More on Easter: unconventional views on the meaning of the Resurrection

In my previous post, I said that “for me part of the message of Easter is to follow the example of Jesus and follow God's will. Another part of the Easter message is that we all should do that, regardless of our place or position.” Those parts might not seem unconventional, but I feel there are other parts of the Easter message that are unconventional.

Overcoming that which does not exist

One of those parts concerns what has been a central element of traditional Christian church dogma. Once again, I refer to the Apostles’ Creed, which says that Jesus “was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead[.]” This refers to the Resurrection, which is described in Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-29. According to the Gospels, on the first Easter, the tomb of Jesus was empty, and Jesus had risen from his grave in bodily form. This is the event which Christians celebrate on Easter–the risen Christ. The Resurrection is almost always described as Jesus overcoming death, a victory over death, etc. While I do not really disagree with this, I also believe there are even greater messages in the Resurrection.

I believe that the Resurrection is not merely a statement that death was overcome. Indeed, I believe that the Resurrection is a statement that death truly was never present and that ultimately, there is no such thing as death. Now there’s something most of you have probably never heard in the institutional Church.

So, “what in the wide, Wide World of Sports is a-going on here?” One of the bases for my belief is that the Resurrection deals with more than physical death in this plane of existence. This world and this existence are but a part of life and existence in total. Our physical bodies will die, but according to scripture, there is some sort of existence after that. For instance, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus explains that giving to those in need is the same as giving to Him, and then in verses 45-46, He says, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (emphasis added). In other words, there is some sort of existence after our physical bodies cease to be.

In John 8:48-51, Jesus is being questioned by Pharisees in the temple.

“Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon: but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks it and he is the judge. Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.”

(emphasis added). In verses 52-53, the Pharisees, thinking that they would trap Jesus, then ask questions that seem reasonable:

“Now we know you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?”

(emphasis added). Verse 56 contains part of Jesus’s answer: “Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Now, to anyone who thinks of life and death only in terms of the existence of our physical bodies and the perishing of the physical body, Jesus’s answers will make no sense. Abraham lived 1000 years before Jesus, so how could Abraham possibly have ever seen Jesus’s day?

Jesus provides an explanation (at least in my opinion) in other Gospel passages. In Matthew 22:31-32, Jesus says, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the god of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.” It seems to me that Jesus is saying that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have been resurrected and thus are living, not dead. This passage from Matthew (and a similar one in Mark 12:26-27) are part of an exchange between Jesus and some Saducees. I like Luke's account (Luke 20:27-38):

Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’

(emphasis added). So I ask the following question: How can death be present when God is God of the living and all who believe in God are alive?

I believe that first Jesus told us that resurrection--as in eternal life after a physical death--occurred before and would continue for all who keep His words and follow His example, and then, in His role as Exemplar, he showed us that there is life after the death of the physical body. He told us and showed us that eternal life is reality. Thus, while in one sense--a limited sense--Jesus overcame death, in a greater sense He showed us that death does not exist. For those who are not following my explanation, ask yourself how can there be death if there is eternal life?

Part of the Good News of Easter is that Christ is risen. Jesus did indeed overcome death in the sense that physically dying did not end His life. That is indeed good news, but I think that even greater, more joyous news is that death does not exist.

The resurrection of the body

Many Christians would contend that I am not taking into account that Jesus's Resurrection was physical in nature. As said in the Apostles' Creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the body[.]" Get ready for some more unconventional views...For me, the resurrection of the body is not a crucial part of my faith. My views about the physical resurrection are much the same as my views about the Virgin Birth (as explained in Some Christmas Eve thoughts). In fact, I will reprint those thoughts here and simply substitute "resurrection of the body" for "Virgin Birth":

I happen to believe in the resurrection of the body, but not because it is written in the Gospels. Rather, my belief in the resurrection of the body is based on my belief that anything and everything is possible with God. If that's not unconventional enough for you, just wait...Even if it is conclusively proved that the resurrection of the body did not happen, I would not care. I believe that Jesus was and is Christ, and my belief does not require that the resurrection of the body be true.

In Some Christmas Eve thoughts, I explain that the life of Jesus is most important to me. This requires further explanation in the context of the Resurrection. Part of Jesus's life was accepting God's will that Jesus would be nailed to the cross (as discussed in my previous post). Another aspect of Jesus's life is what occurred on the First Easter and thereafter--the continuation of His life.

Go back to what Jesus says about resurrection in Matthew 22:31-32 and Luke 20:27-38. There are no accounts in the Old Testament of a bodily resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, yet the Gospels make reference to Abraham being in the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 3:9 John the Baptist says to a group of Saducees and Pharisees, "Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." (emphasis added). Similar references are in Luke 3:8, 13:28, and 16:19-31. In Matthew 8:11, Jesus says, "I tell you, many will come from east and west and eat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven[.]"

My point is that eternal life does not require a resurrection of the physical body. That is why the resurrection of the body is not a cornerstone of my faith. And I repeat that I believe Jesus was and is the Christ. However, for me the resurrection of the body is not as important as the continuation of His life beyond His physical body.

For me, the significance of the resurrection of the body of Jesus is that it provided the supreme example to people. Nobody before Jesus had said what he said. No one had done the things he did. Many times people either ignored or did not understand what he preached and taught. The Disciples--the people chosen by Jesus to be his closest students--often failed to comprehend Jesus's words and actions. Jesus told them on three different occasions that He would be killed in Jerusalem and the third day he would rise (See Matthew 16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mark 8:31-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Luke 9:21-22 and 44-45, 18:31-34), but they did not understand Him. Perhaps the only way for them to believe was for Jesus to appear before them in the flesh. Just as Jesus provided the greatest example of following God's will by being nailed to the cross, Jesus provided the greatest example that death was not present by rising in earthly form.

Thus, my view is that the resurrection of the body was necessary in order to get some people to finally believe everything that Jesus had taught. As further support, I cite John 20:24-29, which tells the story of "doubting Thomas," who would not believe that Jesus had appeared in the flesh until he could touch Jesus's wounds. Thomas does come to believe, and then Jesus says,

Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.

I do not know anyone who has actually seen Jesus in the flesh, and yet I know many people who believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah. Given what Jesus said to Thomas, actually seeing Jesus in the flesh is not a requirement for eternal life. And in my opinion, neither is an absolute belief in the resurrection of the body.

Remember that Jesus expressly said the most important commandments are "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Frankly, I do not see how having an absolute belief in the resurrection of the body is a requirement to achieving those commandments. However, others might have a different opinion (and I am sure there are more than a few). Remember that I have also said that as long as someone follows Jesus's commandments I don't care what that person believes or practices. In this context that means that if someone needs to have an absolute belief in the resurrection of the body and places far greater significance on that than do I in order to comply with those commandments, then I have no problem with that.

Jesus and the will of God

This past Sunday marked the start of Christianity's Holy Week, the last week of the life of Jesus, beginning with Palm Sunday and ending with His resurrection on Easter Sunday. Today is Maundy Thursday, the day of the Last Supper.

My description of this blog says that I have unconventional views on spirituality and religion. Well, buckle up, boys and girls, because you are about to read some of those views.

I have a view of Easter that is very different from what most Christians are taught. Before proceeding, I want it known that I believe Jesus was and is the Christ. I believe that He is the Son of God. However, just as importantly, He is Son of Man (indeed, in the Gospels, Jesus almost always refers to Himself as Son of Man). Now on to the discussion...

Jesus is known by many names: Christ, Savior, Messiah, Lamb of God, Son of God, Son of Man...However, one that does not get enough emphasis (in my opinion) is Exemplar. Jesus did not teach only by words. He showed through his actions how to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself," and those actions included His Crucifixion.

Major elements of Christian dogma are 1) Jesus died for our sins, and 2) God so gave His only Son to die upon the cross. I have a different take on these matters.

Jesus died upon the cross because that was God's will. Three times before Jesus went to Jerusalem, he told the Disciples that he would be killed there (Matthew 16:21; 17:22; and 20:17-19). Now consider the Gospels' description of what transpired after the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday. As written in Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. According to Matthew, Jesus prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." And then twice he prayed "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done." The "cup" was Jesus's impending crucifixion, and it seems to me that Jesus's will was not to go through with it. He wanted the cup taken away, and he did not want to drink from it. However, Jesus also made it clear that He would follow God's will.

