A Theological and Political Analysis

by Juan Stam

George W. Bush began to take part in a Bible study group in 1984, after two decades of suffering severe alcoholism. He attended at the invitation of his friend Don Evans, today his Secretary of Commerce. For two years Bush and Evans studied the Scriptures, and Bush put his alcoholism behind him. In that same process, he succeeded in refocusing his life, which had been diffused and confused, into a coherent cosmic vision--or ideology--which corresponded to the mentality of the conservative Evangelicals of his country.

The Evangelical movement had been growing by leaps and bounds on the American scene, especially within the Republican Party. Bush Junior soon joined the reelection campaign of his father. Together with his other close friend, Karl Rove--political genius, strategist behind his victories, and today his presidential advisor--the link was made with the Evangelical sector. The two of them mastered the semantics of that subculture perfectly. While other candidates were discussing polemical themes, Rove advised Bush that it was much better for him to simply speak about his faith. The younger Bush presented himself as "a man with Jesus in his heart."

When a reporter asked him who was his favorite socio-political philosopher, Bush replied: "Jesus, because he changed my life." That corresponded perfectly to the extreme individualism of fundamentalism, and it constituted what in the meta-language of Evangelical code words is called "personal witness."

In the semantic struggle of religious language, Bush and Rove have won without any problem, since they have had no rivals. Bush knew well how to manipulate the fundamentalist language (and, in another sense, that language has begun to manipulate him). Politically, his discourse has been very effective, but theologically the results have been more problematic.

It does not much resemble the discourse of historical Christianity. He leaves completely aside, for example, the classical debates on the Just War. In fact, his explicit theology does not appear to go beyond a few very general ideas and a few words repeated again and again: faith, values, religion, prayer, providence, evil.

On the other hand, the "implicit theology" behind his discourse begins to raise serious theological doubts and suspicions. We are going to analyze three aspects of that implicit theology in the discourse of George W. Bush, which appear to border on some ancient heresies.

1. Manicheism

This ancient heresy divides all of reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. To judge from the discourse of Bush, the United States of America is a nation conceived by immaculate conception, and it has reached the total holiness of Wesleyan theology. But to the enemies of his country, Bush applies with all its force the Calvinist doctrine of the total depravity of human beings. There is nothing which can explain the malevolent conduct of those enemies, or, much less, which could justify it. In U.S. society itself, on the other hand, original sin never seems to have entered. The Christian church rejected Manicheism as heretical many centuries ago. In the case of George Bush, his public declarations clearly imply heresies on the biblical doctrine of the human person, on sin, and implicitly on the doctrine of sanctification. Moreover, in the jingoistic spirituality of Bush, not the slightest room appears for repentance, or even at least for critical self-examination, much less for a conversion to God. Within that scheme, how is it possible to be really Christian?

In the Memorial Ceremony in Washington National Cathedral on September 14, 2001, Bush proclaimed in threatening terms: "This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger." These were presented as two key virtues of the country. One month later, in a press conference on October 15, 2001, he said naively:

"I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us. . . . I just can't believe it because I know how good we are. And we've got to do a better job of making our case. We've got to do a better job of explaining to the people of the Middle East, for example, that we don't fight a war against Islam or Muslims. We don't hold any religion accountable. We're fighting evil."

It is truly amazing that there should exist in this world a country which is totally altruistic, which lives always fighting evil! President Bush has repeated these nationalistic hymns of self-praise like a magic mantra: "We are the most peaceful country on earth," he said on another occasion (9/11/02). In his State of the Union speech in 2003, it was as if human language was incapable of expressing his worship of the fatherland. Among other paragraphs, let these serve as examples: "Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. "This nation fights reluctantly....We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all....Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves." According to this jingoistic exuberance, the moral superiority of the Americans stands confirmed by their victory over Iraq, and there is no evidence that can be brought to the contrary. When reporters who were in Baghdad asked General Garner about the massive protests against the army of occupation, he scolded them for dwelling on shortcomings. "Yeah, there are some demonstrations, but that's the first step in democracy....We ought to look in a mirror and get proud, and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say, Damn, we're Americans." The same day, after his dramatic "landing" on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, Bush exuded patriotism: "When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country....American values and American interests lead in the same direction: We stand for human freedom." It would seem that Mr. Bush was not informed of the reality of some of the armed forces of his country, as, for example, the sexual scandals at the Air Force Academy in Colorado. Much less did he recall the atrocities of the war in Vietnam, and cases like that at My Lai, or the sexual exploitation of little boys and girls by soldiers stationed at Palmerola, Honduras.

