Our President, The Heretic

I think Andrew's right that he slightly misread David Brooks' column on the theological confidence of George W. Bush; on the other hand, this is a case where Brooksian subtlety might have been better supplemented by a dose of Sullivan-style outrage. At this point I'm with Andrew and Rod Dreher: I'm fed up with the President's messiah complex, and I don't bloody well want to hear any more about Bush's "theological perspective" that freedom is the Almighty's gift to all mankind, and so history's on our side in the Middle East, and yada yada yada. (Rich Lowry has more Bush quotes on that theme.) Every time I find myself leaning toward the view that maybe, just maybe, it's good that Bush is being stubborn about keeping troop levels high in Iraq, because we have a moral obligation to prevent a bloodbath and a large and active military presence is the only way to do it, I read quotes like the above and find myself swinging toward Rod's argument that whatever happens when we're gone, not one more American soldier should die for the President's world-historical delusions. Not one more.

In fact, I think Andrew lets Bush off too easily when he says "as a very abstract theological principle, it's hard for a fellow Christian to disagree" with the President's contention that "a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom." On the one hand, there's nothing "abstract" about that particular Christian principle: The gift of freedom that Christ promises is far more real than anything else in this world, if Christian teaching on the matter is correct. On the other hand, there's nothing that's political about that promise, and the attempt to transform God's promise of freedom through Jesus Christ into a this-world promise of universal democracy is the worst kind of "immanentizing the eschaton" utopian bullshit. It's Hegel meets Woodrow Wilson meets James Kurth's "Protestant Deformation" meets the American heresy, and Christians and conservatives alike ought to be appalled by it.

Update: My (somewhat more measured) response to Ramesh is here.

Comments

It's chauvinism and self-obsession, not Christian theology.

It could be attached to any religion, any country.

"Anything that passes through my head is validated by God. I'm from America, and I like America, so God does too. Facts don't matter, public opinion doesn't matter, results don't matter. God is 100% contained in my head."

A fine post. And I like the phrase "American heresy."

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 17, 2007 3:42 PM

It is also central to American theology, from the Puritan covenant to Abraham Lincoln to Reinhold Niebuhr. -- see Mark Noll's "America's God", for many details. Pres. Bush is following the mainstream of American theology; what Kurth calls a deformation is the pith of American belief. You may not like it, but you should recognize that you are departing from the American norm, not Pres. Bush.

Posted by withywindle | July 17, 2007 4:11 PM

withywindle, Neibuhr's cautious, humble views, his stressing of Original Sin and of the unrighteous actions of the righteous, have nothing in common with George W. Bush's smug, facts-be-damned certainty. Nothing.

He saw the need to fight expansionist totalitarianism; that's very, very different from launching wars of choice against countries located near places where people who had committed acts of terrorism against the US are from.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 17, 2007 4:16 PM

Rich Lowry has just posted the following over at National Review. It’s not more of that “utopian bullshit” you so abhor, and it might even help you embrace the idea of “moral obligation” without getting the vapors. Or you can just stamp your feet and say how you never supported the war and, even if you had, Bush screwed it up, and . . . blah, blah, blah.

It seems to me lately that the Iraq war has become less of a "liberal" war and more of a hard-headed Andy McCarthy-type war. Our chief war aims now are basically defeating al Qaeda and trying to check the ambitions of the Iranians--both of whom are unabashed enemies of the United States--and establishing an Iraq state that is somewhat stable and doesn't drag the region into a conflagration. Those are old-fashioned, national interest-based realist reasons for waging a war. Of course, we are down to these very basic rationales for the war because of the failures of the last four years. The war still has ideological import, but it is less highlighting the virtues of democracy in the Middle East (certainly not anytime soon) than the savagery of al Qaeda and its rejection by ordinary Iraqis. One way to look at it is that Sunnis have been offered three (from their view) radical social visions--a Shia-dominated democracy policed by the United States (offered by us obviously); their annihilation (offered by the Shia militants); and a repressive Taliban-style religious state (offered by al Qaeda). They are definitely not interested in the latter two visions and we'll see over time if they accommodate themselves to some version of the first as the least bad of the options realistically open to them. In the meantime, we are fighting to kill and stymie our enemies and to establish order in a strategically crucial country in the Middle East. You don't have to be a Wilsonian to support those war aims.