One part of following God's will took place immediately after Jesus prayed to be spared a wordly death. Upon completing His prayers, Judas arrived with a crowd of armed men, betrayed Jesus, and Jesus was arrested (see Matthew 26:47-56 and Mark 14:43-50). For me, Matthew 26:50-54 is particularly important:

Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?"

(emphasis added). What this says to me is that if Jesus wanted to ask God to save him from being arrested, if Jesus merely asked for God to save Him, God would have done so. However, Jesus did not make such a request, for He instead followed God's will. Further Biblical support for this view comes from Phillipians 2:5-9, where Paul writes

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself,taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name[.]

(emphasis added).

Thus, it seems to me that while "God gave the world His only begotten Son," God's Son gave Himself up to die on the cross because God had willed it.

And what happened to Jesus because he followed God's will and not His own? As we say in the Apostles' Creed, "He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty[.]" (See also Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:50-51.)

So for me part of the message of Easter is to follow the example of Jesus and follow God's will. Another part of the Easter message is that we all should do that, regardless of our place or position. I mean to say, if God's own Son is supposed to do that, so are we all. The Crucifixion and Resurrection also shows that regardless of what God's will is, the perceived cost of following it pales in comparison to the benefit. After all, what is dying in comparison to sitting at God's right hand? The Easter message also says that following God's will is a way to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength. Therein lies the path to true union with God.

Apparently evangelicals are confused about evangelism.

In the GQ article "George W.'s Personal Jesus," Guy Lawson tells of Bush's "coming to Jesus" which took place in Midland, Texas on April 3, 1984. In telling this story, Lawson includes quotes from the man that was with Bush when he "received Jesus Christ as his personal savior," Arthur Blessitt.

Bush wrote an autobiography in 2000, A Charge to Keep, which detailed many of his significant spiritual experiences. However, the book does not say anything about the events of April 3, 1984. Lawson asked Blessitt why this event was not included in Bush's book, and Blessitt said he did not know. Then he followed with this statement:

It is a phenomenon inside the evangelical world for people not to talk about Jesus to outsiders.

I had to read that three more times to make sure it said what I thought it said. See, although I have already admitted that I do not consider myself to be an evangelical, which means I am no expert on the subject, I thought that the whole point of evangelism was to talk about Jesus to "outsiders" in order to bring the Gospel to them! It is rather difficult to bring the Gospel to people who do not know about it if one does not talk about Jesus.

Given that I am no expert on being an evangelical, I decided it would be a good idea to try to find some reliable information on the matter. A good reference point is found at Religious Tolerance.org, and several of the sources I cite herein I originally found at that site. According to this February 11, 2005 article from the Chicago Sun Times,

A widely accepted definition comes from British historian David Bebbington, who says evangelicalism has four hallmarks, namely beliefs that: lives need to be changed, the gospel needs to be actively spread, and the Bible should be held in unique regard, as well as an emphasis on the sacrifice Jesus Christ made, dying on the cross to atone for the sins of humankind.

(emphasis added). Next, I offer first this excerpt from a book review by Ron Maness of Guarding the Holy Fire: The Evangelicalism of John R.W. Stott, J.I. Packer, and Alister McGrath by Roger Steer:

So, first: what is an evangelical? Alister McGrath, perhaps the most prolific author among the current generation of Anglican evangelicals, lists the following four key elements: “1) A focus, both devotional and theological, on the person of Jesus Christ, especially his death on the cross; 2) The identification of Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of spirituality, doctrine, and ethics; 3) An emphasis upon conversion or ‘a new birth’ as a life-changing religious experience; and 4) A concern for sharing faith, especially through evangelism.”

(emphasis added). Joseph Tkach of the World Church of God (which is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals and not at all what it once was) also cites McGrath:

Alister McGrath, an evangelical Anglican, offered six major distinctives of evangelical Christianity: 1) The supreme authority of Scripture, 2) Jesus Christ as incarnate God, 3) the Holy Spirit, 4) personal conversion, 5) evangelism, and 6) the importance of the Christian community[.]

(emphasis added). Ah, but what is evangelism? The online BELIEVE Religious Information Source has an extensive discussion of the subject. Here is part of that discussion:

A comprehensive definition of evangelism came out of the International Congress on World Evangelization (1974). According to the Lausanne Covenant, "To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gift of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God. In issuing the gospel invitation we have no liberty to conceal the cost of discipleship.

(emphasis added). From the foregoing, it seems that 1) a person cannot be an evangelical without evangelizing, and 2) not talking about Jesus with "outsiders" is not evangelizing.

Other sources confirm the preceding sentence. Columnist Cal Thomas--that would be "very conservative and evangelical Christian" Cal Thomas--puts the matter thusly:

An evangelical Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and who has repented of sin and accepted Jesus as his or her savior. The evangelical believes he has the privilege and obligation to share the "good news" that Jesus came to save sinners with others so they might go to heaven rather than hell.

(emphasis added). The Religious Tolerance.org page says that "Barna Research Ltd....is the main Evangelical polling organization in the U.S." Actually, it is now Barna Research Group and is one of five divisions of The Barna Group. Part of Barna's definition of "evangelical" is a belief in "a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians."

As a result of the foregoing definitions, I am amazed that, according to Blessitt, "It is a phenomenon inside the evangelical world for people not to talk about Jesus to outsiders." That violates one of the intrinsic elements of being an evangelical.

Scripture also shows that the Gospel is to be spread to "outsiders." In the NRSV translation, Paul says in Romans 10:12-15

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on Him. For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent?

(emphasis added). He follows with these words from Romans 15:20-21:

Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already been named...but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”

(emphasis added). And Paul gives these instructions in Colossians 4:2-6:

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with thanksgiving. At the same time pray for us as well that God will open to us a door for the word, that we may declare the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison, so that I may reveal it clearly, as I should. Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone.

(emphasis added).

So there you have it. According to 1) the definitions of "evangelical" and "evangelism" from evenagelicals themselves, and 2) Paul's letters (which are part of Holy Scripture and thus part of the infallible, authoritative Word of God according to evangelicals), the "phenomenon" described by Blessitt is the antithesis of being an evangelical.

Just how sincere and strong is Bush's Christian faith? Part 3: Irony can be so ironic.

The primary subject of this post is Michael Gerson. Gerson is one of Bush's speechwriters. There is some info on him in An Update on "America's calling," but that post only discusses Gerson's "analysis" of Bush's Inaugural speech. I suppose there is some irony present in that discussion, but not as much as there will be here.

For a closer look at Gerson's role, I turn first to a Weekly Standard article by Terry Eastland from December 23, 2004:

MICHAEL GERSON deserves extra pay, or something, for agreeing to spend half a day earlier this month discussing with journalists a subject of some controversy--"Religion, Rhetoric, and the Presidency." If anyone was qualified for such a task, it was Gerson. He is President Bush's chief speechwriter, knows the president's mind better than anyone else in the White House (save perhaps Karl Rove) and--no small thing--shares the president's faith.

Gerson, the White House's resident intellectual, is a graduate of Wheaton College, where he majored in theology. He opened the discussion--part of a conference on religion and politics sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington--by pointing out actual instances in which Mr. Bush has used religious language. What they illustrate is a rhetoric that seeks to accommodate religious values, embraces religious pluralism and is quite aware of providence.

(emphasis added). The italicized portion implies that the words Bush uses are actually his words and his ideas. Others take a different view. For instance, the Ayelish McGarvey article that is the subject of Part 2 says

As has been often noted, Bush effortlessly speaks the language of the born again, and his remarks are loaded with subliminal messages to the nation’s 60 million white evangelicals. Ironically, the theology embedded in this language is not even the president’s own -- it belongs to Michael Gerson, Bush’s crack speechwriter, himself a devout Christian and a graduate of Wheaton College, the “evangelical Harvard.” Far too often, though, the press confuses Gerson’s words with Bush’s beliefs.

Part 2 also refers to reference an article by Guy Lawson that appeared in GQ magazine entitled "George W.'s Personal Jesus." Lawson falls somewhere between Eastland and McGarvey:

But in his formal public speeches, guided by chief speechwriter and fellow evangelical Mike Gerson (or "the Scribe," as Bush calls him), Bush uses extreme precision in communicating with his Christian constituency. A person steeped in the language of faith can recognize the voice of someone who shares his beliefs, and in this way the younger Bush is pitch-perfect.

