the first is bad ...

 

By Robert B. Reich (former Secretary of Labor) Date: 04.01.04

 

Musings about a second Bush term typically assume another four

years of the same right-wing policies we've had to date. But it'd likely be

far worse. So far, the Bush administration has had to govern with the

expectation of facing American voters again in 2004. But suppose

George W. Bush wins a second term. The constraint of a re-election contest

will be gone. Knowing that voters can no longer turn them out, and that

this will be their last shot at remaking America, the radical conservatives

will be unleashed.

 

A friend who specializes in foreign policy and hobnobs with subcabinet officials in the Defense and State departments told me that the only thing that's stopped the Bushies from storming into Iran and North Korea is the upcoming election. If Bush is re-elected, "[Dick] Cheney and [Donald] Rumsfeld are out of the box," he said. "They'll take Bush's re-election as a mandate to wage the 'war on terror'

everywhere and anywhere."

 

The second term's defense team will be even harder line than the current one. Colin Powell will go. Condoleezza Rice will take over at the State Department. Rumsfeld will consolidate power as the president's national-security adviser. Paul Wolfowitz will run the Defense Department. Domestic policy will swing further right. A re-election would strengthen the White House's hand on issues that even many congressional Republicans have a hard time accepting, such as the

assault on civil liberties. Bush will seek to push "Patriot II" through Congress, giving the Justice Department and the FBI powers to inspect mail, eavesdrop on phone conversations and e-mail, and examine personal medical records, insurance claims, and bank accounts.

 

Right-wing evangelicals will solidify their control over the departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services --curtailing abortions, putting federal funds into the hands of private religious groups, pushing prayer in the public schools, and promoting creationism.

 

Economic policy, meanwhile, will be tilted even more brazenly toward the rich. Republican strategist Grover Norquist smugly predicts larger tax benefits for high earners in a second Bush administration. The goal will be to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, dividends, and other forms of unearned income and move toward a "flat tax."The plan will be for deficits to continue to balloon until Wall Street demands large spending cuts as a condition for holding down long-term

interest rates. Homeowners, facing potential losses on their major nest eggs

as mortgage rates move upward, might be persuaded to join the chorus.

 

In consequence, Bush will slash all domestic spending outside of defense. He will also argue that Social Security cannot be maintained in its present form, and will push for legislation to transform it into private accounts.

 

Meanwhile, the few shards of regulation still protecting the environment and the safety of American workers will be eliminated.

 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will surely step down from the Supreme Court, possibly joined by at least one other jurist, opening the way for the White House to nominate a series of right-wing justices, a list that could easily include Charles Pickering Sr. and William Pryor Jr. After Chief Justice William Rehnquist resigns, Bush may well nominate Antonin Scalia for the top slot --opening the way for Scalia and Clarence Thomas to dominate the Court. Such a court will curtail

abortion rights, whittle down the Fourth and Fifth amendments, end all affirmative action, and eliminate much of what's left of the barrier between church and state.

 

Karl Rove and Tom DeLay, meanwhile, will have four more years to fulfill their goal of transforming American democracy into a one-party state. Congressional redistricting across the nation will make Texas' recent antics seem a model of democratic deliberation. Automated voting machines will be easily rigged, with no paper trails to document abuses.

 

Changes in campaign- finance laws will permit larger "hard money" donations by corporate executives and federal contractors who have benefited by Republican policies.

 

Finally, the Federal Communications Commission will allow three or four giant media empires -- all tightly connected to the Republican Party -- to consolidate their ownership over all television and radio broadcasting.

 

Nothing is more dangerous to a republic than fanatics unconstrained by democratic politics. Yet in a second term of this administration, that's exactly what we'll have.

 

If you know anyone who is on the fence, or even near the fence, send them this. and tell them to absentee ballot...we cannot trust the electronic voting machines.

[pacigoth13]

I agree... we have forgotten what the Kingdom of God looks like. We forget that claiming Christ as King is subversive to human kings and leaders and rulers. We forget that the Kingdom of heaven transforms the world through the spiritual--that it is not something that is ever "forced" or established in the way human "kingdoms" are. As was the case with the idea of "Roman Christianity" as the official religion, the idea of so-called "Christian America" is a joke, a cruel one.

[BrotherRog]

Yes! Viva Pax Christi not Pax Americana!

 

FYI... Here's an interesting blast from the past:

 

Leo Tolstoy's Last Message to Mankind:

(Written for the 18th International Peace Congress held at Stockholm in 1909.)

 

Dear Brothers,

 

We have met here to fight against war. War, the thing for the sake of which all the nations of the earth - millions and millions of people - place at the uncontrolled disposal of a few men or sometimes only one man, not merely milliards of rubles, talers, francs or yen (representing a very large share of their labor), but also their very lives.

 

And now we, a score of private people gathered from the various ends of the earth, possessed of no special privileges and above all having no power over anyone, intend to fight - and as we wish to fight we also wish to conquer - this immense power not only of one government but of all governments, which have at their disposal these milliards of money and millions of soldiers and who are well aware that the exceptional position of those who for the governments rests on the army alone: the army which has a meaning and a purpose against which we wish to fight and which we wish to abolish.

 

For us to struggle, the forces being so unequal, must appear insane. But if we consider our opponent's means of strife and our own, it is not our intention to fight that will seem absurd, but that the thing we mean to fight will still exist. They have millions of money and millions of obedient soldiers; we have only one thing, but that is the most powerful thing in the world - Truth.

 

Therefore, insignificant as our forces may appear in comparison with those of our opponents, our victory is as sure as the victory of the light of the rising sun over the darkness of night.

 

Our victory is certain, but on one condition only - that when uttering the truth we utter it all, without compromise, concession, or modification. The truth so simple, so clear, so evident, so incumbent not only on Christians but on all reasonable men, that it is only necessary to speak it out in its full significance for it to be irresistible.

 

The truth in its full meaning lies in what was said thousands of years ago (in the law accepted among us as the Law of God) in four words: Thou shalt not kill. The truth is that man may not and should not in any circumstances or under any pretext kill his fellow man.

 

The truth is so evident, so binding, and so generally acknowledged, that it is only necessary to put it clearly before men for the evil called war to become quite impossible.

 

And so I think that if we who are assembled here at this Peace Congress should, instead of clearly and definitely voicing this truth, address ourselves to the governments with various proposals for lessening the evils of war or gradually diminishing its frequency, we should be like men who having in their hand the key to a door, should try to break through walls they know to be too strong for them.

 

Before us are millions of armed men, ever more and more efficiently armed and trained for more and more rapid slaughter. We know that these millions of people have no wish to kill their fellows and for the most part do not even know why they are forced to do that repulsive work, and that they are weary of their position of subjection and compulsion; we know that the murders committed from time to time by these men are committed by order of the governments; and we know that the existence of the governments depends on the armies.

