I usually put articles like this on the sidebar. But I had a few things to say on this.
I would encourage you to read the debate as covered by Christianity Today but here is part of the quote by President Bush:
It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom.
The more I think this idea through, the more I am convinced that much of the "evangelical Christian right" fails to see a difference between political liberty and Christian liberty. While in most circumstances we should work for political liberty for ourselves and for others in the world, we should not equate political liberty with Christian liberty. When we read Scripture (particularly Paul's letter) and identify the "liberty" discussed there as political, we create a convuluted world view for ourselves. Paul was far more concerned with the slave Onesimus's spiritual liberty than anything else. He sent him back to economic and personal bondage to Philemon (his master) upon his conversion.
I think it is easy for western (particularly American) Christians to misapply biblical terms in view of our political system and the Christian worldview of many of the Founders. But God is first and foremost interested in my spiritual liberty, which is eternal, than in my political situation, which is temporal.
I think there are valid reasons to be in Iraq, the most significant being our national defense. However, the President is on shaky ground with his justification and leaves himself wide open for well-founded criticism.
3 comments:
I do agree that there is a great distinction between Christian and political liberty, and that American Christians too often confuse the people of God and the United States of America, with all sorts of resulting problems.
However, I don't see what Bush says as indicating that confusion. Where political liberty is lacking, it is because someone is treating others unjustly--and that *is* clearly the job of civil government to punish, and God *does* care about it. (Romans 13, most of the minor prophets.)
Now, how much it is our responsibility to enforce justice on our conquered enemies, or how much it is possible to establish ordered liberty in a country without a religion that promotes liberty, is another question altogether. I personally am not very optimistic about the long-term possibilities in Iraq.
But I don't see anything in Bush's statement to suggest he is fundamentally confused about the appropriate scope of government responsibility in establishing political liberty, nor about the divine support for that idea.
You make a good point, but like Queen, I am not convinced that Bush is confused about the difference. I am continually impressed with Bush's dedication in refusing to bend to his critics' insistence that he separate his religious views from his worldview. Rather, I think his comments further cement his firm commitment to seeing world events from a religious perspective.
Again, a totally random comment in the "wrong" location but --
Great to see your family this week! That was a nice surprise and fun treat. Hopefully you are getting some good rest today and for the remainder of the week!
Post a Comment