(emphasis added). Regardless of how one views Gerson's role and influence, there is no question that he did write the actual words in many of Bush's speeches during the first term, and there is little doubt that Gerson was thought of as no ordinary speech writer. This excerpt from a January 5, 2005, Newsweek online article by Tamara Lipper explains these points:

Michael Gerson, Bush's chief speechwriter, who has helped craft nearly every one of Bush's speeches during his first term, is leaving his job.

*******

Gerson is one of the best-known presidential speechwriters, on par with Ronald Reagan's Peggy Noonan or John Kennedy's Theodore Sorenson. One sign that he was no ordinary speechwriter is the fact that instead of being housed, as speechwriters usually are, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Gerson shared an office suite with Bartlett on the second floor of the West Wing. A Christian evangelical and a former theology student, Gerson shares his boss's brand of compassionate conservatism. His trademark has been the religious language and Biblical references that populate Bush's speeches. To those who believe the president uses his speeches to send signals to conservative evangelicals, Gerson is the master of the code.

(emphasis added).

So where is the irony in all of this, and what does it have to do with Bush's faith or lack thereof? There is a three-part answer.

1) Gerson is the person who has been primarily responsible for the public expressions of Bush's faith.

2) As pointed out by Lawson, Bush his own self calls Gerson "the Scribe."

3) In Part 2, I say that "Chapter 23 of Matthew has some particularly poignant passages." In Chapter 23 in both the New King James Version and the New Revised Standard Version, Jesus repeatedly says, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (emphasis added).

And that folks, is not just canonic. It is ironic.

Just how sincere and strong is Bush's Christian faith? Part 2: Ayelish McGarvey makes a strong case that it is weak--and I am adding to the case.

On October 19, 2004, the online version of The American Prospect published an article by Ayelish McGarvey entitled "As God Is His Witness." That title seems rather innocuous, but the line under the title really tells what the article is all about: "Bush is no devout evangelical. In fact, he may not be a Christian at all." So much for subtlety.

Who is Ayelish McGarvey?

The American Prospect is what the wingers would call part of the vast liberal media that control the world. So this Ayelish McGarvey must be some sort of heathen, dope-smoking commie, right? Not so much.

Here is how McGarvey describes herself in a response to an online criticism of her article:

I am a Bible-believing evangelical from small town Illinois, and the daughter of a conservative pastor. Right now, I attend the same church as Michael Cromartie and Michael Gerson, though at other times I have shared a pew with John Ashcroft, among others. Sadly, I often find it necessary to flash my Christian creds; most conservative readers can’t fathom that I know the first thing about Scripture, Red America, etc.

Thus, it would seem that McGarvey has what we call in the lawyer bidness personal knowledge about evangelicals.

Overview of McGarvey's article

In the opening section of the article, McGarvey comes out strong:

Like no president in recent memory, George W. Bush wields his Christian righteousness like a flaming sword. Indeed, hundreds of news stories and nearly half a dozen books have evinced a White House that, according to BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb, “hums to the sound of prayer.” Yet for the past four years the mainstream press has trod lightly, rarely venturing beyond the biographical to probe the depth, or sincerity, of Bush's Christian beliefs.

*******

[W]hen judged by his deeds, an entirely different picture emerges: Bush does not demonstrate a life of faith by his actions, and neither Methodists, evangelicals, nor fundamentalists can rightly call him brother. In fact, the available evidence raises serious questions about whether Bush is really a Christian at all.

Ironically for a man who once famously named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher during a campaign debate, it is remarkably difficult to pinpoint a single instance wherein Christian teaching has won out over partisan politics in the Bush White House. Though Bush easily weaves Christian language and themes into his political communication, empty religious jargon is no substitute for a bedrock faith. Even little children in Sunday school know that Jesus taught his disciples to live according to his commandments, not simply to talk about them a lot. In Bush’s case, faith without works is not just dead faith -- it’s evangelical agitprop.

*******

For George W. Bush does not live or govern under the complete authority of the Bible -- just the parts that work to his political advantage. And evangelical leaders like Land who blindly bless the Bush White House don’t just muddy the division of church and state; worse, they completely violate Scripture.

(emphasis added). It should come as no surprise that I agree with all of the above. And, as shown by Part 1 (Bush and the Bishops), I have already provided evidence that Bush is not a good Methodist. The rest of the article provides details for her claims, and I urge everyone to read it in its entirety. Another reason to read the entire article is to put all of it in context. I am highlighting the portions I want to discuss, and in so doing, I might use those portions to convey meanings not intended by McGarvey. With that in mind, let's look at some of those details...

Is Bush "born again" or an evangelical?

Based on my personal experiences and beliefs, I do not consider myself to be either born again or an evangelical, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this post. I will say that I do not deny that people have "born again" experiences, nor do I reject what I understand to be evangelical practices. Despite the conviction I have for my beliefs, I try to live by this rule: As long as someone follows Jesus's instructions to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself," I don't care what that person believes or practices. In other words, what might work for one person to achieve that goal might not work for another. The born again/evangelical route does not work for me, but I cannot say the same for others. In part what I am trying to say here is that I am not an expert on evangelicals, so I am relying on McGarvey's analysis here.

So what is McGarvey's answer to the question?

Once and for all: George W. Bush is neither born again nor evangelical. As Alan Cooperman reported in The Washington Post last month, the president has been careful never to use either term to describe his faith. Unlike millions of evangelicals, Bush did not have a single born-again experience; instead, he slowly came to Christianity over the course of several years, beginning with a deep conversation with the Reverend Billy Graham in the mid-1980s. And there is virtually no evidence that Bush places any emphasis on evangelizing -- or spreading the gospel -- in either his personal or professional life. Contrast this to Carter, who notoriously told every foreign dignitary he encountered about the good news of Jesus Christ.

Please remember that the question in this section is whether Bush is born again or an evangelical, not whether he is Christian. McGarvey also explains why she believes that Bush's refusal to admit mistakes also shows he is not a born again Christian:

Judging him on his record, George W. Bush’s spiritual transformation seems to have consisted of little more than staying on the wagon, with Jesus as a sort of talismanic Alcoholics Anonymous counselor. Bush came to his faith through a small group program created by Community Bible Study, which de-emphasizes sin and resembles a sort of Jesus-centered therapy session.

But sin is crucial to Christianity. To be born again, a seeker must painfully acknowledge his or her innate sinfulness, and then turn away from it completely. And though today Bush is sober, he does not live and govern like a man who “walks” with God, using the Bible as a moral compass for his decision making. Twice in the past year -- once during an April press conference and most recently at a presidential debate -- the president was unable to name any mistake he has made during his term. His steadfast unwillingness to fess up to a single error betrays a strikingly un-Christian lack of attention to the importance of self-criticism, the pervasiveness of sin, and the centrality of humility, repentance, and redemption. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine George W. Bush delivering an address like Jimmy Carter’s legendary “malaise” speech (in which he did not actually say the word “malaise”) in 1979. Carter sermonized to a dispirited nation in the language of confession, sacrifice, and spiritual restoration. Though it didn’t do him a lick of good politically, it was consonant with a Christian theology of atonement: Carter admitted his mistakes to make right with God and the American people, politics be damned. Bush, for whom politics is everything, can’t even admit that he’s done anything wrong.

(emphasis added). Remember the comments about Carter. They will be relevant to a discussion of something Ted Haggard told McGarvey.

Faith language is good politics; acting in accordance with that language is not.

• The purpose and use of language
  

In her online response in which she gives her religious credentials, McGarvey says that Bush "prizes politics over piety." One example she cites is Bush's use of language that is specifically designed to appeal to evangelicals, and she quotes from a GQ article by Guy Lawson. Here is how Lawson describes Bush's skill:

The genius of George W. Bush for dealing with the conservative clergy first became apparent in 1987, when he moved to Washington to help with his father's run for the White House. Bush became the point man on wooing the evangelical vote. Doug Wead, a political adviser to the elder President Bush at the time, had been writing a series of memorandums on the best ways to communicate with evangelical Christians. Wead told me that the younger Bush understood the ways of evangelicals intuitively, viscerally, and that he was able to reassure them directly about his father's beliefs.

*******

Wead, who now works as a motivational speaker, came to know the younger Bush well in the years Bush was first learning the code for communicating with evangelicals. "George would read my memos, and he would be licking his lips saying, 'I can use this to win in Texas,' " Wead told me. "Signal early and signal often" was Wead's motto.

