"Brother" Bush?
One of the more confounding phenomena of George W. Bush's presidency has been the contrast between the firm and unquestioning support he receives from conservative Christians, and the degree to which authentic Christian character has been conspicuously absent from the president's words and deeds.
Stephen Mansfield's book, The Faith of George W. Bush, certainly indicates that there may well have been a true conversion to Christ in George W's not too distant past. Indeed, Bush the president is portrayed as a Bible-studying man of faith, as told by numerous quotes and anecdotes.
But now -- a year after Mansfield's book hit the streets -- the president goes on record on national television (ABC's Good Morning America, October 26) to declare that Christians and Muslims "all worship the same God," and that not only Christians, but also "non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven" -- having only "different routes of getting there."
Reality Check #1: The God of Islam, through his prophet Mohammed, decreed death to infidels (non-Muslims, including Christians), explicitly denounced Christ as Messiah, and denied Christ's resurrection. On the other hand, the God manifested through Christ the Son encourages one's being at peace with all men and loving one's enemies. Besides, His own unique atoning death and resurrection, are core tenets of the very teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and of the apostles who knew Him and established the church.
Bottom line: Both cannot be true.
Reality Check #2: Islamic scripture denies that infidels (including Christians) will see heaven just as rigidly as Christian scripture denies that anyone will see heaven without personally entering into a "saving relationship" with the Creator through the explicitly God-given gift of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Bottom line: Both cannot be true.
[Lest I be accused of attributing ignorance to Christians alone, I should note that when the above facts were pointed out to WBAL Baltimore radio talk show host Chip Franklin (who shortly after 09/11/01 declared that it was "wrong" to point out the differences between Christianity and Islam), Mr. Franklin provided the following "informed and relevant" response: "Why don't you live by the scripture instead of judging those who don't."]
In light of the doctrinal chasm that separates essential Islam and essential Christianity, Bush's statements are indeed perplexing, if not downright disturbing. No less disturbing (to me, anyway) is the tenacity with which some "conservative" Christians themselves can respond when such inconsistencies are pointed out and questioned.
Case in point: An internet acquaintance, and professing Christian (whom I'll call "Vaughn"), rather than discuss such questions directly, responded by declaring me to be "obviously a very angry, judgmental man with...a bitter heart..."
(How's that for a sampling of contemporary "Christian love" and intellectual honesty? I'm branded as "angry, judg-mental, and bitter" for asking questions in pursuit of the truth. Sounds like Chip Franklin would feel right at home at Vaughn's church!)
But suppose we give president Bush the benefit of the doubt, and assume a genuine salvation (duly noting a personal theology of questionable biblical content after years of supposed Bible study and church attendance). What then are we to make of a "Christian" who openly declines to do the duties to which he is lawfully bound in the office to which he has been elected?
"What ‘duties'?" some may ask...
Well, just sticking to the basics -- how about the president's job, as defined by the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution (which every U.S. president solemnly swears to "preserve, protect and defend"). And to keep this post from getting too long, let's just use a few examples...
Example #1: The Constitution's First Amendment protects the People's right to free speech, but president Bush happily signed into law the so-called McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" (read "incumbent protection") bill, which unlawfully prohibits the publishing of the position or record of an elected federal representative during the 60 days preceding an election (and who does that benefit, besides the elected -- incumbent -- federal representative?).
Example #2: The Constitution's Second Amendment protects the People's right to keep and bear arms, but president Bush explicitly asserted that he would sign a bill extending the so-called "assault weapons" ban, had it ever reached his desk. [Disarming the citizenry has been on the agenda of every major oppressive government in history, and was one of the last straws that fomented American independence from Britain.]
Many other examples could be cited, but these two suffice as clear-cut cases in which the Consitution was not preserved, protected and defended by an ostensibly "Christian" president, who has solemnly sworn himself to do exactly that.
What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps if I weren't so "angry" and "bitter" I could join the throng of "conservative" Christians who mindlessly embrace "Brother Bush" by turning a blind eye to his perpetuation (and enlargement) of the federal State and the increased powers with which it usurps the rights recognized and protected by law in the Constitution.
Maybe then, with my "angry" and "bitter" critical analysis skills and intellectual honesty effectively dulled by a renewed sense of partisan loyalty and pseudo-patriotism, I too could embrace "Brother Bush" and his statist agenda.