 

Can we then who desire the abolition of war, find nothing more conducive to our aim than to propose to the governments which exist only by the aid of armies and consequently by war - measures which would destroy war? Are we to propose to the governments that they should destroy themselves?

 

The governments will listen willingly to any speeches of that kind, knowing that such discussions will neither destroy war nor undermine their own power, but will only conceal yet more effectively what must be concealed if wars and armies and themselves in control of armies are to continue to exist.

 

'But', I shall be told, 'this is anarchism; people never have lived without governments and States, and therefore governments and States and military forces defending them are necessary for the existence of nations.'

 

But leaving aside the question of whether the life of Christian and other nations is possible without armies and wars to defend their governments and States, or even supposing it to be necessary for their welfare that they should slavishly submit to institutions called governments (consisting of people they do not personally know), and that it is necessary to yield up the produce of their labor to these institutions and fulfill all their demands - including the murder of their neighbors - granting them all that, there yet remains in our world an unsolved difficulty.

 

This difficulty lies in the impossibility of making the Christian faith (which those who form the governments profess with particular emphasis) accord with armies composed of Christians trained to slay. However much you may pervert the Christian teaching, however much you may hide its main principles, its fundamental teaching is the love of God and one's neighbor; of God - that is the highest perfection of virtue, and of one's neighbor - that is all men without distinction. And therefore it would seem inevitable that we must repudiate one of the two, either Christianity is love of God and one's neighbor, or the State with its armies and wars.

 

Perhaps Christianity may be obsolete, and when choosing between the two - Christianity and love of the State and murder - the people of our time will conclude that the existence of the State and murder is more important than Christianity, we must forgo Christianity and retain only what is important: the State and murder.

 

That may be so - at least people may think and feel so. But in that case they should say so! They should openly admit that people in our time have ceased to believe in what the collective wisdom of mankind has said, and what is said by the Law of God they profess: have ceased to believe in what is written indelibly on the heart of each man, and must now believe only in what is ordered by various people who by accident or birth have happened to become emperors and kings, or by various intrigues and elections have become presidents or members of senates and parliaments - even if those orders include murder. That is what they ought to say!

But it is impossible to say it; and yet one of these two things has to be said. If it is admitted that Christianity forbids murder, both armies and governments become impossible. And if it is admitted that government acknowledges the lawfulness of murder and denies Christianity, no one will wish to obey a government that exists merely by its power to kill. And besides, if murder is allowed in war it must be still more allowable when a people seek its rights in a revolution. And therefore the governments, being unable to say either one thing or the other, are anxious to hid from their subjects the necessity of solving the dilemma.

 

And for us who are assembled here to counteract the evil of war, if we really desire to attain our end, only one thing is necessary: namely to put that dilemma quite clearly and definitely both to those who form governments and to the masses of the people who compose the army.

 

To do that we must not only clearly and openly repeat the truth we all know and cannot help knowing - that man should not slay his fellow man - but we must also make it clear that no considerations can destroy the demand made by the truth on people in the Christian world.

 

Therefore I propose that our Meeting draw up and publish an appeal to all men, and especially to the Christian nations, in which we clearly and definitely express what everybody knows, but hardly anyone says: namely war is not - as most people assume - a good and laudable affair, but that like all murder, it is a vile and criminal business not only for those who voluntarily choose a military career but for those who submit to it from avarice, or fear of punishment.

 

With regard to those who voluntarily choose a military career, I would propose to state clearly and definitely that not withstanding all the pomp, glitter, and general approval with which it is surrounded, it is a criminal and shameful activity; and that the higher the position a man holds in the military profession the more criminal and shameful his occupation. In the same way with regard to men of the people who are drawn into military service by bribes or by threats of punishments, I propose to speak clearly about the gross mistake they make - contrary to their faith, morality and common sense - when they consent to enter the army; contrary to their faith because when they enter the ranks of murderers contrary to the Law of God which they acknowledge; contrary to morality , because for pay or from fear of punishment they agreed to what in their souls they know to be wrong; and contrary to common sense, because if they enter the army and war breaks out they risk having to suffer any consequences, bad or worse than those they are threatened with if they refuse. Above all they act contrary to common sense in that they join that caste of people which deprives them of freedom and compels them to be soldiers.

 

With reference to both classes I propose in this appeal to express clearly the thought that for men of true enlightenment, who are therefore free from the superstition of military glory, (and their number is growing every day) the military profession and calling not withstanding all the efforts to hide its real meaning, is as shameful a business as the executioner's and even more so. For the executioner only holds himself in readiness to kill those who have been adjudged to be harmful and criminal, while a soldier promises to kill all who he is told to kill, even though they may be the dearest to him or the best of men.

 

Humanity in general, and our Christian humanity in particular, has reached a stage of such acute contradiction between its moral demands and the existing social order, that a change has become inevitable, and a change not in society's moral demand which are immutable, but in the social order which can be altered. The demand for a different social order, evoked by that inner contradiction which is so clearly illustrated by our preparations for murder, becomes more and more insistent every year and every day.

 

The tension which demands that alteration has reached such a degree that, just as sometimes only a slight shock is required to change a liquid into a solid body, so perhaps with a slight effort or even a single word may be needed to change the cruel and irrational life of our time - with its divisions, armaments and armies - into a reasonable life in keeping with the consciousness of contemporary humanity.

 

Every such effort, every such word, may be the shock which will instantly solidify the super cooled liquid. Why should not our gathering be the shock?

 

In Andersen's fairy tale, when the King went in triumphal procession through the streets of the town and all the people were delighted with his beautiful new clothes, a word from a child who said what everybody knew but had not said, changed everything. He said: 'He has nothing on!' and the spell was broken, and the king became ashamed and all those who had been assuring themselves that they saw him wearing beautiful new clothes perceived that he was naked!

 

We must say the same. We must say what everybody knows but does not venture to say. We must say that by whatever name people may call murder - murder always remains murder and a criminal and shameful thing. And it is only necessary to say that clearly, definitely, and loudly, as we can say it here, and men will cease to see what they thought they saw, and will see what is really before their eyes.

 

They will cease to see the service for their country, the heroism of war, military glory, and patriotism, and will see what exists: the naked, criminal business of murder! And if people see that, the same thing will happen as in the fairy tale: those who do the criminal thing will feel ashamed, and those who assure themselves that they do not see the criminality of murder will perceive it and cease to be murderers.

 

But how will nations defend themselves against their enemies, how will they maintain internal order, and how can nations live without an army?

 

What form of life men will take after they repudiate murder we do not and cannot know; but one thing is certain: that it is more natural for men to be guided by reason and conscience with which they are endowed, than to submit slavishly to people who arrange wholesale murders; and that therefrom the form of social order assumed by the lives of those who are guided in their actions not by violence based on threats of murder, but by reason and conscience, will in any case be no worse than that under which they now live.