(emphasis added). The way I read the Gospels, Jesus was not in favor of proclaiming piety in order to win political power. McGarvey illustrated this point with a passage from Luke 18:9-14.

But in the Bible, Jesus Christ disdained insincere religious posturing. In the famed parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee, the penitent taxman prayed in a far corner of the temple and wept, hiding his face from God in shame. The Pharisee stood up, front and center, and exalted himself, thanking God that he was better than other men. Christ was unequivocal: “I tell you that [the tax collector], rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Personally, I think Jesus put the matter more succinctly in Matthew 6:1: "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven."

But has Bush lived up to his words? Has he chosen politics over piety?

• McGarvey's example of polictics over piety
  

The example McGarvey uses is stem-cell research.

On the campaign trail, Bush himself bandied about Catholic “culture of life” lingo while siding with religious conservatives who unequivocally opposed embryonic stem-cell research. "During the campaign, President-elect Bush ... said that as president he would oppose federally funded research or experimentation on embryonic stem cells that require live human embryos to be discarded or destroyed," spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in early 2001. The message was clear: Opposing embryonic stem-cell research was a matter of conscience for the new president.

But as Bush’s political viability waned, so, too, did his Christian conviction. By August of 2001, he had finally located the political sweet spot: The president ultimately approved federal financing for research on 60 stem-cell lines that had already been harvested, but prohibited the creation of any new ones. The resulting policy is neither scientifically nor religiously defensible. If the destruction of embryos is the moral equivalent of murder, it should be banned; if it is not, there is no reason to restrict federal funding to already extant stem-cell lines. The decisive ethical issue here concerns the status of the embryo and the legitimacy of its destruction. Bush's position amounts to saying that murder is OK as long as it isn't done with federal funds. But while there may be little that can be said in favor of Bush's position from a moral or research point of view, it's the perfect answer to the president's political program. His base gets messages like “[embryonic stem-cell research] leads down a slippery slope [toward] designer clones,” while a general audience recently received a communiqué from the Bush campaign bragging that he "delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem-cell research."

Recent events have provided an even more telling example.

• The faith-based initiative
  

On February 15, 2005, Belief.net published a column by David Kuo, who was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for much of Bush's first term. The title of the column and its summary line read as follows:

Please, Keep Faith
Former Bush Aide: 'Minimal commitment' from the White House plus Democratic hostility hinder the faith-based plan

Kuo's column begins by describing Bush's bold faith-based initiative:

Four years ago, while visiting a small urban charity, President Bush launched the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He called it "one of the most important initiatives" of his administration.

It was hard evidence of the "compassionate conservatism" that Texas Governor George Bush embraced in his first major policy speech of the Presidential campaign, "It is not enough for conservatives like me to praise [compassionate] efforts. It is not enough to call for volunteerism. Without more support and resources, both private and public, we are asking them to make bricks without straw." That day a conservative Texas governor promised more than $8 billion during his first year in office to help social service organizations better serve "the least, the last, and the lost." More than $6 billion was to go for new tax incentives that would generate billions more in private charitable giving. Another $1.7 billion a year would fund faith-based (and non-faith-based) groups caring for drug addicts, at-risk youth, and teen moms. $200 million more would establish a "Compassion Capital Fund" to assist, expand and replicate successful local programs. Legislation would ensure that reported government discrimination against faith-based social service organizations would end. A new White House Faith-Based Office would lead the charge.

It was more than a bunch of promises. It was a new political philosophy of aggressive, government-encouraged (but not controlled) compassion that simultaneously rejected the dollars-equal-compassion equation of the "War on Poverty" mindset and the laissez-faire social policy of many conservatives. It was political philosophy of the heart as much as the head.

This was a dream come true for me. Yes, I actually dream of social policy. But since the early-1990s I've been what columnist E.J. Dionne termed a "com-con" or "compassionate conservative." I worked for William Bennett and John Ashcroft in the mid-1990s on issues like immigration, welfare, and education as they tried to promote a more compassionate Republican approach. While pure com-cons were never terribly powerful in Republican circles, Bush's endorsement of this progressive conservatism was exciting. And when he became the president, there was every reason to believe he'd be not only pro-life and pro-family, as conservatives tended to be, but also pro-poor, which was daringly radical. After all, there were specific promises he intended to keep.

I did not vote for Bush in 2000 as I never would have voted for him for President. However, I did vote for him when he ran for re-election as Texas Governor. The reasons for my vote largely relate to the role and function of the Governor in the Texas system (the Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, and others actually have much more power, and there is a huge difference between being Texas Governor and President), but even I had to admit that ol' George had done a pretty good job as Governor. He really made an effort to be bi-partisan and get the two parties to work together. I remember thinking that I could live with his winning in 2000 if he would just behave the way he did in his first term as Governor. I took a similar approach to his plans for a faith-based initiative. I had concerns about it from a separation of church and state perspective, but in some ways the initiative made sense. Well, to say that George did not behave as he did as Governor is a gross understatement. So, what Kuo goes on to say does not surprise me in the least.

Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact. In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million during the past four years. And new programs including those for children of prisoners, at-risk youth, and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years--or approximately $6.3 billion less than the promised $6.8 billion.

Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly-announced "new" programs aren't what they appear. Nowhere is this clearer than in the recently-announced "gang prevention initiative" totaling $50 million a year for three years. The obvious inference is that the money is new spending on an important initiative. Not quite. The money is being taken out of the already meager $100 million request for the Compassion Capital Fund. If granted, it would actually mean a $5 million reduction in the Fund from last year.

This isn't what was promised.

(emphasis added). Lest you wingers think Kuo is just engaging in Bush-bashing, think again, for he next writes "I have deep respect, appreciation, and affection for the president. No one who knows him even a tiny bit doubts the sincerity and compassion of his heart." He then describes some of the accomplishments of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, but adds

But they are a whisper of what was promised. Irony of ironies, it leaves the faith-based initiative specifically, and compassionate conservativism in general, at precisely the place Gov. Bush pledged it would not go; it has done the work of praising and informing but it has not been given "the resources to change lives." In short, like the hurting charities it is trying to help, the Initiative has been forced to "make bricks without straw."

(emphasis added). You mean George said one thing and did another? I am oh so shocked! Shocked, I say!

Kuo then gives three reasons for the shortcomings in the program. The first is "Republican indifference couldn't overcome knee-jerk Democratic opposition." The third is "Liberal antipathy magnified the Initiative's accomplishments," in which Kuo states that "Secular liberal advocacy and interest groups attacked every little thing the faith initiative did."

However, the second reason is the most relevant for this post. Here is Kuo's analysis in its entirety:

2) There was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda.

Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since LBJ's has had a more successful legislative track record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the "poor people stuff."

Not only were the tax items dropped from the 2001 tax relief bill, they were also ignored on numerous occasions when they could have been implemented. In December 2001, for instance, Sen. Daschle approached the Domestic Policy Council with an offer to pass a charity relief bill that contained many of the president's campaign tax incentive policies plus new money for the widely-popular and faith-based-friendly Social Services Block Grant. The White House legislative affairs office rolled their eyes while others on senior staff yawned. We had to leave the offer on the table.

They could afford to. Who was going to hold them accountable? Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA. Charities haven't quite figured out the lobbying thing yet. More significantly, over time it became clearer that the White House didn't have to expend any political capital for pro-poor legislation. The initiative powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders - regardless of how much money was being appropriated.

Conservative Christian donors, faith leaders, and opinion makers grew to see the initiative as an embodiment of the president's own faith. Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith. And since this community's most powerful leaders - men like James Dobson of Focus on the Family - weren't anti-poverty leaders, they didn't care about money. The Faith-Based Office was the cross around the White Houses' neck showing the president's own faith orientation. That was sufficient.

At the same time, the White House discovered urban faith leaders had been so neglected for so long that simple attention drew them in. Between 2002 and 2004 more than 15,000 white, Hispanic, and African-American religious and social service leaders attended free White House conferences on how to interact with the federal government. The meetings, held regularly in battleground states, were chock-full of vital information and gave thousands of groups invaluable information about government grants. They were hardly pep rallies for the President. But the conferences sent a resounding political message to all faith-oriented constituencies: President Bush cares about you.

