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?