 

That is all I want to say. I shall be sorry if it offends or grieves anyone or evokes any ill feeling. But for me, a man eighty years old, expecting to die at any moment, it would be shameful and criminal not to speak out the whole truth as I understand it - the truth which, as I firmly believe, is alone capable of relieving mankind from the incalculable ills produced by war.

[michele]

I have put together a new flyer that list the top 100 reasons NOT to

vote for GW Bush.

 

I've also been passing out a flier that points out Bush's actions

that

have harmed our schools, environment; abused our seniors and

minority communities (i.e., racially, nationally and sexually

oriented). It's geared for those who voted for Bush in 2000, but

are unsure they want to vote for him again.

 

If you would like a copy, just email me. So far, I've distributed

approximately 11,000 in my community. It's now been distributed in

800+ cities in the US and 11 foreign countries with American voters

(including military bases). To see which cities in your area it's

been distributed, go to our website!

 

Let's get this information out!!!

 

Michele Parillo

Angry American

 

mailto:we_have_the_power_2004@hotmail.com

 

http://www.geocities.com/we_have_the_power_now

 

bush_be_gone@yahoogroups.com

[TammyJo58]

Hi!

 

My name is Tammy and I am a Christian, a Southern Baptist, a public school teacher, and a DEMOCRAT! I do not believe these "I am's" contradict each other.

 

I do not believe in abortion, but I serve a mighty God, and I believe he is concerned about a lot more in this country than just abortion.

If you read the Gospels, you will be hardpressed to find much in common between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Republican Party platform. This was not always true, but since Eisenhower's time, the Republican Party has changed drastically. The really troubling thing is, that many Christians are so taken in by the "politically religious", that they hand their vote over to this party without blinking an eye. Shouldn't those who name the name of Christ be concerned about the same people that Christ was concerned about? If we do not believe in what He believed in, why do we believe in Him?

 

It is increasingly uncomfortable to attend church when some of the prayers and sermons rival the best paid political advertisements! Do you think God honors that? I don't!

 

Why aren't we encouraged to pray during election time? Is it because our pastors and the "politically religious" know that when real Christians pray for guidance during election time, the outcome might not turn out to be what would benefit their own agenda? Aren't we asked to boldly approach the throne of grace? When we accept pamphlets from the "politically religious", when we listen to prayers in our churches that do not ask for wisdom during election time and that His will be done, but beseech God to let everyone vote for President Bush, when we listen to sermons that deal mainly with abortion and homosexuality and nothing else, we have to ask ourselves the question - where are we? In church worshipping the living God, or are we at a political rally worshipping a man?

 

I believe that it is bibically immoral for us to know that there are poor, hungry, sick, homeless, jobless, handicapped, etc. out there and only pay lip service to them. I believe that it is biblically immoral for us to treat them as if their problems were all their own fault. If Christ's churches were doing Christ's work, these problems would not be as serious as they are today. Yet we get all sanctimonious when the government steps in and tries to help these problems with social programs. The first thing out of our mouths is BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL! or maybe TAX and SPEND! Well, someones heart needs to bleed. And we call ourselves Christians.

 

I believe that there are those "politically religious" out there for whom the abortion issue is just a smoke screen. I believe that for them the most attractive aspect of the Republican Party is it's fiscal policies. These "politically religious" stand in churches and assure God that everything they have is really His, but they live their life by the motto: "What's mine is mine"!

 

I am convinced that if Jesus Christ came back today and decided to run for office, he would not get elected. I am convinced that this is because many Christians would not vote for Him. He would want to help too many people that we don't want to associate with, and besides, it might cost us money in the long run, taxes you know.

 

Finally, repeat after me, "GOD is not spelled GOP!"

 

Thanks for giving me a chance to voice my opinion!

 

GOD BLESS

Posted by: Tammy Jo at July 5, 2004 04:08 AM

[BrotherRog]

Amen sister Amen!! : )

[BrotherRog]

"ME...ME say I'm sorry!? Kings never say 'I'm sorry!' And I am the mightiest king in all the world!" Bartholomew looked the King square in the eye. "You may be a mighty king," he said. "But you're sitting in oobleck up to your chin. And so is everyone in your land. And if you won't even say you're sorry, you're no sort of a king at all!" - Dr. Seuss, Bartholomew and the Oobleck

[DeborahDP]

Finally, repeat after me, "GOD is not spelled GOP!"

Hi, Tammy. Welcome!

 

That last would make a great bumpersticker. Excellent post. I tried being a Southern Baptist for a few years. It didn't take. Quite frankly, I don't understand how thinking Christians can tolerate being a part of that denomination. I had to leave for much the same reasons you gave for your dissatisfaction. Something to think about, whether you tithe or just give what you can every Sunday, you are helping to finance their nasty agenda. I would think long and hard about that.

[TammyJo58]

DeborahDP,

 

I appreciate your response and understand why many people, including Christians, have a negative view of Southern Baptists. The reason why I still attend a Southern Baptist church is because I believe is the basic tenets of our faith. I have attended Southern Baptist churches since I was twelve and there are many great people and great Christians in them. I am convinced that many of them feel like I do. It has only been within the last decade or so that the convention has turned so political. Maybe sometime in the future the Lord will lead me somewhere else, but until then I'll stay where I am and try to work within the "system".

 

God Bless,

TammyJo58

[PKB]

BrotherRog

I think the article is so true!  Thanks for posting it.  I don't trust those people who claim to be Christians and then invoke violence and hatred as a means to an end, as GWB has done and is still doing...

 

Question...

Why is it that so many people who claim to be followers of Christ or claim to be religious think GWB/Arnold? and other men like them are righteous dudes that tell the truth, are honorable and will do right by the people that they represent.  Is it that people are so fearfuly these days that they desire to follow those "cowboy" types to protect them?

 

The voices of women are especially silenced at this time.  The voices of dissent and of peace and justice and the oppressed are silenced.  The voices of reason and love are silenced. 

 

People have traded in all of these because they are afraid.  They believe the right-wing message spiked with the drum beat of fear -  that we are all going to die unless we follow these "fearless" , "powerful", God supported leaders.

 

Rome fell.  So to will GWB, Arnold, Ashcroft, Cheney etc. 

 

Have no fear...

 

Peace

 

Lisa

:-)

Why is it that so many people who claim to be followers of Christ or claim to be religious think GWB/Arnold? and other men like them are righteous dudes that tell the truth, are honorable and will do right by the people that they represent.

 

 

Hello Lisa. I wanted to take time to respond to your question because I have heard it alot lately. Here is my answer. If you are familiar with the bible at all you should know that one of the "signs of the endtimes" is that there will be deceivers and "false witnesses" abundant.