Some liberal leaders have been quoted as saying the administration was looking to "buy minority votes." Nothing could be further from the truth. There wasn't enough money around to buy anyone. The conferences actually underscored how difficult it was to even get a grant. But by traveling across the country, giving useful information, and extending faith-based groups an open hand, powerful inroads were made to "non-traditional" supporters. One senior Republican leader walked into an early conference, stared wide-eyed at the room full of people of diverse ethnicities and said to me, "This is what Republicans have been dreaming about for 30 years." This is more damning of Democrats than anyone else. Where, exactly, has their faith outreach been for the last decade?

Kuo's question is a fair one, but he largely answers it himself. Apparently the answer is "the same place Bush's has been." While Kuo does not solely blame the White House, he does say "Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort"--and yet Bush did not even make that minimal effort.

Some of Kuo's assessment had been stated earlier by another former member of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As the Washington Post noted,

In August 2001, John J. DiIulio Jr., then-director of the faith-based office, became the first top Bush adviser to quit, after seven months on the job. In an interview with Esquire magazine a year later, DiIulio said the Bush White House was obsessed with the politics of the faith-based initiative but dismissive of the policy itself, and he slammed White House advisers as "Mayberry Machiavellis."

(emphasis added). And what was the White House response to Kuo? From the same Washington Post article:

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said yesterday that Kuo is wrong about the president's commitment.

"The faith-based and community initiative has been a top priority for President Bush since the beginning of his first term and continues to be a top priority," Duffy said. "The president has mentioned the initiative in every State of the Union and fought for full funding."

(emphasis added). Wow! Bush talked about the initiative in two whole speeches! That proves Kuo is wrong! Seriously, Trent, thanks for proving McGarvey right. See, her point is that Bush uses all this talk that sounds really great, but that in reality, his actions show it is nothing more than talk.

If you want to see what Scotty McClellan had to say about this, Belief.net has his comments here. In true Scotty style, he said the same thing Duffy said, only Scotty used about 10 times more sentences and threw in great catch phrases like "armies of compassion."

• Additional relevant scripture

Chapter 23 of Matthew has some particularly poignant passages. Here is Matthew 23:2-4 (from the New Rived Standard Version):

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them.”

(emphasis added). There is another translation that really puts this into context for today. Andy Gaus translated first the Gospels and then the entire New Testament straight from the original Greek (read the editorial review for The Unvarnished Gospels on Amazon and this reprint of the back cover of The Unvarnished New Testament for more info). Here is Gaus's translation of Matthew 23:1-4:

Then Jesus talked to the crowds and his students, saying, “Where Moses sat, the Pharisees and the canon-lawyers now sit. So do and keep what they say to you, but don’t go by what they do, because they say things and then don’t do them. They shackle us with unbearably heavy taxes and lay that on people’s shoulders, but they let no taxes come within arm’s length of them.”

(emphasis added). Can anyone say "Tax cuts for the wealthy?"

I also like Gaus's translation of Matthew 23:28: "You likewise from the outside appear to the world to be righteous, but inside you're full of hypocrisy and ways around the law."

The Ninth Commandment

Oh, this one is good. I cannot improve on McGarvey's prose on this point, and I do not want to edit it in any way. So here is the closing section of her article:

In Exodus, the Ninth Commandment admonishes, “Thou shalt not bear false testimony against thy neighbor.” God wasn’t joking around there. But time and again, Bush and Rove have relied on repugnant lies to discredit their opponents. In the final days of the Texas governor’s race in 1994, barroom rumors swirled that Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian, and that she had appointed “avowed homosexuals” to her administration. Those rumors were lies, but Bush won the race.

In 2000, Bush squared off against John McCain in the hotly contested Republican presidential primary in South Carolina. Rather than go one on one with the war hero and popular pol, Bush let shady henchmen do his dirty work for him. In the final days before the showdown, Bush supporters waged whisper campaigns and distributed parking-lot handouts spreading the vilest of lies: that McCain was mentally unfit to serve after his long captivity in Vietnam; that his wife was a drug addict; that the senator had fathered a black daughter with a prostitute.

Bush won that race, too.

Little has changed this time around. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth emerged this summer to attack John Kerry’s admirable military service in Vietnam, veteran observers of past Bush campaigns immediately recognized Karl Rove’s handiwork. And with less than a month to go until November, the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group abruptly preempted regularly scheduled television programming to air a propaganda film that denigrates Kerry’s war record. The media markets affected by this decision just happen to be in swing states.

Just how low will George W. Bush stoop for a victory?

For most candidates running for office, foul play is par for the course. But Bush is not like most other candidates. If he is a Christian, he is called to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a beacon of goodness and righteousness in a society havocked by moral depravity. In late May, Bush said as much to a group of Christian media players during a rare unscripted interview.

“I think a person's faith helps keep perspective in the midst of noise, pressure, sound -- all the stuff that goes on in Washington … ,” he explained. “It is one of the prayers I ask is that God's light shines through me as best as possible, no matter how opaque the window ….

“I'm in a world of … fakery and obfuscation, political back shots, and so I'm very mindful about the proper use of faith in this process. And you can't fake your faith, nor can you use your faith as a shallow attempt to garner votes, otherwise you will receive the ultimate condemnation.” (emphasis added)

You can't, that is, if "ultimate condemnation" is your real concern. For the purposes of winning elections, it seems to do just fine.

The closing section of this post: Ted Haggard needs to talk to Bush.

I asked the reader to remember McGarvey's comments about Jimmy Carter because they are relevant to something Ted Haggard told her (info on Haggard in Part 2 of As the W Turns). This is truly astounding stuff. In one sense it does not say anything directly about Bush. On the other hand, given that Haggard is one of the leaders of the group that gave Bush 27% of his votes (and, as I sumitted in Part 2 of As the W Turns, basically won the election for Bush), it does reflect on Bush. In McGarvey's words, here is the description of her exchange with Haggard:

For Bible-believing Christians, nothing in the entire world is more important than “walking” with Jesus; that is, engaging in a personal relationship with their savior and living according to his word. With this in mind, I recently asked Haggard, himself the pastor of a large church in Colorado, why the president, as a man of supposedly strong faith, did not publicly apologize for continually misleading Americans in the run-up to the Iraq War. Instead, Bush clung zealously to misinformation and half-truths. I asked Haggard why, as a man of Christian principle, Bush did not fully disavow Karl Rove’s despicable smear tactics and apologize for the ugly lies the Bush campaign spread over the years about Ann Richards, John McCain, and John Kerry, among others. After all, isn’t getting right with God -- whatever the political price --the most important thing for the sort of Christian Bush has proclaimed himself to be?

Haggard laughed as though my questions were the most naive he’d ever heard. “I think if you asked the president these questions once he’s out of office,” Haggard said, “he’d say, ‘You’re right. We shouldn’t have done it.’ But right now if he said something like that, well, the world would spin out of control!

“That’s why when Jimmy Carter ran, he [turned out to be] such a terrible president. Because when he [governed], he really tried to maintain [his integrity] and those types of values -- and that is virtually impossible.”

The pastor returned to my charges of Bush’s deceitfulness. “Listen,” he said testily, “I think [we Christian believers] are responsible not to lie [sic], but I don’t think we’re responsible to say everything we know.”

Un-freaking-believable. On his website, Haggard has his own personal Statement of Faith. Right at the very top is his view of the Bible:

The Holy Bible, and only the Bible, is the authoritative Word of God. It alone is the final authority for determining all doctrinal truths. In its original writing, the Bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant.

Well, Ted, then you might want to rethink your position expressed to McGarvey, for Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 (NRSV),

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(emphasis added). Moreover, following Jesus's teachings is not a conditional or partial thing. As He said in Matthew 22:37-40 (NRSV),

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

(emphasis added). Jesus did not say doing something halfway is O.K. All "the law" (and that includes the Ninth Commandment) and all of Jesus's teachings are based on these two commandments, and they require 100% and nothing less. Dishonesty is dishonesty. False witness is false witness. As McGarvey said in her online response, "This isn’t exactly a nuanced point—it’s the Ten Commandments, for Pete’s sake."

Also, note that transgressions require repentance. As Jesus said in Luke 5:22, “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” And Mark 6:12 tells us that upon being told by Jesus to go out among the people, the Disciples "went out and proclaimed that all should repent."

And another thing, Ted. The fact that Bush is the President does not means he gets any kind of free pass. Luke 13:1-5 says that

At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them. Do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did.”