Posted by M.A. | July 17, 2007 4:39 PM

Ross, don't give up your pragmatic calculus because the president is rhetorically bankrupt. He's got a few rhetorical crutches he relies on, and he lacks the talent to veer from them. We should be used to it by now and we should stop using our president's ineptitude as an excuse to support the equally pie-in-the-sky and inept positions of his political opponents.

We are not fighting a messianic war in Iraq. We are fighting a war the outcome of which will greatly impact the direct security of the U.S. and our allies, the future confidence and posture of U.S. foreign policy and the military, and the lives of millions of Iraqis. And the latter does produce a moral imperative not quite messianic, but still significant.

Posted by Anthony | July 17, 2007 4:58 PM

I must say that what interested me about Brooks's column was less its observations on theology than its observations on history [OK, I'm a historian]. And my reaction was that George Bush's view of history is a logical outcome of the history edition of the Culture Wars. After all, it has been conservatives, particularly through the WSJ Editorial page and Lynne Cheney's various crusades, who have been pressing precisely this sort of "great person" history for the last twenty years. Conversely, we alleged "tenured radicals" in the history departments have been sloughing off our obligations to teach hero worship in order to teach "history from the bottom up." But now we get a certified conservative, Brooks [channeling Tolstoy, TBS], taking *our* side: "[The great men] think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up." And, of course, Tolstoy [Brooks?] is right. You hardly need to be a radical, or even left of center, to recognize that history is vast and chaotic, and that any pretense that it's malleable by your will makes you a sitting target for the future ironist. As others have already pointed out, this was Niebuhr's point as well [He was a philosopher of history as well as a theologian]. That this "conservative" philosophy of history is as innocent of irony as it is of humility says volumes about the blind alley into which the arbiters of the American Right have led it.

Posted by David | July 17, 2007 5:29 PM

David, as a former historian myself (I left graduate work for law school, and miss it every day), I think the argument is far from settled.

Let's take George Bush, for instance. While it is true he has not been able to bend history exactly to his will, his decisions have certainly altered it directly. To veer from history to law for a moment, "but for" the Bush administration, the world would be a very different place.

Even though many of the consequences of Bush's actions have been negative, he is still evidence of the power of the powerful to create and mold history. If Tolstoy was entirely correct, George Bush could not have done the damage he has.

Posted by Anthony | July 17, 2007 6:52 PM

Actually, I think political freedom--or the right to it, anyway--IS the gift of the Almighty.

I'm not going to throw out the Declaration to draw clearer lines between me and President Bush.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | July 17, 2007 6:53 PM

I see WithyWindle beat me to the point. The difference between Abraham Lincoln and George Bush, I think, is that Ol' Abe was much more alive to the messiness of getting to the freedom that the Almight wanted us to have.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | July 17, 2007 6:54 PM

There's no "transformation." If Bush believes, as most Christians do, that God created each person and so each person is entitled to be treated with dignity and thus shouldn't be butchered in a genocide, is that immanentizing the eschaton?

Posted by Thomas | July 17, 2007 7:00 PM

This is exactly the sort of thing from which critics of the 'theocratic' element in contemporary republican party take their lead. God may not be the law-giver, but he's the thing that legitimates the law and is its ultimate "origin." It's sort of weird to see these concerns sort of spring up here, as if out of the blue.

Further, I'm not sure how Bush's perspective is supposed to be un-Christian. It may differ in its expression and overall crappiness but it seems to be in pretty steady line with Wesleyan teaching on "sanctifying" the world.

I think theology inevitably shapes politics, and this is probably a good thing, it's just that we need to reconsider the theology from time to time, and not just pass it off as some sort of reassuring window dressing.

Posted by berger | July 17, 2007 7:06 PM

How about this for a response:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

I'd agree with that before this:

there's nothing that's political about that promise, and the attempt to transform God's promise of freedom through Jesus Christ into a this-world promise of universal democracy is the worst kind of "immanentizing the eschaton" utopian bullshit.

I'd rephrase your summary of Bush's position to be something more along the line of this: Christ selflessly gave of himself to save us from evil, and for us to give of ourselves to save others from evil is a noble, worthwhile thing. Democracy isn't the goal, defeating the evildoers is. Problem is, though many in Iraq are on our side, there are many on the side of the evildoers, and many others who are cynically taking advantage of the situation to better their own position at the expense of the good of the country.