 

I'm not trying to go all "holy roller" on you and all but I do remember hearing that enough from sermons and my grandparents and parents. The puzzeling thing is knowing that there will be deceivers and "false witnesses" in the end should enable you to spot them better. Right? Apparently not.

 

I live smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt and it is as if these people are in a trance with G Dub. Crazy. There is a nice old couple who lives across the street from me and they invited me to their church because they were having a "Billy Graham" style evangelist coming all the way from Dallas to speak. I agreed to attend and----- First off I'm United Methodist. We Methodists are very reverent in our worship. This church was Assembly of God. Not knockin' AOG's but it was ---um----different. First off, the evangelist they had as a speaker was NO Billy Graham. I lost count of how many times the offering plate was passed around. I lost count after I think 3-4. I dunno! This speaker gets up in front of the congregation and proceeds to go into this diatribe about Bush! What? I looked left, right, over my shoulder. Yep. I was in a church alright. On and on he went as if Bush were some Godsend! "We have to take this city back for God! We have to take this state back for God! We have to take this country back for God!" and "We must elect George Bush to another term and make sure we keep the devil where he belongs! Can I hear an AMEN?" I finally got up and left. Now that is what I find dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

[BrotherRog]

PKB, I'd report that "evangelist" to the IRS if I were you as he's no doubt sharing this same politically biased message in other venues too.

[BrotherRog]

A CONSCIENCE DECISION: How faith informs the vote - Part 2 of 5:

IT’S TIME TO GIVE SOMEONE ELSE A CHANCE,

by Richard V. Pierard

The contested election of George W. Bush in 2000 has proven to be an enormous disaster. The revelations by the 9-11 Committee and defectors from the Bush administration have exposed a government that has been sound asleep and in deep disarray. At the same time, those in power do not hesitate to unleash the most vicious attack dogs on those who dare to question their actions. The web of lies being spun to justify the unnecessary war in Iraq becomes more intricate as the months pass.

 

The deindustrialization of America continues unabated. Millions of well-paying factory jobs have been sent overseas and replaced with low-paying service jobs (or, in many cases, none at all) while the administration incessantly prattles on about the so-called “recovery.” The White House is firmly in the hands of big-business interests and the greatest tax cut in American history has gone largely to the wealthy, clearly justifying the cynical bumper sticker “No billionaire left behind.” The gap between those who receive the top 20 percent and the lowest 20 percent of the national income is steadily widening, while the middle class is evaporating. In spite of its vast wealth, the United States is moving, thanks to the policies of the Bush administration and its shortsighted allies, slowly but surely in the direction of becoming a Third World country.

 

And where are the prophetic voices that should be ringing out from the Christian community about this pitiful state of affairs? They are largely mute. We have allowed ourselves to be pacified by the “family-issue” scraps tossed to us from the administration’s table. The president supports every measure that allegedly combats abortion - including blocking valuable stem-cell research that even Nancy Reagan maintains might have helped her late husband. The programs for “faith-based” charities have resulted in the sorry picture of Christian groups jostling for a place at the public trough. We have a constitutional amendment to “defend marriage,” as if it were ever in danger. Conservative Christian groups are promised action to allow “school prayer” and vouchers to fund their own schools. And the sad story goes on and on.

 

I would argue that we have the wrong family issues in sight. Every death and serious injury of our armed forces’ young men and women in Iraq damages the families from which they came. The crumbling Social Security system, crippled by massive federal deficits, menaces every aging family. Those who believed they should save for retirement by investing in 401(k) programs have watched their family security evaporate as the stock manipulators close to the Bush administration drive down the market so they can reap massive profits. The hatred of America that is growing around the world because of Bush’s arrogant foreign policy threatens the families of Christian missionaries and other people who labor or travel abroad.

 

The ongoing assault on the environment, including the unwillingness to confront the global-warming crisis, endangers the health of every American family. The outsourcing of jobs and moving of factories overseas directly threatens the economic and psychological wellbeing of every family that is victimized by these actions. The energy crisis resulting from the market manipulations of corporations linked to Bush and Cheney (such as Enron and Halliburton) have made life more difficult for every American family.

 

The brilliant new book by Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, KINGDOM ETHICS: FOLLOWING JESUS IN CONTEMPORARY CONTEXTS (InterVarsity Press, 2003), reminds Christians that “life issues” are more than just the usual ones served up by evangelicals. We should be promoting a love ethic that emphasizes peace and justice for all and concern for the weak and powerless. Such an ethic is diametrically opposed to the values now coming out of Washington.

 

Whether John Kerry can change the direction our country has taken remains to be seen, but I am willing to give him the chance to do so. George W. Bush and those supporting him have blown the opportunity to move us in the proper direction, and they must be turned out of office.

 

(Richard Pierard is the Stephen Phillips Professor of History at Gordon College in Wenham, MA.)

[BrotherRog]

www.ekklesia.co.uk

-12/10/04

Evangelicals slam Bush for his 'theology of war'

A group of theologians have signed a statement opposing President Bush's attempt to converge God, church and nation and what they call his 'theology of war.'

 

Glen Stassen, Fuller Theological Seminary's Louis B. Smedes professor of Christian ethics, said Bush's religious rhetoric confuses the cause of Christianity with that of a nation at war.

 

For instance, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address the president labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the 'axis of evil,' Stassen said.

"Calling the three nations the 'axis of evil' and refusing to acknowledge any errors that he has made, that sets up a dichotomy between righteous United States and unrighteous 'axis of evil,' Stassen said. "... It leads to a crusade in which Christians think the Christian thing to do is support war-making against an allegedly unrighteous enemy.'

 

The statement of beliefs, called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence,' criticizes Bush's use of scripture in a speech on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush described the hope offered by America by saying, "... the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.'

 

These words, used in the Bible, apply only to Jesus Christ and no political leader has the right to "twist them into the service of war," the confession says.

 

The statement's assertions include the claim that Jesus Christ knows no national boundaries, that Christians should have a strong presumption against war and that Christians should exercise humility, which would temper political disagreements.

 

About 20 professors have signed it, though it has not made the full rounds at Fuller, Stassen said. Stassen expects that almost all of the seminary's 80 full-time professors will sign it. Fuller is the largest evangelical seminary in the country.

 

The current confession is not the first time Fuller professors have publicly objected to Bush. About 40 faculty members signed a September 2002 letter opposing Bush's statements about a unilateral pre-emptive war in Iraq. Bush is now campaigning on pre-emptive war and using Christian language in the process, Stassen said.

 

The Fuller educators are part of a national movement of theologians and ethicists who are signing the document. They are being organized by Stassen, George Hunsinger of Princeton Theological Seminary, Richard B. Hays of Duke Divinity School, Richard Pierard of Gordon College and Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine.