In other words, it does not matter what you did or who you are, sinners must repent. Further Biblical evidence for this is found in general in Acts 10:34, where Peter says “I truly understand that God shows no partiality[.]” Paul is just as succinct in Romans 2:11: "For God shows no partiality." Paul gets more specific in Galatians 2:1-10. Paul describes returning to Jerusalem and obtaining the agreement of religious leaders that he should take the Gospel to Gentiles. In verse 6, Paul writes “And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)...” (emphasis added). There you have it--God shows no partiality even to leaders, which includes Presidents of the United States. Unless otherwise noted, the scripture excerpts I quote come from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), to which some people have an aversion. So I decided to check other translations of Galatians 2:6:

New King James Version: But from those who seemed to be something whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

New American Standard: But those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)...

New Living Translation: And the leaders of the church who were there had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)

And if there is still doubt, check out Ephesians 6:5-9. Paul discusses how slaves and masters should act, and verse 9 says “And masters, do the same to them (the slaves), for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with Him there is no partiality.” The New Living translation says “you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites.”

Bottom line: Holy Scripture says Bush is not relieved in any way of any commandment because he is a worldly leader.

And, by the way, Ted, the Bible says that you must confront Bush regarding his transgressions. Luke 17:3 says "Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive." Saying that Bush does not have any responsibility to "maintain [his integrity] and those types of values" while in office misses the mark big time. In making such statements, you are giving special treatment to Bush, which violates James 2:9: "But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."

Moreover, Jesus never said anything about it being O.K. to wait to admit sin and repent. According to Haggard's Faith Statement, he believes in the Second Coming of Jesus, in which "Jesus Christ will physically and visibly return to earth for the second time to establish His kingdom. This will occur at a date undisclosed by the Scriptures." The date is not disclosed, but Jesus says repeatedly that no one knows when that day will come, so everyone should be ever awake, watchful, and ready, for those that are not will not enter the Kingdom (see, for example, Matthew 24:36-44). One cannot be ready if he waits to admit sin and repent at a later date.

In her online response, McGarvey had this reaction: "Haggard essentially told me that, while he’s president, GWB is exempt from telling the truth. (Or compromising his political success in order to do the right thing.) That rankles me. Evidently everyone else in Christendom is fine with it." Well, it rankles me, too. And, as shown above, anyone who claims to believe in the Bible should also be rankled.

And seriously, Rev. Haggard, your position on this matter violates the Scripture you claim is infallible and the only authoritative word of God. In so doing, you have chosen politics over piety. If you ever reevaluate your position, I would hope that you would discuss it with George W. Bush. Maybe then our Pesident's actions would match his words.

Tough times ahead for The Bug Man?

Today there are two articles which indicate that Tom DeLay, a/k/a The Bug Man, could finally be facing political consequences for all the crap he has perpretrated. One article is in today's Washington Post, and the other is in the March 21 issue of Time magazine.

Each article expresses the theme that all the ethics charges against The Bug Man are starting to erode his support within the Republican Party.

"What charges?" one might ask. The full answer to that question would require several posts (even at my usual length), so for now here is a synopsis from the Time article:

Now the machinery that DeLay and his pastor (and former chief of staff Ed Buckham) built threatens to derail DeLay. He was slapped three times last year by the House ethics committee for violations of House rules, and finds himself potentially facing more serious trouble on multiple fronts. Each day seems to bring another embarrassing headline and more lawmakers' being caught up in allegations of impropriety that surround the lobbyists--many, like Buckham, former DeLay staff members--who have traded on their access to him. The Washington Post reported last week that DeLay (as well as six other Representatives from both parties and several congressional aides) had over the past four years accepted trips to South Korea, paid for by a registered foreign agent--a violation of House rules.

And let us not forget that the District Attorney of Travis County, Texas has indicted three of DeLay's associates--including the head of DeLay's political action committee--and is still considering bringing charges against DeLay. The Washington Post article describes some of the political problems that could develop for DeLay:

With some members increasingly concerned that DeLay had left himself vulnerable to attack, several Republican aides and lobbyists said for the first time that they are worried about whether he will survive and what the consequences could be for the party's image.

"If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there," said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers. "The situation is negatively fluid right now for the guy. You start hitting arteries, it only takes a couple." The consultant, who at times has been a DeLay ally, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he could not be candid otherwise.

At least six Republicans expressed concern over the weekend about DeLay's situation. They said they do not think DeLay necessarily deserves the unwanted attention he is receiving. But they said that the volume of the revelations about his operation is becoming alarming and that they do not see how it will abate.

And the Time article quoted "a senior G.O.P. Congressman" as saying that the growing furor around DeLay "just isn't going away." Time also found a Congressman willing to go on the record. Mark Souder of Indiana, while supportive of DeLay, nonetheless conceded that "There's a general feeling from all of us that Tom could be more careful. The accumulation of Mariana Islands, Korea, the stuff in Texas has some people wringing their hands more than others." The Washington Post also got a quote from someone willing to go on the record:

Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that DeLay remains generally strong within his party and is an effective leader and operator, but that "signs are emerging that both the number and nature of charges being raised against him could put him in serious political peril."

And why did it take this long to happen? Why have the Republicans supported and defended DeLay and basically disregarded all his bullshit up to now? One answer is rather obvious: money. Here's what Rep. Souder said to Time: "With Tom, it's going to have to be more than just allegations. Tom has done so much fund raising[.]" And Time also noted that "For most Republicans, the occasional controversy used to seem a small price to pay for the prodigious amounts that DeLay was raising and contributing to their campaigns." Time also described how DeLay

has always been solicitous of G.O.P. Representatives as individuals--adjusting the House schedule to accommodate a daughter's recital, knowing who needs a place to smoke and who is having a family crisis, making sure there is pizza in his office to tide members over during late-night votes.

Gee, what a great guy. In spite of such generosity, "much of the goodwill toward DeLay has begun to evaporate over the past year, as controversies have piled up like bricks in a wall around him." It's about damn time.

So why are Republicans only now starting to question DeLay? Well, apparently, it is not the ethical violations he has committed. Apparently, it is not the fact that DeLay could still face indictment in Texas. According to Time, what has Republicans upset is

a vote he engineered in December in the House Republican conference to change its rules so that G.O.P. congressional leaders could keep their posts even if they were indicted for a crime--a move that was clearly designed to protect his power if the Texas case took a bad turn. The move blindsided even Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

This was the infamous "DeLay Rule," which was withdrawn in January of this year, in part because, as Rep. J.D. Haywaoth (R-Arizona) told the Washington Post, members of Congress heard plenty of complaints in their home districts. "Consituents reacted," Hayworth said. It's so nice to know that many Republicans in the House (but certainly not all) needed negative reactions from their voters instead of having any kind of moral backbone to realize what a big steaming pile of hypocritical crap the DeLay Rule was.

In any event, the negative reaction over the DeLay Rule could prove to be The Bug Man's downfall. Here's one more excerpt from Time:

After the debacle over the ethics rules, more than a few House members say they can ill afford to put their necks out much farther for DeLay. And their support could erode further--and quickly--if they start hearing complaints about DeLay from their constituents at home. "As members head home, they'll review the various media reports," says Arizona's Hayworth, who has been burned by revelations that he used a skybox supplied by Abramoff for fund raising. "I'm sure that it's in the best interest of the majority leader and the majority to have an accounting of what transpired."

Indeed, it would be in the interest of the majority, but it will never happen unless many more Republicans decide to have a true accounting.

I ain't holding my breath.

Still, the Republican members of the House need to wake up and realize that DeLay's reign needs to end. At least today's articles give some reason for hope.

Just how sincere and strong is Bush's Christian faith? Part 1: Bush and the Bishops

Most of what I will discuss in this post is old news. However, this issue remains relevant because it goes right to the heart of George W. Bush's integrity. Also, given the potential for conflict with a major evangelical group (as discussed in the previous post), a discussion of this issue is timely.

As I said in the previous post, "I question the strength and sincerity of Bush's proclaimed religious faith." And I am not alone. This post will focus first on matters involving Bishops of the United Methodist Church. Part 2 (which will be the next post) will examine an October 19, 2004 article by Ayelish McGarvey.

George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church. So am I. Without going into details, my Methodist roots run deep. Consequently, this story has great significance for me.