Posted by Reg | July 17, 2007 8:30 PM

Niebuhr is overrated. Check out his World War One super-americanism and his early 1930s Marxism, and note his supposed chastened humility favored grossly political religiosity.

Posted by withywindle | July 17, 2007 10:56 PM

Lincoln refused to claim that he knew and shared the mind of God.

Bush is a caricature of traditional thinking on this subject. Bush is with God, and God became the US. Undreampt of in Bush's philosophy is the concept that our actions might not live up to our ideals.

From Lincoln's Second Inaugural:

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 17, 2007 10:57 PM

Re: "great men" vs. "bottom-up" views of history: I don't think it's so clear that Bush serves as an example in support of the "great men" view. While his incompetence and other personality traits have had some obvious effects in the world, it was the American public that re-elected him (and sorta elected him the first time). There's an entire cultural history behind the fact that a person like him was even considered a serious presidential candidate.

Posted by Tom | July 18, 2007 12:15 AM

If freedom is a gift from the Almighty why did he wait several thousand years to offer it. I hate to look a gift God in the mouth but it seems to me we could have avoided many centuries of misery if He hadn't come so late to the party.

Posted by robertl | July 18, 2007 6:10 AM

Ross apparently doesn't respond to comments here, but I'd like to see what he has to say about what Adam and WithyWindle had to say above. Or maybe he can just answer this question: what is it about "all men created equal with inalienable rights..." that he thinks is bunk? Because it seems to me that a country that makes that sort of claim in its founding documents and then neglects those principles in its foreign policy risks undermining them at home as well.

Posted by Michael Simpson | July 18, 2007 7:22 AM

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You've GOT to be kidding me. The Battle Hymn of the Republic?! Game over folks. Conservatives are citing the Battle Friggin Hymn of the Republic to justify foreign interventions undertaken in bad faith. That was our own civil war, mate.

I'd rephrase your summary of Bush's position to be something more along the line of this: Christ selflessly gave of himself to save us from evil, and for us to give of ourselves to save others from evil is a noble, worthwhile thing. Democracy isn't the goal, defeating the evildoers is.

If your idea of mainstream Christian theology is that it's about "defeating the evildoers," well, you are absolutely misinformed. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass. Go read. Start with St. Paul and Augustin. But do shut the hell up.

Problem is, though many in Iraq are on our side, there are many on the side of the evildoers, and many others who are cynically taking advantage of the situation to better their own position at the expense of the good of the country.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because none of the "evildoers" have been Americans! (How could they be?) Dude. Christianity is foremost about asking what evil your own actions have wrought. Spare everybody the puerile blinkered Manichaenism.

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 7:24 AM

Ross apparently doesn't respond to comments here, but I'd like to see what he has to say about what Adam and WithyWindle had to say above. Or maybe he can just answer this question: what is it about "all men created equal with inalienable rights..." that he thinks is bunk? Because it seems to me that a country that makes that sort of claim in its founding documents and then neglects those principles in its foreign policy risks undermining them at home as well.

News flash: Neglecting those principles in our foreign policy is PRECISELY WHAT BUSH HAS INSISTED ON DOING REPEATEDLY.

Hay-soos H. Christ. How bout get your own frigging house in order before you try remaking the planet in your own image. This war was not launched as some reaffirmation of our "founding documents." I can't believe how naive some people are.

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 7:27 AM

Christ selflessly gave of himself to save us from evil, and for us to give of ourselves to save others from evil is a noble, worthwhile thing.

Congratulations, you just completely missed the entire point of the Christian religion. Which is, that only Christ can "deliver us from evil." And now, in crayon: You aren't Christ. Oh, and neither is George "please don't execute me" Bush. Unfuckingbelievable.

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 7:31 AM

And not only that: if you're a Christian, and some screwy mental disability has led you into believing this is a Christian war - putting aside how pathetic and laughable that is - JUST HOW THE FUCK WOULD PATCHING UP A DISPUTE BETWEEN SHIA AND SUNNI MUSLIMS AMOUNT TO "SAVING OTHERS FROM EVIL"?? So we're fighting as Christians in order to ensure the unfettered practice of Islam in Babylonia? Just how far up your ass is your head right now?

