In Iowa, some United Methodists want the president and vice president tossed out of their church for “chargeable offenses” against its doctrines on justice and peace.
“Our hope is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will recognize the sinfulness of their actions, sincerely repent for what they have done and move on to change their ways,” say leaders of the liberal TheyMustRepent.com network. “Although we recognize the improbability of that outcome, we believe that with God all things are possible.”
Meet President Bush — theological Rorschach test.
Throughout this campaign, Catholics have debated Sen. John Kerry’s claim to his place at the Communion rail. The Democrat has drawn both criticism and applause in pulpits and pews while wrestling with the specifics of his Catholic heritage.
Bush has been caught in a different vise. If he affirms specific beliefs, secularists and liberal believers call him a fundamentalist. If he declines to be specific, critics ask what he is hiding. Is he a fundamentalist, a born-again Christian, an ordinary megachurch evangelical or some other brand of believer?
The New York Times Magazine says the president’s faith is irrational and dangerously simplistic. That’s the word from journalist Ron Suskind, whose acidic Oct. 17 profile ignited fresh debates about religion and the White House. According to critics in this camp, Bush thinks he’s on a mission from God and, thus, has the same black-and-white moral worldview as al Qaeda. The result is an American version of the conflict “raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.”
Not all progressives agree.
Jeff Sharlet, co-author of “Killing the Buddha: A Heretic’s Bible,” says it’s nonsense to call Bush a fundamentalist. The president rarely digs into biblical details, at least not publicly, and lacks the rigid literalism at the heart of true fundamentalism. Instead, he talks about following his “instincts,” his “gut” and his “heart” when he makes big decisions.
“Believing, it seems, is more important to the president than the substance of his belief,” argues Sharlet, in an essay called “Our magical president” at TheRevealer.org.
The key to Bush is his belief that “if you believe you can do something, you can,” he said. This “gentle disdain for perceived reality” is a kind of faith in faith itself. What many critics miss and what most of “Bush’s more orthodox Christian supporters seem to dodge, is that this is not Christian doctrine by any definition. It is, in fact, a key element of the broad, heterodox movement known as New Age religion.”
Meanwhile, one of America’s top evangelical historians has decided he cannot step into a voting booth and endorse either candidate. This is news in some circles because Mark Noll teaches at Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater.
“Seven issues seem to me to be paramount at the national level: race, the value of life, taxes, trade, medicine, religious freedom and the international rule of law,” said Noll, writing in the Christian Century.
“Each of these issues has a strong moral dimension. My position on each is related to how I understand the traditional Christian faith. … Yet neither of the major parties is making a serious effort to consider this particular combination of concerns or even anything remotely resembling it.”
Another evangelical says Bush deserves special attention because he has gone out of his way to find favor with religious conservatives. Whatever Bush has said about the conversion experience that saved him from his wicked, alcoholic past, the available evidence about the rest of his life “raises questions about whether Bush is really a Christian at all,” according to Ayelish McGarvey, in the American Prospect.
The president rarely goes to church, has little interest in evangelism, has a history of nasty campaign tactics, flip-flopped on the tough issue of embryonic stem-cell research, lacks humility about his mistakes and has edited the Bible down to a convenient set of commandments she calls “evangelical agitprop.”
“I’m no Kerry fan. I mean, I don’t think he’s a very good Catholic,” said McGarvey. “But if Catholics can dissect Kerry, point by point, then I think it’s more than appropriate for evangelicals to do the same for Bush. What does it say about us if we’re afraid to do that?”