In biblical terms, the so complacent and sanctimonious attitude of Bush can only be branded as pharisaism: "We thank you, Lord, that we are not like the other nations, terrorists, with neither democracy nor free markets." Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees was directed against such pretense of holiness: "Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?"

Given that state of sublime innocence in his own country, like Adam and Eve in paradise, President Bush can muster only one explanation for hatred against the United States: "The terrorists hate our freedom. They are so evil that they abhor the good because it is good." In the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001, Bush first stated the position which he would continue to maintain: "This is a colossal struggle between good and evil, and let no one doubt: the good (read: the United States)

shall prevail." He has never distanced himself from this simplistic and Manichean analysis. In February of 2003, before the Association of Religious Broadcasters, he trumpeted that "the terrorists hate the fact...that we are free to worship God the way we see fit."

Anyone who thinks a little, or who knows the least bit of history, could ever accept this fantastic assertion of Bush. Osama bin Laden himself was an agent of the United States, but he turned against the U.S. in 1991, when American troops ("infidels" according to Islam) occupied his fatherland, Saudi Arabia, the most sacred of Islamic lands. In 1996 he issued his "Declaration of war against the Americans, who occupy the land of the two holy mosques," and in 1998 his "Declaration of Jihad against Jews and Crusaders" repeated the same themes. Bush himself has given more than enough cause to provoke hatred--from the illegal bombardments of Iraq in the first weeks of his administration to the insulting refusal to attend the conference in Durban, South Africa on racism and human rights. The Manicheism of Bush will not let him see reality.

Bush appears to believe that his country is not only a perfect democracy, but the only democracy in the world. But, if the terrorists hate freedom, why have they not attacked Canada, which in some respects is more democratic than the United States? Why is there not the same hatred for Switzerland, Holland, or Costa Rica?

In the beginning, the Bush administration baptized his antiterrorist crusade as "Operation Infinite Justice," a title which was equally offensive to both Muslims and Christians. The implicit message was that the Taliban were infinitely culpable and the United States infinitely innocent, and that "infinite justice" against them would involve vengeance without limit. Bush does not seem to have perceived the theological heresy in describing his project as "infinite," a word which, in English as well as in theological language, is an attribute of God and never of creatures.

Bush defined his enemies as the "axis of evil." To English speakers, the term "axis" recalls Hitler and the Nazis. The word "evil" is a very strong word. It means something very sinister, even diabolical. It is a term which is theologically and morally loaded. But for Bush it never occurred to ask himself whether this "axis of evil" might also go through Washington.

The Manicheism of Bush, born of the wedding of a sickly patriotism with a bad theology, has its corollaries. First, in this struggle between Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, "whoever is not with us is against us," and is therefore a terrorist. Second, as Donald Rumsfeld has pontificated: "Responsibility for every single casualty in this war, be they innocent Afghans or innocent Americans, rests at the feet of the Taliban and Al Quaeda," ...even though it be U.S. bombs that kill them.

The reality is totally other: if in fact the war against Iraq is an unjust and illegal war, then all the deaths, including those of the Iraqi soldiers, are criminal murders which ought to have been avoided, and are the responsibility of the United States.

2. Messianism

When George Bush, then the governor of Texas, decided to seek the presidency of the United States, he described his decision in terms which Evangelicals would understand as heard the call," a phrase which evoked the prophetic commissions of the Hebrew scriptures. Right away he summoned to the governor's mansion all the leading pastors of the region, to carry out a ritual of "laying on of hands," a practice which corresponds above all to ministerial ordination. He told the pastors that he had been called (obviously, by God) to be the presidential candidate. This language of divine calling has been frequent in his declarations, at a much accelerated rhythm since the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

A few days after the attacks, in the memorial service held at the National Cathedral in Washington on September 14, 2001, Bush spoke of a "a colossal struggle between good and evil," in which, he said, "our responsibility before history is already clear: to answer these attacks and to rid the world of evil." To achieve that ambitious goal, he announced a crusade against terrorism. Apart from the pretensions of such a project and its overtones of "manifest destiny," it did not occur to the President that he had "evil" in his own backyard, and that the crusade to liberate the world from evil ought to begin at home, with self-examination, with repentance, and with a sincere intention to "rid the world" of some of the causes of terrorism and conflict. For Bush, to "eliminate evil" meant to "eliminate those who are evil." Is that a Christian mentality?