On January 30, 2003, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to Bush concerning the possibility of a war with Iraq. Here is the letter in its entirety:

We greet you-our President, our nation’s highest military leader, and a member of the community of faith-in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

At a time when our nation, and you as its leader, face unprecedented challenges affecting the security of the United States and of the entire world, we wish to bring to you the insights and perspective of one of the largest segments of the Christian community of our country.

Because you are weighing the prospect of war on Iraq and all the terrible consequences that war involves, you will have faced firsthand the truth that war is not only-or even primarily-a military matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of the highest order, one that we have made a priority for many months as the possibility of war has loomed on our national horizon.

As leaders of tens of millions of Protestant and Orthodox Christians across the United States, we are in touch with our clergy, with lay leaders and with church members everywhere on this issue. We are also in communication with our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. Several of us have traveled to Iraq in recent years, and even in recent days, to speak with Iraqi people of faith. We draw on the tenets of our Christian faith in all these encounters, seeking a way toward peace that is both prophetic and practical.

It is with the utmost urgency that we seek a meeting with you to convey face-to-face the message of the religious community that we represent on the moral choices that confront this nation and your Administration. You are no doubt well aware of our activities to slow the rush to war and our continuing uneasiness about the moral justification for war on Iraq. What we ask now, as fellow believers and as the spiritual leaders of Americans in congregations in every community of our great nation, is a pastoral opportunity to bring this message to you in person.

Be assured of our prayers always for you and the members of your Administration, that God may keep and guide you.

(emphasis added). The letter was signed by 46 leaders, 20 of whom were Bishops of the United Methodist Church. There was no response from the White House until March 5, 2003. About one month prior to that date, Bush received another letter. This letter was from Sharon A. Brown Christopher, President of the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church.

Before reproducing that letter, some info on the Council of Bishops and Bishops in general might be helpful. As stated on the website for the Council of Bishops:

The Council of Bishops is made up of all active and retired bishops of The United Methodist Church. The Council meets twice a year. According to the Book of Discipline, “The Church expects the Council of Bishops to speak to the Church and from the Church to the world and to give leadership in the quest for Christian unity and interreligious relationships.”[427.2] The council comprises 50 active bishops in the United States; 18 bishops in Europe, Asia and Africa; plus 96 retired bishops worldwide. They are the top clergy leaders in the nearly 11 million-member church.

In The United Methodist Church, a bishop serves as a general superintendent of the entire church. In the United Methodist tradition, bishops are not “ordained” as bishops, but are clergy elected and consecrated to the office of bishop. Bishops give general oversight to the worldly and spiritual interests of the Church.

And in the words of the Council's current President, Peter Weaver:

So what does a bishop do? Paul’s letter to Titus (1:7) calls a bishop “God’s steward.” That stewardship, according to our United Methodist Book of Discipline, relates to “matters temporal and spiritual” with the purpose being “to equip the church in its disciple-making ministry.” (Para. 401) Bishops are to preach and teach the faith, ordain and appoint the clergy and care for the ordering and unity of the church as we share together in God’s mission in the world.

The preceding excerpts establish that the Bishops are the temporal and spiritual leaders of the United Methodist Church. With that in mind, let's take a look at the February 6, 2003 letter from Sharon A. Brown Christopher. The letter was generally supportive of Bush. It even acknowledged that Saddam's "tyranny has been demonstrated," and that "He must be held accountable. After that statement, the remainder of the letter read as follows:

Military personnel now stand on the front line, willing to give their lives. They personally bear the cost of the decision of war. I thank you, Mr. President, for your words of care for the Armed Forces. I beseech you to listen to the voice of hundreds of thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries who demonstrate for peace and ask your utmost restraint.

President Bush, I commend you for your careful work within the processes of the United Nations. I compliment you for presenting the U.N. Security Council with additional U.S. intelligence about Iraq's weapons program. I urge you to stay the course, seeking every opportunity to disarm Iraq without resorting to war and looking for every peaceful way of protecting the world and our nation against the tyranny manifest around the globe.

The United Methodist Council of Bishops, made up of voices from Europe, Africa, the Philippines, and the United States, has heard the voices of the men, women, and children of Iraq who suffer daily from the effects of U.N. sanctions. Their present misery will fade against the innocent bloodshed to come in the event of war.

We pray that every possible means to prevent war will be pursued in the coming days. This is not a moment for haste but rather for deep thoughtfulness and prayer. It is a moment to reflect upon the well-spoken concerns of our allies around the world. The welfare of our human family depends on it.

The Council of Bishops holds you before God in prayer in this time of decision.

In the name of the Prince of Peace,

Sharon A. Brown Christopher

(emphasis added). Well, we know that Bush pretty much ignored this letter, but what about the January 30 request for a face-to-face meeting? As noted, there was a response to that request. It came in the form of a March 5, 2003 letter to Dr. Robert W. Edgar (who signed the January 30 letter to Bush) from White House staffer Bradley A. Blakeman:

Dear Dr. Edgar:

President Bush asked me to thank you for your letter inviting him to discuss the war on Iraq with members of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.

The schedule for the next few months has necessitated some difficult decisions. Unfortunately, I must decline the invitation and do not forsee an opportunity to add this event to the calendar. I know this reponse is disappointing but want to assure you that your letter received every consideration.

The President appreciates the support your invitation represents and always welcomes your comments and suggestions.

Here's a suggestion: the next time the leaders of the Church to which you belong ask to speak with you about war, when they ask you to pursue every other possible resolution, you might want to do something more than ignore them and have one of your flunkies write a blatantly dismissive letter.

I have two major problems with Bush's conduct regarding the United Methodist Bishops. Bush's opinions and views were obviously the opposite of those of many of the official leaders of the United Methodist Church, and yet he is still a member of the United Methodist Church. Why? To me, this is hypocrisy. And George's good buddy (for now, anyway) Ted Haggard just might agree. On July 3, 2004, Haggard appeared on Fox News's "After Hours with Cal Thomas." I have only found one source regarding this interview. From that source, here is a key part of the interview:

Thomas asked about a poll showing that 75% of Catholics oppose bishops denying Communion to politicians who dissent with the Church on abortion (as Kerry does). "Is it a good thing for Catholic bishops to start dictating public policy?"

Haggard: "Absolutely... Every religious organization has the struggle between those who are truly committed to the principles and values of that religious organization and those that are just culturally attached to it.

(emphasis added). Based on Bush's conduct, I say he is not truly committed to the principles and values of the United Methodist Church as expressed by the leaders of that Church. And if that is the case, then he should have the balls to say so and transfer his membership to another denomination.

At the very least he should have had the balls to meet with the leaders of his Church. And that is my second major problem with Bush on this matter. If one proclaims to have a steadfast, unshakable faith and conviction in his beliefs, then he should also be willing to answer concerns and possible challenges to those convictions. Otherwise, just how strong are those beliefs in the first place? Bush's conduct shows to me a lack of courage and sincerity.

So what else is new?

UPDATE: In Part 2, I reference an article by Guy Lawson that appeared in GQ magazine entitled "George W.'s Personal Jesus." There is one excerpt from that article which is relevant to this post. Here it is:

For Bush, despite the constant presence of religion in his words, the most basic facts of his worship and beliefs are a mystery. He was raised in Presbyterian and Episcopal churches in Texas, but he has not chosen a church in Washington and rarely attends services in that city. He is a Methodist by marriage but disagrees with mainline church policies on everything from the death penalty and abortion to the war in Iraq.

(emphasis added). And what was Haggard saying about people that are only culturally attached to a religious organization?

Part 2 of As the W Turns: the Bush Burns the Evangelical Base

Overview

A few days ago I was contemplating what the subject of my next post would be, and then I came across an article on the New York Times website that inspired me. In Part 1 of As the W Turns, I detailed how Republicans loved the AARP for helping get the Medicare prescription benefit passed but now hate the AARP because of its opposition to Bush's Social Security plans. And now there is another organization that has been a huge Bush supporter and favorite that could be facing the same kind of treatment.

The organization

The group in question is the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). According to a statement on the group's website by its president, Ted Haggard, the NAE has 52 denominations, and in an interview he said that the NAE has 30 million individual members and 45,000 churches.

