Tag it:

See also: -"Misunderstanding MLKJr"; -"Beyond Vietnam"; -"Letter from Birmingham City Jail" -"I Have a Dream"; -"Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech"

I am amazed that there was not more of an outcry when George W. Bush said that America as a nation needs to be "born again." It's not because during his time in the Oval Office, Dubya has run off at the mouth with biblical sounding allusions and metaphors so often that they no longer attract attention. It's not because he said it at a private event, with only rabid, secrecy-sworn supporters around to hear it. It's because (as far as I know) he never said these words. Martin Luther King, Jr. did.

If you're like me, just the act of imagining a line like this (or something similar) coming out of the President's mouth automatically changes the way that you interpret them. That makes sense, because Dubya and MLK are very different people, with very different views of the world and of what our role in the world is. In fact, Bush's speeches have been peppered with many biblical and faith-based lines, similar to those that MLK used--and which gave his words added power.
I write this as a committed evangelical Christian, and my quandry is this: I don't like a lot what Bush says, but I think MLK was spot on with a lot of what he said. At first glance, my choices seem to be these:

1. Shut up. If MLK was allowed use these lines, Bush can too, so quit complaining.
2. Advocate for all biblical language to be discouraged from public life (granted, MLK wasn't a politician, but he was definitely political)
3. Try to find a way to argue that people I agree with can use biblical language, but those I disagree with cannot.

The problem, of course, is that Option 3 is indefensible while Option 2 borders on censorship and would preclude a subset of anyone whose faith or worldview influences every decision they make and every thought they have (ie. everyone) from public life--that subset being those who find moral guidance in Scripture and who don't want to pretend otherwise or try to artificially separate their "faith" from "the rest of their life" (as if that were possible).

So I suppose what it boils down to for me is not that Bush uses such language, but that his theology is twisted and he seems to be using Scriptural language to sanction things that Scripture shouldn't be sanctioning. Bush has bad theology--and I guess I agree with Jim Wallis that the answer to bad theology is not no theology, but good theology.

Jim Wallis in Mother Jones:
"[W]e're dealing with a religion that is more American than Christian. He changes the words of scripture. "The light shines in the darkness. The darkness does not overcome it," he said at Ellis Island, the first anniversary of Sept. 11. Well, that's [from the Gospel of] John. It's not the American beacon of freedom to the world. You don't change the words of scriptures. That bothers us evangelicals.
Or he changes hymnology: "Power, power, wonder working power." When he said that in the State of the Union, he got 60 million people going, "I know that song." But the wonder working power in the song is the salvation of Christ�not the faith and idealism of the American people. This is an American civil religion. This isn't biblical faith. I think the president just doesn't want to be accountable to biblical faith."
Jim Wallis (on PBS):
"See, I think those words, that biblical tradition, would critique our foreign policy, would challenge our sense of righteousness, would call our behavior into question, would not allow us to say, 'Evil is all out there, and we are the good, and those who aren't with us are with the terrorists.' I don't think biblical faith can sustain that kind of point of view. In fact, biblical faith would challenge it. So instead, the Bible is being used to justify our policies, and not to call them into question. That, I think, is the difference in civil religion and prophetic religion. Prophetic biblical faith would call the nation to account, call our policies into question, would cause us to [engage in] self-reflection and evaluation. But the use of language like this just becomes a way to sanction our behavior and our policies, and to appeal to a constituency that feels like they are being spoken to in a very unique and particular way."

The famous line attributed to Voltaire ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") leaves out the part where I also tell everybody why I disapprove of what you say. The right to speak goes both ways. Let Bush talk, let other voices talk, and call them to account when necessary. People like Jim Wallis (and others) have been doing it, some of them quite forcefully, but by and large the church has rolled over and let Bush do the talking.

Let him talk, but let's have a discussion and stop assuming (like so many seem to do) that because someone quotes a Bible verse out of context or makes a biblical sounding allusion, they represent the Christian faith.

Let him talk, and let others within the diverse tent we call Christianity also talk. And let us consider the words that he doesn't quote from the Good Book--there are a lot of them.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

laryn - America must be born again   | 68.165.246.xxx | Nov 14, 2006 (17:24:36) Martin Luther King, Jr.:"Jesus didn't get bogged down in a specific evil. He didn't say, now Nicodemus you must not drink liquor. He didn't say, Nicodemus you must not commit adultery. He didn't say, Nicodemus you must not lie. He didn't say, Nicodemus you must not steal. He said, Nicodemus you must be born again. Nicodemus, the whole structure of your life must be changed."What America must be told today is that she must be born again. The whole structure of American life must be changed."(quoted by Stewart Burns in Sojourners) Reply | Quote 0   0

laryn - Jim Wallis on faith and politi   | 138.88.9.xxx | Nov 14, 2006 (17:24:45) In the latest SojoMail, Jim Wallis writes about a related issue: the 'Justice Sunday' telecast, in which James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Chuck Colson, Albert Mohler (and Bill Frist) claimed Bush's judicial nominees were being filibustered (blocked) "because they are people of faith.""We can get some historical perspective by looking at how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did it - and he was the church leader who did it best. Once after he was arrested, he wrote a very famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," addressed to the white clergy who were opposing him on the issues of racial segregation and violence against black people. Never once did he say that they were not people of faith. He appealed to their faith, challenged their faith, asked them to go deeper with their faith, but he never said they were not real Christians. If Dr. King refused to attack the integrity and faith of his opponents over such a clear gospel issue, how can the Religious Right do it over presidential nominees and a Senate procedural issue known as the filibuster?" Reply | Quote 0   0

Anthony - King v. Bush on being born aga   | 141.156.185.xxx | May 20, 2005 (08:25:21) King's notion of being born again seemed to be much broader than Bush's understanding of the term. King used such theological descriptions through the lense of the social gospel while Bush typically sees being born again through a particular brand of a reductionist gospel that views Jesus as your very own personal pokemon (or savior). Anthony Reply | Quote 0   0

Kayla - Umm, what?   | 207.32.33.xxx | Nov 01, 2005 (19:20:06) Martin Luther King wasn't the President of the United States, who is attempting to represent people off all different backgrounds and religions. He was, in fact, a MINISTER. Bush has the right to say whatever he wants as George W. Bush, but as the President he has no right to assume that as the representative of the entire United States, that all of the citizens are Christians, or desire to be. It's quite a distinction. Reply | Quote 0   0

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.