In his 2001 State of the Union, Bush declared that "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, are in a permanent state of war, and we know that God is not neutral in this conflict." To doubt that, declared Bush, would be to fall into moral relativism--another slogan common in Evangelical causes. Apparently, God is also subject to Bush's Manichean corollary: if God is against terrorism, then he must be on the side of the antiterrorist crusade.

In his State of the Union address the following year, Bush reaffirmed that "History has called America and our allies to action." Faced with the Axis of Evil, he said, "the great hope of our time, and the great hope of every time, now depends on us." And before the Association of Religious Broadcasters, he declared: "We must also remember our calling as a blessed nation to make the world better. . .and confound the designs of evil men." "Freedom," he insisted, "is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to humanity." Therefore, the nation which embodies freedom should bear this gift "to every human being in the whole world."

A year later in his 2003 State of the Union, on the very eve of the attack on Iraq, Bush assured the nation: "We can move forward with confidence, because this historic call has come to the right people. . .Once again, this nation and our friends are the unique force which stands between a world in peace and a world in chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the security of our people and the hopes of all humankind. And we accept that responsibility."

Martin Marty cites other words of Bush which carry the same message: "Our nation has been chosen by God and commissioned by history, to be a model of justice before the world." According to Vice President Dick Cheney, the country "has the duty to act with force to construct a world in the image of the United States." Or, in the words of the presidential spokesman, Ari Fleischer, freedom (as Americans define it) "is not a Bush doctrine, nor an American doctrine, but a doctrine given by God."

Bush does not seem to have much hesitation in identifying God with his own project. In a speech in November 2002, Bush cited a christological text in reference to his own war project: "And the light (the US) has shone in the darkness (the enemies of the US), and the darkness will not overcome it" (America shall conquer its enemies). When he appeared in military uniform aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, he said to the troops: "Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: to the captives, 'go forth!'; to those who are in darkness, 'be free!'" It is theologically unacceptable for any politician to appropriate such prophetic and messianic phrases for his own program, much less for a program of war and death. After his address to the nation in 2003, Christianity Today, an Evangelical journal faithful to the Republican Party, reported in its on-line edition of April 25 that some pastors were concerned with the fact that Bush had made a problematic change in an evangelical hymn. Bush allowed himself to paraphrase the most beloved hymn "There is power, power, wonder-working power, in the precious Blood of the Lamb" as follows: "Ther e is power, wonder-working power, in the goodness, the idealism and the faith of the American people." He was dealing with a hymn which is doubly sacred, because it is adoration of Jesus Christ the Savior and is customarily sung at the Lord's Supper, at the time of sharing in the eucharistic cup of communion. Even more, the original text which Bush cited has itself a miraculous supernatural power ("wonder-working power").

The messianic illusion of President Bush produces in him a phenomenon of myopia and tunnel vision. It appears that, by feeling himself called by God, he has not taken into account the nuances which complicate his simplistic schemes, nor has he given any attention to the biblical, theological and ethical reasons which militate against his decisions. Newsweek magazine observed that the faith of Bush in the will of God gives him a kind of impenetrability, "a blend of obstinacy and arrogance." (3/10/03, p.15) The arguments of religious leaders and Christian denominations opposed to his wars leave not a dent in his ideological armour. In March of 2003, Bishop Joseph Sprague of Chicago protested that since October the Council of Methodist Bishops had been seeking, without success, an interview with their brother Methodist Bush. "The President has not been willing to hear the voice of his own church." (La Jornada 3/27/03) While even Tony Blair received a delegation organized by Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, the President refused to meet with that distinguished group. Bush appears not to believe that God can also speak to him through the medium of persons who disagree with him.

Apparently, the God of George Bush is a good American and a Republican, very patriotic and loyal to American foreign policy. He is not a God who judges or questions, but a God who legitimizes projects of war and domination. What would Elijah and the other prophets say of that God?