In the next section, I will refer to a report on religion and the 2004 election by the Pew Research Center. That study categorizes various religious groups, and one such group is "Traditionalist Evengelicals," which is defined as having "highly orthodox beliefs and practices." Based on the NAE's Mission Statement and Statement of Faith, I believe that the NAE is a "Traditionalist Evangelical" group.

Up to now: We love the NAE.

Haggard is one of Bush's biblical buddies. Shortly after the election, an article by Max Blumenthal described a scene in the Oval Office after Bush signed the ban against late term abortions in November 2003:

Later that day, Bush celebrated privately with a virtual who's who of the religious right, including Falwell, radio host Janet Parshall, SBC leader Richard Land and National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president Ted Haggard, who leads a 14,000 member church in Colorado Springs, Colo. Together, they joined hands and prayed.

(emphasis added). And it turns out that Haggard has regular contact with the White House. In its February 7, 2005, issue, Time listed Haggard as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the country and mentioned that "Every Monday he participates in the West Wing conference call with evangelical leaders."

Haggard stated in the interview referenced above that he even got to attend the President's Christmas party at the White House.

The NAE's relationship with Bush is evidenced further by the fact that Bush addressed, via satellite, the NAE's national convention on March 11, 2004. In that speech, Bush said the following:

I want to thank you for the invitation. It's such a pleasure to speak to all of you in Colorado Springs. The National Association of Evangelicals was founded 62 years ago with the highest of calling--to proclaim the Kingdom of God. Today, your organization includes 51 denominations representing some 30 million people. You're doing God's work with conviction and kindness, and, on behalf of our country, I thank you.

The evidence shows that the White House really liked the NAE before the election, and the numbers from the election show that Bush should really love the NAE. I mentioned a report from the Pew Research Center, and that report shows that Bush got huge support from "Traditionalist Evangelicals." Of the Traditionalist Evangelicals who voted, 88% of them voted for Bush. The study noted that "The single most important group for Bush was Traditionalist Evangelicals, who provided more than one-quarter of his total votes (27 percent)." (emphasis added). In such a close election, I'd say the Traditionalist Evangelicals just might be most responsible for Bush's reelection.

I think it is safe to say that the White House at the least really likes the NAE. But will that change?

Could the love turn to hate? Could the NAE be the next AARP?

The New York Times article is entitled "Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming." Look at that again...Evangelical Leaders. Oh, this could become very interesting indeed. Here are the opening paragraphs from the article:

A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.

These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."

The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.

So why is this significant? Back on October 7, 2004, the board of directors of the NAE voted unanimously to adopt a document entitled "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." Part of that document addresses environmental issues, starting with an explanation why the environment is important:

As we embrace our responsibility to care for God’s earth, we reaffirm the important truth that we worship only the Creator and not the creation. God gave the care of his earth and its species to our first parents. That responsibility has passed into our hands. We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. We are not the owners of creation, but its stewards, summoned by God to “watch over and care for it” (Gen. 2:15). This implies the principle of sustainability: our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it.

The Bible teaches us that God is not only redeeming his people, but is also restoring the whole creation (Rom. 8:18-23). Just as we show our love for the Savior by reaching out to the lost, we believe that we show our love for the Creator by caring for his creation.

(emphasis added). I happen to agree with these statements in general, and with the italicized portions in particular (I also apply the underlying principles stated therein in ways that the NAE might disapprove, but that is a discussion for another time). With these concepts as a base, the NAE document then sets out policy:

Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. This involves both the urgent need to relieve human suffering caused by bad environmental practice. Because natural systems are extremely complex, human actions can have unexpected side effects. We must therefore approach our stewardship of creation with humility and caution.

Human beings have responsibility for creation in a variety of ways. We urge Christians to shape their personal lives in creation-friendly ways: practicing effective recycling, conserving resources, and experiencing the joy of contact with nature. We urge government to encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats.

(emphasis added). In many ways, these declaration of policy is not much more than a general list of things the NAE will encourage people and government to do. However, lately the NAE has been taking action on some specific issues. And more significantly, the NAE could end up opposing the Bush administration on global warming. For starters, as stated in the New York Times article, the NAE is actually going to actually listen to what a Bush opponent on global warming has to say. Why, the nerve of these people! How dare they listen to anybody else! Moreover, as noted in this February 6, 2005, Washington Post article,

Signatories (of the NAE document mentioned above) included highly visible, opinion-swaying evangelical leaders such as Haggard, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Some of the signatories are to meet in March in Washington to develop a position on global warming, which could place them at odds with the policies of the Bush administration, according to Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for governmental affairs.

(emphasis added). Wow--the NAE has gone on the record as saying it might oppose Bush on global warming. Should someone call the NAE and tell those folks what has happened to the AARP? Should someone warn them that the Bush administration has a tendency to viciously turn on anyone who is on their team one day and speaking out against them later?

I raise these questions for two reasons. First, I question the strength and sincerity of Bush's proclaimed religious faith--and that will be the subject of the next post. Secondly, I am not sure that Bush feels like he needs the NAE and other evangelicals now that he has been reelected. Bush is so clueless and arrogant--and is surrounded by supremely arrogant people like Karl Rove--that he might really think that the NAE cannot hurt him, can be placated by seeming to take up some of its causes, and/or that it will just go along with whatever he says. In other words, I think there is a statistically significant chance that the Bush administration will give the NAE the AARP treatment.

Then again...

...the NAE might just have the saavy and clout to get Bush to do what it wants on global warming. Remember how Haggard is part of a conference call with the White House every week? Well, there's more. From the Blumenthal article:

"We have direct access," Haggard told the Wall Street Journal. "I can call [White House public liaison Tim Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me within 24 hours."

This shows that the NAE's connections to Bush are direct and strong, and there are reasons to believe that such strength is also present in terms of influence. Time had this to say about Haggard:

At a meeting with President Bush in November 2003, after nearly an hour of jovial Oval Office chat, the Rev. Ted Haggard, 48, got serious. He argued against Bush-imposed steel tariffs on the grounds that free markets foster economic growth, which helps the poor. A month later, the White House dropped the tariffs. Haggard wasn't alone in faulting the policy, and he doesn't claim to be the impetus, but as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he gets listened to.

(emphasis added). A September 5, 2004, article by Paul Asay of the Colorado Springs Gazette (Colorado Springs is the epicenter of the evangelical movement and home to Haggard and other prominent evangelicals) described in general terms the clout held by the NAE and other evangelical groups:

Evangelicals are powerful here.

During President Ronald Reagan's June 11 funeral, Haggard counted two other invited attendees from Colorado: Gov. Bill Owens and Don Hodel of the Colorado Springs-based Christian organization Focus on the Family.

Few conservative candidates for national office pass through town without consulting with Focus founder James Dobson or Haggard.

The two represent a large body of believers - and voters - who push politicians to address issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

Those issues represent a "kind of currency that the religious right understands they hold and they can play," said Greg Borom, executive director of the local religious watchdog group Citizens Project.

*******

About 30 million people belong to National Association of Evangelicals member churches.

That number dwarfs other politically active organizations such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters Union and the National Rifle Association. Those groups combined would need another 10 million members to equal association membership.

Tony Campolo, a liberal evangelical who recently published a book called "Speaking My Mind," said the evangelical voting bloc is twice as important as the labor vote. "There's no question in my mind. The ability of the labor movement to mobilize its people is nowhere near the evangelical community."

And that brings us back to the specific issue of global warming. Joe Lieberman told the New York Times that "Support from the evangelical and broader religious community can really move some people in Congress who feel some sense of moral responsibility but haven't quite settled on an exact policy response yet. This could be pivotal." (emphasis added). And Haggard showed no signs of backing down:

"The question is, Will evangelicals make a difference, and the answer is, The Senate thinks so," Mr. Haggard said. "We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."

What is George going to do?

Bush is in a difficult position. Going along with what appears to be the NAE's stance on global warming will mean giving up what has been his consistent position all along. That could damage his credibility, which in turn could affect his ability to influence Congress and politics in general. It could also upset his big-money industrial supporters. However, if he does not go along with the NAE, he risks exposing himself as someone who only talks about being an evangelical Christian--at least in the eyes of the NAE. From what I have read about the NAE, its members and leadership do not like talk with no action. Although I disagree with their views on many issues, I do respect their commitment to "talk the talk AND walk the walk." Furthermore, if the NAE in any way gets the "AARP treatment," Bush could very well make an enemy of the people who gave him a second term.

Like I said, this could become very interesting indeed.