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 9:47 AM

It is also central to American theology, from the Puritan covenant to Abraham Lincoln to Reinhold Niebuhr. -- see Mark Noll's "America's God", for many details. Pres. Bush is following the mainstream of American theology; what Kurth calls a deformation is the pith of American belief. You may not like it, but you should recognize that you are departing from the American norm, not Pres. Bush.

Mr. "Withywindle" makes such a misguided statement one doesn't know where to begin.

Leaving aside innumerable erroneous parallels between the writings of people like Niebuhr and Kurth and justifications past and present for the Iraq invasion and occupation -- the idea that President Bush, probably the least erudite or intellectually curious president in American history, views himself as an instrument of a so-called "American theology" -- well, it's just an embarrassing and absurd thing to say.

Just about every executive action undertaken by Bush gives every appearance of reflecting the Theology of Bush, which is at best a very confused distillation of shaky motives haphazardly colliding with half-formed principles. So stop insulting people's intelligence with these bizarre appeals to American intellectual tradition to defend the ongoing mission creep in Iraq. You're on much more solid ground defending the invasion in Machiavellian terms of national self-interest.

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 10:07 AM

"Christians and conservatives alike ought to be appalled by it."
You are absolutely right. So should everyone else. And where were the Christians and conservatives in 2000 and 2004, when Bush was spewing all this same claptrap? They were lapping it up like puppies.
So now that you (and the rest of us) see just how wrong you all were, what should the response be?

Posted by alwsdad | July 18, 2007 10:43 AM

Bush derangement syndrome hits the conservative base!! Listen either God is for freedom, against it, or neutral. If you don't like Bush's framing of the issue, IGNORE IT, don't stupidly argue that he's wrong when he's so obviously right!

Posted by Rafiq Goldstein Kim | July 18, 2007 12:43 PM

Bush derangement syndrome hits the conservative base!! Listen, either God is for freedom, against it, or neutral. If you don't like Bush's framing of the issue, IGNORE IT, don't stupidly argue that he's wrong when he's so obviously right!

Posted by Rafiq Goldstein Kim | July 18, 2007 12:44 PM

What a profoundly stupid column. Your ignorance of American history is astounding. The notion of rights emanating from God, whether "Nature's god" or Jehovah, not man is central to the Enlightenment philosophies our counry is founded. Read the Declaration of Independence, Locke's Essay,The Constitution and and basically any other founding document. Most of these were written by Christians (and hey Deists are religious too) who were taking part in and shaping seismic social changes both here and in Europe.

Is your bigotry against the religious so great that you are unwilling to contemplate their ideas in proper context? I'm an atheist, but I prefer to actually understand history rather than wallow in ignorance.

Mr. Douthat you nead to read and learn more and write less.

Posted by Michael Coe | July 18, 2007 12:53 PM

Ross,

I very much disagree with you. I think political freedom is very much connected to Christian teachings. But rather than take up space, I'll just link to where I already wrote about it.

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2007/07/thoughts-on-freedom.html

Posted by Alenda Lux | July 18, 2007 1:01 PM

What a profoundly stupid column. Your ignorance of American history is astounding. The notion of rights emanating from God, whether "Nature's god" or Jehovah, not man is central to the Enlightenment philosophies our counry is founded. Read the Declaration of Independence, Locke's Essay,The Constitution and and basically any other founding document. Most of these were written by Christians (and hey Deists are religious too) who were taking part in and shaping seismic social changes both here and in Europe.

What on Earth are you on about. WTF does this common knowledge have to do with what Ross is writing about? He's sick of Bush's messiah complex. Are you trying to justify Bush's messiah complex by citing Locke? Are you kidding? Actual Christian theology is a separate topic, and only haphazardly related to what Bush thinks and does.

This post refers to Bush and Iraq. Do you actually think Jefferson or Madison would sympathize with Bush's so-called "theological" perspective on that misadventure? Who's being profoundly stupid here?