 

The same five leaders endorsed a recent ad campaign in the national

media that proclai "God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat."

According to a recent study on religion and politics from the University of Akron, 68 percent of Americans want a president to have strong religious beliefs and 63 percent are comfortable when candidates discuss their faith.

 

The full text of the letter and statement is as follows:

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

We're writing to you at what we believe is a time of grave moral crisis in our nation. As we listen to the rhetoric coming from the highest levels of the American government, we hear more and more a "theology of war" that sets the US on a messianic crusade, while wrapping itself in a Christian identification. There are times and places in human history when political powers attempt to claim the loyalty of the church of Jesus Christ. In those times, the church is called to reaffirm its fundamental beliefs. We believe that 2004 in the United States is one of those times and places. We have come to the conviction that as followers of Jesus Christ, it is our responsibility to affirm a new confession of Christ.

 

Over the last weeks, we have agreed to the attached statement. We identify five points that we believe are indispensable for followers of Jesus, and rejections of the current teachings that nullify those points. We believe we have made a critical and thoughtful statement on the theology of war that endangers us, and points to a better alternative.

We invite you to join us in signing this statement. It is our hope that a significant number of leading theologians and ethicists will agree to publicly affirm this confession with us. We would then use the statement and signatories to attract media attention to it.

 

Please thoughtfully and prayerfully consider this invitation, and if you can join us, please return the form below to dshank@sojo.net. Sojourners has offered to collect and coordinate this process.

Thanks very much for your consideration. We invite you to suggest the names of others you think might be interested in this statement. If you have any questions, please feel free to be in touch with any one of us.

 

Grace and Peace,

 

Richard B. Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament

Duke Divinity School

George Hunsinger, Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology

Princeton Theological Seminary

Richard V. Pierard, Stephen Phillips Professor of History

Gordon College

Glen Stassen, Lewis Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics

Fuller Theological Seminary

Jim Wallis, Editor, Sojourners

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

 

The Statement:

 

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

* A "theology of war" is emanating from the highest circles of American government.

* The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.

* The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.

 

In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.

 

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.

 

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done -- torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction -- regardless of the consequences.

 

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed that the distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

 

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

 

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong. We reject the false teaching that those who are not for our nation politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

 

The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.

 

We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.

[BrotherRog]

"A new confession of Christ"

by Rev. Jim Wallis

published October, 20, 2004 in Sojourner Magazine's SoJo Mail

 

Because of a deep and growing concern about an emerging "theology of

war" in the United States government, the increasingly frequent language

of "righteous empire," and official claims of "divine appointment" for a

nation and its president in the "war" on terrorism, I have joined with

several theologians and ethicists in writing the following statement. A

climate in which violence is too easily accepted, and the roles of God,

church, and nation too easily confused, calls for a new "confession" of

Christ. The statement names five key points of Jesus' teachings, while

rejecting false teachings that nullify his message. It has been signed

by more than 200 theologians and ethicists - many of them from

theologically conservative seminaries and Christian colleges. We share

it with you and ask that you send it to friends and present it to your

churches if you resonate with its concerns and convictions.

 

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

 

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said, "Blessed

are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"

(Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly

threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies,

pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have

never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

 

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches

have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of

September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess

Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning

ourselves to an endless future of "preventive wars"? Does it mean

turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it

mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and

restraint?

 

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so

than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

 

- A "theology of war," emanating from the highest circles of American

government, is seeping into our churches as well.

 

- The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing

frequency.

 

- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an

American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."

 

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one

has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of

international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The

danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.

 

In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.

 

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national

boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth.

Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever

Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is

discredited.

 

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be

described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the

darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply

only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist

them in the service of war.

 

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The

wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation.

Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to

count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative

before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international

cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

 

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence

over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done - torture,

the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons

of mass destruction - regardless of the consequences.

 

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's

eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil

does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another.

It runs straight through every human heart.

 

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation,"

representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious.

We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we

reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and

fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

 

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we

were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love

to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and

the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile

agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being

created in God's image.

 

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as

outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived

enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the

mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their

captors.

 

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven

sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our

own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.

 

We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United

States politically are against it, or that those who fundamentally

question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude

distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the

Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute

good and absolute evil.

 

The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is

not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words

may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may

usurp the place of God.

 

We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for

followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making

their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a

troubled world where Christ is Lord.

[BrotherRog]

RELIGION AND THE ELECTION

A Caution Against Blasphemy

by William Boyd Grove

 

Webster defines blasphemy as "profane or contemptuous speech, writing,

or action concerning God or anything held as divine." To commit

blasphemy is to trivialize holy things for unholy purpose. It is,

for instance, to violate the second commandment which states "You shall

not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the

Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."(Exodus

20:7-NRSV). I write this column not as a political partisan, although as

a citizen I have a political point of view, but as a bishop of the

church who is compelled by my consecration to caution against blasphemy,

in defense of the Bible and biblical faith.

 

Blasphemy is running rampant in our country as this election campaign

proceeds, trivializing holy things as it moves on. The latest

instance of it was the distribution by the Republican National

Committee, in West Virginia and Arkansas, of a brochure with a picture

of a Bible with the word banned across it, and another with the

hands of two men with a wedding ring with the word allowed across

it. The implication is that the election of Senator Kerry would

lead to the banning of the Bible and the approval of same-sex marriage.

Those who distributed the brochure know that the claim is not true and

not possible. The first amendment to the United States Constitution

would not allow it, and Senator Kerry's election would not lead to

it. The brochure is not only insulting to the intelligence of West

Virginians, targeted to the stereotype of Appalachians as

"dumb hillbillies," it is blasphemous; it is "profane

and contemptuous writing concerning God and the Bible."

 

Clergy usually do not take public, partisan positions in an

election. I have never before done so in more than fifty years of

ministry as a pastor and a bishop. But in this election, the use of

false teaching concerning scripture and the Christian faith by a

political campaign demands response from religious leaders. Bishops in

our church are charged to "guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim ...the

apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and

tradition...." My goal in this column is to "guard the apostolic

faith as it is expressed in Scripture" against those who are distorting

and manipulating its teachings for political gain.

It is now widely believed that, of course, nearly all persons

of religious faith will vote for President Bush. That "conventional

wisdom" has originated in the Republican party and been advanced by an

uncritical media. The claim is not correct, and the statistic

supporting it have been distorted and oversimplified.

 

The "religious right" is not the only voice of religious faith in this country!

 

The issues on which the religious right has focused in this

campaign are almost solely abortion and same-sex marriage. While

those are important issues which need and deserve discussion, they are

not the only, or even the primary, issues to which the Bible is

relevant. On the other issues in the campaign, the President's

policies are not in accord with Biblical teaching, or with the teaching

of his own church.