3. Manipulation of Prayer

True prayer does not pretend to tell God to do what we want God to do, but rather asks that God tell us what God wishes us to do. We do not pray in order to enlist God in our ranks, but to examine ourselves before God, to change and to do God's will. Therefore, the confession of sin and repentance are crucial moments in prayer and worship. A prominent French diplomat said it well: "In no way can we consult God only to obtain a vote of confidence"-- which is what Bush did when he pretended to consult with the United Nations. Prayer has played a role without precedent in the presidency of George W. Bush and in the propaganda of the Evangelicals who support him. Photos of Bush at prayer are common. Great publicity was given to the fact that immediately before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisors to leave him "alone for just ten minutes." In Evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai. In his interview with Tom Brokaw in the New York Times (4/26/03), Bush said: "I have a task to perform, and on bended knees I ask the good Lord to help me complete it with wisdom." To an English reporter who asked how he handled such stress, the Believer in Chief replied : "I believe in prayer and I believe in exercise." (NYT 7/4/02)

George McGovern, former Democratic presidential candidate, was right to the point when he wrote the following:

The President frequently confides to individuals and friendly audiences that he is guided by God's hand. But if God guided him into an invasion of Iraq, He sent a different message to the Pope, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the mainline Protestant National Council of Churches and many distinguished rabbis--all of whom believe the invasion and bombardment of Iraq is against God's will. In all due respect, I suspect that Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice--and other sideline warriors--are the gods (or goddesses) reaching the ear of our President. (NATION 4/21/03)

With Bush's presidency, and especially on the occasion of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the prayer of Evangelicals, technologized and massified, entered into the cybernetic age. Thousands of "Presidential Circles of Prayer" and "Wheels of Prayer" were organized, running twenty fours hours a day:

WHEEL OF PRAYER FOR OUR SOLDIERS Please do not break the chain

"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the altruistic actions they are performing for us in our time of need. This I ask in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Amen."

It was suggested to the faithful that, when they finished this prayer, they should log on to a special website: . With every "click" another prayer would reach the Lord to guarantee the military triumph of our troops! Unfortunately, that website was so overwhelmingly successful that it was closed down in March, 2003, on grounds of electronic spamming.

A movement called "In Touch," founded by Southern Baptist pastor Charles Stanley, distributed among the Marines as they were entering into combat thousands of pamphlets entitled "Duty of a Christian in time of war (including 'spiritual warfare')." With the pamphlet goes a small card which the Marines should sign and send directly to the President. In this way, they pledge to pray for him every day. The card says: "I have committed to pray for you, your family, and your Administration." Specific petitions are included for each day. For Monday, "Pray that the President and his advisors might be strong and brave in doing what is right, in spite of criticism." For Wednesday: "Ask that the President and his advisors be safe, healthy, and that they might sleep well, free from fear." (And why not ask the same for the citizens of Baghdad?) For Friday: "Pray that the President and his advisors be conscious of their divine calling." In this vast movement, it is frequently prayed that God grant supernatural power or supernatural wisdom to the President to enable him to come out ahead, or that he might be "divinely protected."

Conclusion

It is remarkable how closely the discourse of Bush coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament. While the true prophets denounced the sin and the injustice of their own people, the false prophets kept crying "Peace, peace" (Bush: "We are a very good people") and reassuring them with deceptions. Moreover, the false prophets called evil good, and good evil. For example, the aggression against Iraq and its destruction are, in the rhetoric of Bush, "liberation" and "bringing our compassion to the whole world." Civilian deaths are called "collateral damage." And while the true prophets proclaimed the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of justice and love who judges nations and persons, the false prophets served Baal, a god who could be manipulated at the whim of the powerful.

Centuries ago, Karl Marx concluded that "religion is the opiate of the people." In the context of the Lutheran Church in Germany in 1840, Marx had good reason to say so. But Marx never knew committed Christians like Camilo Torres of Colombia, Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, Frank Pais of Cuba, Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua, Dietrich Bonhoeffer of Germany, or Martin Luther King, Jr. of the United States. If Marx had known this class of Christians, he would have said: "Sometimes religion can be an opiate, but many times it can also be the leaven of justice and transformation."

How paradoxical, and how sad, that President Bush, with his heretical manipulation of religious language, insists on proving Karl Marx right.

The worst drug is the one which drugs the conscience. The worst traffic is the traffic with faith and with the Word of God. There are also "religious drug dealers," who will have to render acccount to the God of justice and of life.

Translated by Thomas E. Ambrogi