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 2:10 PM

What a profoundly stupid column. Your ignorance of American history is astounding. The notion of rights emanating from God, whether "Nature's god" or Jehovah, not man is central to the Enlightenment philosophies our counry is founded. Read the Declaration of Independence, Locke's Essay,The Constitution and and basically any other founding document. Most of these were written by Christians (and hey Deists are religious too) who were taking part in and shaping seismic social changes both here and in Europe.

What on Earth are you on about. WTF does this common knowledge have to do with what Ross is writing about? He's sick of Bush's messiah complex. Are you trying to justify Bush's messiah complex by citing Locke? Are you kidding? Actual Christian theology is a separate topic, and only haphazardly related to what Bush thinks and does.

This post refers to Bush and Iraq. Do you actually think Jefferson or Madison would sympathize with Bush's so-called "theological" perspective on that misadventure? Who's being profoundly stupid here?

Posted by Bill | July 18, 2007 2:16 PM

Hoping that nobody is persuaded by Bill's ignorance, I'll argue with him.

I wrote:

I'd rephrase your summary of Bush's position to be something more along the line of this: Christ selflessly gave of himself to save us from evil, and for us to give of ourselves to save others from evil is a noble, worthwhile thing. Democracy isn't the goal, defeating the evildoers is. Problem is, though many in Iraq are on our side, there are many on the side of the evildoers, and many others who are cynically taking advantage of the situation to better their own position at the expense of the good of the country.

hidden among his many profanities, Bill summarizes the essence of christianity: Christianity is foremost about asking what evil your own actions have wrought.

He then offers this comment: Congratulations, you just completely missed the entire point of the Christian religion.

Bill, the POINT of the Christian religion is that we are saved from hell by Christ's death on the cross. Those who have faith go to heaven. Those who have faith, in thanks and in love, seek to spread Christ's message and follow his law.

My point was only that part of Christ's law is that it is good to save the innocent from the wicked. To the extent this country volunteered to do so, it is doing a good thing. I noted that a problem was that its not clear that many of the Iraqis agree that they are being saved from the wicked. Whether you think the war is a good thing depends on whether you think we are saving innocents from the wicked. I'd say reasonable arguments are on both sides.

Posted by Reg | July 18, 2007 9:36 PM

Those with flaws (note - flaws, not wholesale moral failure) are those whom Jesus recruited as his disciples. Those with wholesale moral failure became traitors to Jesus - read Judas.

While you can argue whether Bush is deranged, stupid or evil, you have to give him the credence of his positions and his lack of "wiggle room" on the stands he takes. He is a sinner saved and carrying his faith with him. Faith acquired as a sinner.

Bush is the absolute opposite of Clinton, and was elected because of it. Now we get to evaluate the epitome of "nuance" vs. the distillation of "faith".

Enjoy the contradictions, folks!

Posted by Liam Colvin | July 18, 2007 10:45 PM

Liam, there is little reason to assume that our past 2 presidents are the distillations of anything timeless.

If George W. Bush is the distillation of faith, then faith will cease to exist within twenty years.

Happily, it is not so.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 19, 2007 2:17 AM

I'll make this simple for you Bill. This is commonplace rhetoric for American politicians based on doctrines such as Natural Law. These are entrenched American ideas. The idea that Bush saying them has any particular significance is rooted in the fact that he is an Evangelical and is purely religious bigotry.

Saying that Bush wants to "Immanentize the Eschaton" is ridiculous and is the sort of sneering that I expect from limousine libs not smart people. It is also straw man arguing and not intellectually serious.

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God”

JFK - right before he tried to "Immanentize the Eschaton"

Posted by Michael Coe | July 19, 2007 1:08 PM

Or here is LBJ before hied tried to "Immanentize the Eschaton":

I want to be the President who educated young children to the wonders of their world.

I want to be the President who helped to feed the hungry and to prepare them to be tax-payers instead of tax-eaters.

I want to be the President who helped the poor to find their own way and who protected the right of every citizen to vote in every election.

I want to be the President who helped to end hatred among his fellow men, and who promoted love among the people of all races and all regions and all parties.

I want to be the President who helped to end war among the brothers of this earth.

And so, at the request of your beloved Speaker, and the Senator from Montana, the majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, the minority leader, Mr. McCulloch, and other Members of both parties, I came here tonight -- not as President Roosevelt came down one time, in person, to veto a bonus bill, not as President Truman came down one time to urge the passage of a railroad bill -- but I came down here to ask you to share this task with me, and to share it with the people that we both work for. I want this to be the Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, which did all these things for all these people.