 

The media has made much of the fact that Senator Kerry's position on

abortion contradicts the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and as a

result, some bishops may deny him the Eucharist. Why does the media

not investigate whether or not President Bush's policies are consistent

with the teachings of his church, the United Methodist Church?` Such an

investigation would reveal that the President´s policies are contrary

to the Social Principles of his church (official church teaching), and

to the broad consensus of ecumenical church teaching on many

significant issues. I will name only three.

 

+ War and Peace. The Social Principles of the United Methodist

Church, and the dominant position among the churches of the world is

that war is always a last resort. Last resort is the first of seven

criteria of Just War doctrine, which is the official teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church. Preemptive war, now a part of official

US government policy, can never be justified by church doctrine.

 

+Care of the environment, or, to use biblical /theological language,

"stewardship of creation." According to Genesis 2:15, the human was

made responsible for the creation "to till it and to keep it." The

Social Principles of the President's church declares "All creation

is the Lord's and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and

abuse it. Water, air, minerals, energy resources, plants,

animal life are to be valued and conserved because they are God's

creation, and not solely because they are useful to human beings."

In violation of this teaching, the policies of the administration have

rolled back legislation protecting the environment that has been in

force for many years under presidents of both parties, and our

government has refused to sign international treaties on global warming

and other threats to the environment.

 

+Concern for the poor. According to Luke 4:16 Jesus, quoting the

prophet Isaiah, said "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he

has sent me to bring good news to the poor." The teaching of the

President's church seeks fulfillment of that promise to "bring good news

to the poor." However, these last years have seen a dramatic

increase in the number of persons living in poverty in the United States

and millions have been added to the number without health care. The gap

between the wealthy on the one hand, and the middle class and the poor

on the other, has increased each year, under the policies of the

government which has brought good news only to the wealthy.

 

Not only are the policies of this government in conflict with scripture

and the teachings of the President's church, but President Bush has been

unwilling to listen to the counsel of religious leaders unless he knows

in advance that they agree with him. Being open to other points of

view within the Christian community is one of the marks of mature

Christian life. The bishops of the President's church have

repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought a meeting with the President. He is

only the second President since Washington who has refused to have a

discussion with Methodist bishops.

 

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the National Council of Churches

sent small delegations of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant leaders to

meet with the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the

Vatican and the United States of America. In nearly all of those

visits the delegation met with the head of state. Of those

governments, only the President of the United States and his

administration refused to receive a delegation. Tony

Blair, despite his support of the war, spent over an hour with the

delegation, listening to its point of view.

 

I do not question President Bush's personal faith. But he has not

studied the scriptures in relation to issues of justice and peace, or

else he has ignored those teachings. The result, in my judgment, is that

he has allowed his religious beliefs, dominated by his political

ideology, to make him absolutely certain that he is right, and unwilling

to listen to other voices. He is slow to admit a mistake on any

issue of substance, because he believes his decisions are just and

righteous.

 

The dogged determination and "staying on message," that some so admire, is self righteous and very dangerous. It casts the current struggle

against terrorism in "holy war" terms as a conflict between

absolute good on one side and absolute evil on the other, the same

perspective held by the terrorists. The issues are between good

and evil. The methods of the terrorists are evil. But it is

very dangerous for us to see ourselves as totally righteous.

A mature understanding of scripture could help the President to avoid

the arrogance and hubris that have so offended the rest of the

world. And in such a situation, to exploit, distort and manipulate

religion for political advantage is blasphemous. It is to

trivialize the holy for self serving purpose.

 

Religious talk can be very cheap. Jesus said "Not everyone who

says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only

the one who does the will of my father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

What is the will of "my father in heaven?" That is a huge question.

The President and his campaign would do well to reflect on that

question, and to avoid the tendency to believe that they already know

the answers. They might also consult with others who have studied

the question who might have a different point of view. And

meanwhile, they should be careful to avoid the sin of blasphemy.

 

William Boyd Grove is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church

living in Charleston

[BrotherRog]

Uh oh...

* Christian Evangelicals Proclaim "Now Comes the Revolution" *

 

Conservative Christian leader Richard Viguerie said yesterday "Now comes the revolution." We speak with Esther Kaplan, author of the new book With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W Bush's White House.

 

Listen/Watch/Read

Weblink

[BrotherRog]

Don’t Let the Car Fool You, My Real Treasure is in Heaven": Bushianity Makes a Mockery of Christ

by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

 

A few days ago I saw a brand new PT Cruiser with a bumper sticker that, at first glance, didn’t make sense: “Don’t Let the Car Fool You, My Real Treasure Is in Heaven". Several classy-looking Christian symbols adorned the vehicle, along with the ubiquitous “We Support Our Troops and President Bush" and “W" window seals.

 

As I stared at this odd assortment, the meaning dawned on me. Unlike the old bumper sticker that read, "My Other Car is a Mercedes", this one wasn’t an exercise in self-deprecating humor: It was bragging to passersby about the driver’s money, which isn’t too shabby, since a new PT Cruiser starts at $14,000. Bob Sheer writes about this new culture of greed, cleverly disguised as "Christian":

 

"So why gut the bankruptcy law now? Greed, pure and simple. And, pathetically, this bankers' dream is becoming a reality through the support of Republicans who have decided, as they often do with social issues, to selectively pick and choose when to follow the teachings of the Bible.

 

"A key sponsor of the bill, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), actively opposes abortion and same-sex marriage on biblical grounds yet believes the Good Book's clear definition and condemnation of usury is irrelevant. The Old Testament, revered by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike, mandates debt forgiveness after seven years, as was pointed out earlier this month by an organization of Christian lawyers in a letter to Grassley. "I can't listen to Christian lawyers," said the senator, "because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population." The Bankruptcy Bill: A Tutorial in Greed, Commondreams, 3/15/05

 

Of course, imposing the Bible on a diverse population is what the Bushians do best -- but not the whole Bible, as Mr. Sheer notes. Not only are inconvenient verses in the Old Testament ignored by rightwing politicians, but most of Jesus’ teachings are, as well. For the Bush administration, Christ’s most deplorable teachings are those that advocate nonviolence, love of one’s enemy, social justice, the refusal to store up riches on earth, praying privately without wearing one’s piety on one’s sleeve, and choosing instead to share with the needy and vulnerable.

 

I do wonder how the strategy meetings must have gone in the months and years prior to November 2000. The primary question on the minds, if not the lips, of Bush’s more cynical strategic advisors must have been: How in the world can we get America’s huge Christian population to sign on with a wealthy movement aiming to disconnect Jesus’ non-Republican teachings from Christianity, hollowing out the last vestiges of charity and justice that remain in America’s legal codes, moral values and social contract?