Nah.
Stephen Mansfield's book, The Faith of George W. Bush, certainly indicates that there may well have been a true conversion to Christ in George W's not too distant past. Indeed, Bush the president is portrayed as a Bible-studying man of faith, as told by numerous quotes and anecdotes.
But now -- a year after Mansfield's book hit the streets -- the president goes on record on national television (ABC's Good Morning America, October 26) to declare that Christians and Muslims "all worship the same God," and that not only Christians, but also "non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven" -- having only "different routes of getting there."
Reality Check #1: The God of Islam, through his prophet Mohammed, decreed death to infidels (non-Muslims, including Christians), explicitly denounced Christ as Messiah, and denied Christ's resurrection. On the other hand, the God manifested through Christ the Son encourages one's being at peace with all men and loving one's enemies. Besides, His own unique atoning death and resurrection, are core tenets of the very teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and of the apostles who knew Him and established the church.
Bottom line: Both cannot be true.
Reality Check #2: Islamic scripture denies that infidels (including Christians) will see heaven just as rigidly as Christian scripture denies that anyone will see heaven without personally entering into a "saving relationship" with the Creator through the explicitly God-given gift of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Bottom line: Both cannot be true.
[Lest I be accused of attributing ignorance to Christians alone, I should note that when the above facts were pointed out to WBAL Baltimore radio talk show host Chip Franklin (who shortly after 09/11/01 declared that it was "wrong" to point out the differences between Christianity and Islam), Mr. Franklin provided the following "informed and relevant" response: "Why don't you live by the scripture instead of judging those who don't."]
In light of the doctrinal chasm that separates essential Islam and essential Christianity, Bush's statements are indeed perplexing, if not downright disturbing. No less disturbing (to me, anyway) is the tenacity with which some "conservative" Christians themselves can respond when such inconsistencies are pointed out and questioned.
Case in point: An internet acquaintance, and professing Christian (whom I'll call "Vaughn"), rather than discuss such questions directly, responded by declaring me to be "obviously a very angry, judgmental man with...a bitter heart..."
(How's that for a sampling of contemporary "Christian love" and intellectual honesty? I'm branded as "angry, judg-mental, and bitter" for asking questions in pursuit of the truth. Sounds like Chip Franklin would feel right at home at Vaughn's church!)
But suppose we give president Bush the benefit of the doubt, and assume a genuine salvation (duly noting a personal theology of questionable biblical content after years of supposed Bible study and church attendance). What then are we to make of a "Christian" who openly declines to do the duties to which he is lawfully bound in the office to which he has been elected?
"What ‘duties'?" some may ask...
Well, just sticking to the basics -- how about the president's job, as defined by the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution (which every U.S. president solemnly swears to "preserve, protect and defend"). And to keep this post from getting too long, let's just use a few examples...
Example #1: The Constitution's First Amendment protects the People's right to free speech, but president Bush happily signed into law the so-called McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" (read "incumbent protection") bill, which unlawfully prohibits the publishing of the position or record of an elected federal representative during the 60 days preceding an election (and who does that benefit, besides the elected -- incumbent -- federal representative?).
Example #2: The Constitution's Second Amendment protects the People's right to keep and bear arms, but president Bush explicitly asserted that he would sign a bill extending the so-called "assault weapons" ban, had it ever reached his desk. [Disarming the citizenry has been on the agenda of every major oppressive government in history, and was one of the last straws that fomented American independence from Britain.]
Many other examples could be cited, but these two suffice as clear-cut cases in which the Consitution was not preserved, protected and defended by an ostensibly "Christian" president, who has solemnly sworn himself to do exactly that.
What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps if I weren't so "angry" and "bitter" I could join the throng of "conservative" Christians who mindlessly embrace "Brother Bush" by turning a blind eye to his perpetuation (and enlargement) of the federal State and the increased powers with which it usurps the rights recognized and protected by law in the Constitution.
Maybe then, with my "angry" and "bitter" critical analysis skills and intellectual honesty effectively dulled by a renewed sense of partisan loyalty and pseudo-patriotism, I too could embrace "Brother Bush" and his statist agenda.
Nah.
posted by Mudrostovich | 10:53 PM
|
0 comments