Beyond this great chamber, out yonder in fifty States, are the people that we serve. Who can tell what deep and unspoken hopes are in their hearts tonight as they sit there and listen. We all can guess, from our own lives, how difficult they often find their own pursuit of happiness, how many problems each little family has. They look most of all to themselves for their futures. But I think that they also look to each of us.

Above the pyramid on the great seal of the United States it says in Latin: "God has favored our undertaking." God will not favor everything that we do. It is rather our duty to divine His will.

But I cannot help believing that He truly understands and that He really favors the undertaking that we begin here tonight.

» Copyright © QuoteDB 2005

Posted by Michael Coe | July 19, 2007 2:41 PM

The Bush family are the descendants of Yankee Puritans who were fanatics. They were rabid abolitionists, a species who did exactly what Douthat is raging against above: taking a political argument and turning it into a theological argument while at the same time demonizing opponents as being "evil". Instead of leaving political arguments in the realm of of politics, the abolitionists decided to move everything into the realm of religion. George Bush is doing precisely the same thing. And just as with his Puritan forebears, there's no arguing with these maniacs because they have God on their side.

Posted by Xenophon | July 19, 2007 4:25 PM

Wow. Yeah those wacky Yankees and their quaint Mayflower Compact. Those crazed zealots who settled Rhode Island with some of the first guarantees of religious liberty. Those crazed people who started the Abolitionist movement. They might have even thought liberty was a gift from God. But hey they're religious. You know they're intolerant. It nust be in the genes and yes, they want to immanentize the Eschaton.

Posted by Michael Coe | July 19, 2007 5:36 PM

Folks, folks. Those of you who say that the "freedom is God's gift" argument is non-Christian are missing something fundamental.

There are different kinds of freedom; different kinds of liberty. Among men who are debating government policy, liberty (or the free exercise of rights) is focused on the use of force by the state: If I can do or say something without fear of the state retaliating using force or the threat thereof, then I am "free" to do it.

It is true that Christianity does not mandate a style of government, and can function equally well under the persecution of emperors and the benign disregard of elected representatives.

But Christianity holds that men are created "in God's image" and clarifies the meaning of the phrase by placing it in a story in which God's primary activities are those of the creative artist and the loving-but-not-smothering caretaker. In other words, Christianity holds that men are free, in an image of the way God is free. Free to choose this and not that, and thereby influence their own fates and mold the world around them. Through decisions between good and evil, and even through morally neutral decisions between this and that, men emulate their "creator" by creating, if only partially and imperfectly, their own futures and the future of everyone touched by their influence.

This picture of man as free agent has an impact on Christian thinking which is so fundamental and foundational that it goes unnoticed: Like the sun in the sky, we see everything else by it, and rarely bother to see it, itself. In Christianity, the both blindingly obvious yet oft-unremarked truth is this: After existence, the very first and greatest gift of God to man was the freedom to choose. To the degree to which this freedom is negated, the entire purpose of human existence is also negated. God meant men not to be automatons executing programming, nor slaves hemmed in by the threat of force, but free individuals choosing the good, and glorifying God in the process.

Lest this picture of man be regarded as purely an Old Testament philosophy, please note the manner of conversion. Jesus and His Apostles preached a "salvation" which is dependent on free will. A person who is baptized under threat of the sword is not "saved" by that baptism, nor is a person who takes communion only to impress his friends but without actual belief. Being reborn "into Christ" is a voluntary act, performed in the heart, beyond the reach of the sword of civil authorities. "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," says Jesus, "and unto God that which is God's."

It is only natural that a civilization filled with Christians and Christian teachings would attempt to evolve lots of different variations of civil society to maximize human liberty. In the process, Western Civilization (once called "Christendom") finds that pure anarchism is unworkable -- if murderers roam the streets with impunity, they tend to kill again, thereby reducing overall human liberty by depriving their victims of life! And so the small sacrifice in liberty required to keep murderers locked up is better than the alternative large reduction in human freedom which comes from lawlessness. Still, we see the Christian tradition straining reflexively toward a society intended to maximize overall human liberty.