 

Easy, some bright fellow may have said while sipping his cappuccino -- just look Christian, talk Christian, pray Christian, and nobody will ever know the difference. When promoting unChristlike policies, be careful to surround them with a lot of prayer and somber-faced talk about "values" and "godliness". Always end with "God bless America", throw in "One nation under God", and talk a lot about Jesus saving you from this or that sin. But never quote Jesus if you can help it -- too liberal.

 

The Difference Between Bushianity and Christianity: "That Poor-People Stuff"

 

Bushianity is really all about power and wealth -- the divine right of the haves to get more of each, in order to better supervise the have-nots. Bushianity is quietly (discretely, always discretely) hostile to Jesus’ teachings, but loudly praises his birth (before he could teach) and his death (after he could teach). Nothing between those two events in Jesus’ life is of interest to Bushians, who greatly prefer the fire-breathing biblical writers advocating ruthless wars, slavery, female submission, the masses’ unquestioning obedience of rulers, and the death penalty for homosexuals and rebellious children.

 

The faith-based Bush administration, disinterested as usual in "that poor-people stuff", is working fast and furious on a number of fronts to put working and financially strapped Americans in their place. Its hallmark strategy for stealing from the poor to give to the rich is to overwhelm the public with multiple simultaneous changes, thus pre-empting time to think about, pray about, or oppose them.

 

The ultimate goal is to replace traditional American "we’re all in this together" culture with the Bushian "You’re On Your Own-ership Society". In this nightmare world, the working people are thrashed with measure after measure aimed at taking what once was theirs. The rationale underlying this "society" (a huge cluster of individuals with no obligations to one another) is as follows:

 

"If you want to be a good Christian you have to be a good Republican, and to be a good Republican you have to be a pure capitalist -- no "safety net" garbage, please. Don’t get involved in other peoples’ misery. Take care of Number One. You don’t owe them anything. Don’t share with others, except in little dribs and drabs called "faith-based" -- sharing is for girly-men, makes lazy people lazier, and sets a bad precedent that your Ownership neighbors will resent. Oh, and don’t look to us for help if misfortune strikes; you brought it on yourself.

 

The Bushians have been incredibly successful in their efforts to strike Jesus’ teachings from the record and from the hearts of Bush supporters. They decry any attempt to remove four words, "one nation under God", out of the pledge, while working to purge Christ’s values from something that’s a matter of life and death for many vulnerable Americans: the national budget. Bob Sheer sheds light on the sorrow that lies ahead:

 

"Sadly, when it comes to serving the prerogatives of banks, you can forget about those family values that folks such as Grassley prattle on about. The bill he wrote placed mothers and their children behind credit card companies in the line for a bankrupt ex-husband's paycheck, for example, which is positively Dickensian. Expected to sail through the House and onto the president's desk in the next few weeks, the bill turns the federal government into a guardian angel of an industry gone mad, placing no significant restriction on soaring interest rates and proliferating fees.

 

"One extremely modest amendment that was rejected by the Senate would have blocked creditors from recovering debts from military personnel if the loans had annual rates higher than 36%. Also killed were sensible amendments designed to protect those ruined by a medical emergency, identity theft, dependent-caregiver expenses or loss of income due to being called to full-time military duty through the National Guard or the Reserve."

 

Jesus Didn’t Plead

 

The Bush budget is indeed immoral, and as Sheer points out, it’s unpatriotic too! Progressive Christians are terribly upset and worried about what lies ahead, and are trying to get this administration, falsely advertised as "Christian", to change course. I agree wholeheartedly with the objectives of the "Christian Left" -- but something is missing. We are tilting at windmills because we don’t really see what we’re up against.

 

"U.S. church activists rallied on Capitol Hill on Monday to protest the proposed 2006 federal budget, which they contend provides too little funding for children and the poor. "It's quite troubling," said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA, speaking of the Bush administration's budget request. "There's not enough money for public education, health care and children."

 

"…The Bush administration's $2.5 trillion budget request for fiscal 2006 gives a 5 percent increase to the Pentagon and a 7 percent increase to the Department of Homeland Security, while cutting 11.5 percent from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 4.5 percent from community development programs and $45 billion from the Medicaid health program for the poor.

 

"It was the second time in less than a week than a coalition of church groups gathered in Washington to plead their case." Church Coalition Takes Aim at US Budget Plan, Reuters, 3/14/05

 

Yes, the Bush budget is troubling, and will harm American citizens, particularly the young, the old and the sick, from sea to shining sea. But I’m afraid that the good churches can plead for an eternity and see nothing more than a condescending nod from the White House. Sorry to be a pessimist, but the truth of the matter is that we can’t expect Bushians to listen to Christians. That’s because, in spite of their joint use of the label "Christian", these religions are quite different.

 

You can’t fight what you don’t understand. Until we admit that Bushianity is the mirror opposite of Christianity, we’ll keep "pleading". Such entreaties may make us feel better but they’ll fall on deaf ears. Christians, if we hope to be actually help the poor, the weak and the suffering, must stop making the soothing but dangerously mistaken assumption that "we’re all Christians, after all", following the same teachings and worshipping the same God. We are not. It’s time we woke up and smelled the coffee, as Ann Landers used to say.

 

When Jesus saw the corruption of the temple by "the money changers" -- actually a highly political use of religion with monetary rewards for the "haves" -- he didn’t plead. He didn’t expect the hypocritical religious and political leaders of his day to have ears to hear, and focused his energies instead on calling sincere religious people to turn away from their greedy leaders and back to God. It’s time we did the same.

 

* * *

 

Dr. Teresa Whitehurst is a clinical psychologist, author of Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family (2004) and coauthor of The Nonviolent Christian Parent (2004). She offers parenting workshops, holds discussion groups on Nonviolent Christianity, and writes the column, "Democracy, Faith and Values: Because You Shouldn’t Have to Choose Just One" as seen on her website.

http://www.buzzflash.com/whitehurst/05/03/whi05001.html

[darby]

Bro Rog (et al)-

 

I've avoided replying to the Bush bashing on this site, but the article you reprinted prompted a few thoughts.

 

A one sided article like this is akin to someone who argues that because Hilary Clinton is pro-choice, she hates life and wants to give women the right to have promiscous sex whenever they want, and not to be bothered with the responsibility of a baby, and because she wants to make money on the stock in abortion clinics she owns. I voted for Bush, but I am quite open to discussions on his policies (war, domestic spending, etc.) from a Christian viewpoint. But when I read articles like this (see them all the time) that suggest that Bush started the war because a few of his drinking buddies would profit, and he's not concerned about casualties; or that he and his rich friends sit around and make up laws to keep people down, so they can line their own pockets, I have to respond.

 

I guess my point is that I disagree with some of my more liberal friends (here, or when I see my mother, the family liberal!), sometimes quite heatedly, but I usually don't think our differences are because they are evil, plotting other's demise, etc. I just think we have different ways of viewing/fixing things.