In fact, the maximization of human liberty (and thereby each man's maximization of God's gift to him of creative freedom) may come close to the core of Christianity's view of the distinction between good and evil, at least as regards human interactions. But that is a matter for more professional philosophers, moralists, and theologians.

Regardless, it is not preposterous for George Bush to argue that God intends men to exercise their free will for good, that doing so requires that they first be able to exercise their their free will AT ALL, and that all men collectively have a moral obligation to increase the proportion of mankind living under such circumstances.

It is orthodox Christianity to assert as much. To put it in another way, it is orthodox Christianity to imagine a "perfect" sharia state -- a sort of Saudi Arabia where the religious police were entirely without corruption and successfully prosecuted every offense against the moral law -- and assert that, in such a country, there could not possibly be any righteous men. For, without any practical option to be unrighteousness, their choice has been taken away. Righteousness requires choice; requires freedom.

The easiest bit of Christian moral philosophizing is this one: Given that people sometimes abuse free will and do evil, would we be better off without it? The Christian answer: Evidently God thought otherwise. He thought free will was WORTH the chance -- in fact, the certainty -- of some evil resulting. He thought it worth the painful sacrifice of Himself.

And if He thought freedom worthwhile, who are we to say otherwise?

Whether G.W.B. is correct in his policy is a matter for policy debates. And I agree with those who say his philosophizing for freedom sometimes comes across as dull, sometimes treacly.

But he's dead-on correct, if you want God's opinion, as believed by Christians.

Posted by R.C. | July 19, 2007 6:25 PM

Coe, I'll stack my slave owning Virginia ancestors of 1607 against your witch burning maniac Puritan ancestors any day. And the formation of this nation and its ideals has just as much to do with Virginians as it does with wacked out religious zealots (and their equally wacked out liberal descendants today) in Massachusetts.

Posted by Xenophon | July 19, 2007 6:46 PM

JFK - right before he tried to "Immanentize the Eschaton"

Or here is LBJ before hied tried to "Immanentize the Eschaton"

Exactly. They fell prey to the error of hubris. It used to be that conservatives had the sense to realize that we live in a fallen world and that mankinds' fallen nature was something that had to constrained in others and guarded against in yourself. Such was the salvific power of the Christian religion that it civilized against man's basest nature. Never, ever, ever was it believed even by the Yankee Puritans at Plymouth Rock that any type of political arrangement would bring about a self-actualization for whole peoples. They believed in Christ, not a political system. They would have considered it a blasphemy to do otherwise.

Posted by MIchael Koop | July 19, 2007 8:05 PM

If freedom is a gift from the Almighty why did he wait several thousand years to offer it.

Throughout history, different societies have had different levels of freedom. Additionally, just like His Kingdom, His freedom is not necessarily of this world. Finally, you don't give the gift of an automobile to a five year old - one must be ready to receive it lest the gift be abused or misused. I question whether any society, past, present or for the forseeable future, is truly up to the task of properly using the gift of freedom.

As for presidential invocations of the Almighty, I prefer Jefferson's (?)(paraphrase):

I tremble for my country when I ponder that God is just.

One thing Bush's policies sorely lack is humility.

Posted by c matt | July 20, 2007 9:24 AM

What do you think Jesus wants us to do about the mobbing and gangstalking that is going on?

Posted by Guess Who | July 25, 2007 12:01 AM

aznfhc htdoz uwznc qeptawr tjxcyufk splwda fuqahi

Posted by clzd kdnqpg | July 25, 2007 8:25 PM

Bush would be a very unusual Evangelical if he didn't believe the world was not about to end soon, because of wars in the Middle East. Given that most of Bush's Middle East wars don't make sense otherwise, it's logical to wonder if they were not meant to speed up the Second Coming of Jesus.

In other words, Bush is David Koresh in control of a country. It explains a lot.

Zhu Bajie

Posted by Zhu Bajie | December 14, 2007 1:18 AM

Good site. Thank you!!!

Posted by Replica Designer Watches | December 15, 2007 12:28 AM

Cool site. Thank you.

Posted by Federal Student Direct Loans | January 2, 2008 10:41 PM

Nice site. Thank you!!!

Posted by Corner Bathroom Vanity | January 5, 2008 11:24 PM