 

For example, in the area of care for the poor, I am all for my preacher or a Christian friend challenging me to give more time, money, etc. to the poor. I DON'T want Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or George Bush doing that, usually, because I don't trust the government to handle all the social ills of society. Obviously, government has to have programs for the poorest of the poor. But in my line of work, I see HUGE waste in government, layers of bureaucracy, and many "poor" getting subsidies with nicer cars than my family, TVs that take up the whole wall, and more shoes than Imelda Marcos. That's not just a generalization--I see that stuff weekly. Most government programs aren't very good at truly deciphering the real "poor." I much prefer the government letting me keep more of my money so I can give, rather than them confiscating my money to give wastefully or to causes I don't believe in.

 

Just another rant to counter this idea that all (or even most) evangelical/conservatives are heartless money grubbers. It's just not true.

[DCJ]

Don’t Let the Car Fool You, My Real Treasure is in Heaven": Bushianity Makes a Mockery of Christ

by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

...

The ultimate goal is to replace traditional American "we’re all in this together" culture with the Bushian "You’re On Your Own-ership Society". In this nightmare world, the working people are thrashed with measure after measure aimed at taking what once was theirs.

Actually, it's just the opposite, but baseless rhetoric makes for a much more exciting article. You see, the "ownership" concept lets working people invest their own money for their retirement. (You know, "working" people: anyone with a job, not the left's definition of someone who's in a union and a Democrat.) Instead of being held hostage by the government's mismanagement of "what once was theirs," people can actually use their own money as they see fit. What a concept.

 

BTW, I've noticed that the left likes to use the phrase "we’re all in this together". While one would think that this statement means that they advocate sharing their own resources with the less fortunate, it's really code to disguise their covetous desire and claim on other people's livelihood to use for their political ends.

Edited March 18, 2005 by DCJ

[BrotherRog]

DJC, I respectfully disagree. Rather, IMO, it is conservatives who use religion for political gain. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. FYI, the following are why we "liberals" feel that the communal/social level needs to be given proper attention and energy:

 

Foundational Premises & Beliefs of Christian Justice & Peace:

 

Our personal identities are shaped communally.

One becomes a mature person in only in community.

Full personhood is attainable only in community.

There is no me without we. I am because we are.

We are individuals-in-community, humans are only fully human when in relationship to others.

 

Whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group.

Our own welfare depends on how well the others are doing.

 

Oral events – especially narrative/story, help form community.

Bible study and preaching informs the communal identity of the hearers who hear as a group.

We develop our sense of right and wrong in community.

No community, no moral life; no moral life, no society worth living in!

Yet, without communities, people’s self-formation suffers.

Each person becomes less of a person.

 

Christianity is a corporate/social/relational community that is based upon a specific story.

There is no such thing as a solo/lone Christian.

The Christian faith is not a private one.

It’s about the Body of Christ – not a fingernail of Christ.

 

“P&J Christians” are ones who seek to help the Church remember and reclaim the relational aspects of our faith. We seek to correct the Church’s tendency to be accommodated to Western culture’s tendency toward hyper-individualism.

 

Who we are is based upon Who God is.

The God of Christianity is not a rugged lone individual,

rather, our God is a relational God Who is relational within Himself (Trinity).

 

The God Christianity is infinitely loving and always faithful.

God wants all of His children to share a meaningful life, in all its fullness, here and now.

God is the One in Whom we all live and move and have our being.

God has created each person as “fearfully and wonderfully made” in God’s image and we each have a Divine spirit within us.

Each one of us is precious to God and our lives have dignity and are sacred.

 

The Christian God, the Holy One of Israel, the God of Jesus of Nazareth is One Who demands an ethical-prophetic life response. God demands righteous conduct.

Because God love us, we are obligated to love God back and to love the rest of God’s children.

By loving and respecting our sisters and brothers,

we exhibit our love for the God Who cares about each of us.

We are able to love because God loves us and because each of us was created in love.

 

While God loves all of God’s children, God has a particular love and concern for those who are struggling and suffering the most in this world – for the “least, the last and the lost.”

We therefore are to have particular love and concern for those whose pain God feels most.

 

Christians are called to make God’s love manifest in the real life situations of those who are hurting the most, those who are the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

God’s good news of salvation is intended for all, but it is especially life-giving and liberating to the poor and the suffering huddled masses – those at the bottom and margins of society.

So, this good news may feel as bad news to those who are at the top of the humanly-constructed social pecking order.

 

The human life of Jesus is a window that points to God’s nature, character, and priorities.

Jesus made it clear in His inaugural address in Luke 4:18-19 that He came to proclaim good news to a specific group of people – the poor and suffering.

This implies that God has a special concern for these persons, and that therefore Jesus did too.

 

At the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fundamental dignity and sacredness of all persons; the total liberation, and empowerment of oppressed peoples; and the envisioning and living-into the Dominion/Kingdom of God – life on earth that is transformed into the harmony of heaven – a fellowship of justice, equality, compassion, justice, and love.

 

Christianity is about making real life possible for all persons in order to establish a world household, where all persons can be united by the will and love of God.

 

While, not all are called to be prophets (officially called spokespersons for God),

all Christians are called to be prophetic in word and action – especially in the face of injustice.

I am for the God of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and of Jesus, or I am for idolatry.

That’s all there is! There is no allowance for “fence-sitting.”

 

We’re called to say Yes to all that God desires for humanity and No to all that God every act of injustice and other acts that demean and dehumanize persons.

We are called to be faithful to God’s faithfulness here and now – not tomorrow or the next day, but now. There is a sense of urgency – “justice delayed is justice denied.”

 

We need to bear witness to the condition of those who are dearest to God – the weak, the poor, and the disinherited. Our societies are judged based upon how we treat these persons.

 

Christianity calls us to a way of life that energizes us to remake the world in ways that are more consistent with God’s ideal community of love. Martin Luther King referred to this as “the Beloved Community”.

 

One cannot be truly Christian and be indifferent to injustice, to be knowingly complicit in it, or to be a perpetrator of it.

We’re called to repent of all of that and to live life in a new Way – Jesus’ sacrificial Way of the Cross.

 

God has initiated loving concern for all persons.

Our ministry must always rest on the assurance of God’s divine faithfulness, which has no end.

Only because of God’s unrelenting compassion for the suffering are we able to join together in our faith communities to work for an end to suffering, oppression, and despair.

With out the faithfulness of God, our efforts could not succeed.

Because of Gods’ faithfulness, we too can be faithful.

God’s Kingdom will come!

 

(an abbreviated summary of the first two chapters of Daring to Speak in God’s Name by Mary Allice Mulligan & Rufus Burrow, Jr.)

Edited March 19, 2005 by BrotherRog