Is George W. Bush a Christian?

You can change the world. Please visit Earth Standing Still to see my attempt.

Q: If I call my toes fingers, how many fingers do I have? A: 10. Calling a toe a finger does not make it one. – Old riddle

Somebody recently published a flier in our local Penny Saver saying that good Christians must vote for George Bush. George W. Bush makes a great show of being a Christian. He proclaims himself born again. He goes to church. He's against abortion. And yet I say he is not a Christian. Why?

I've learned that especially with regard to people in power, you do not listen to what they say without looking at what they do and how they behave. There is very little in George Bush's behavior that backs up his claim to be Christian. Some examples:

  • When talking about other countries joining in with the US to wage war outside Afghanistan, Bush said, "You're either with us or against us." This is clearly not in the spirit of Christianity. Jesus said both, "Whoever is not with me is against me..." (Matthew 12:30) and "For whoever is not against us is for us," (Mark 9:40), but we have to understand the context of those statements. The first was said in response to Pharisees trying to discredit him by claiming he was from Satan, the second in response to his own disciples who complained that someone was driving out demons in his name. There is no inconsistency in Jesus' responses once the contexts are understood. There is, however, inconsistency in Bush's claim to be Christian and his all-or-nothing attitude toward the rest of the world. Also interesting is earlier in Mark (9:25) in which Jesus says, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand." If we consider terrorists to be on one side and those who oppose them on the other, Bush is clearly dividing those who oppose it into two groups, thus fragmenting the ability to counter terrorism. Not only has he not acted like a Christian in this case, he has acted stupidly.
  • Consider the policy of preemptive strikes. What did Jesus have to say regarding enemies? "...love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luke 6:27-28) What does George Bush say? From his 2002 State of the Union address: "My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully....But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will." Is this not cursing those who curse us and hating those who hate us? Is Jesus wrong? Or maybe Christianity is just too hard for George Bush to put into practice. Don't tell me that any person is a Christian who has a policy of invading countries on the premise that they might be planning to attack the US. Does being Christian mean letting anybody do anything to you? No, of course not. But it means more than lashing out at people who have wronged you, for Jesus goes on to say (Luke 6:31-33), "Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same." As an endnote to this, what was the invasion of Iraq based on? To quote Bush, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." The rest of the world said he was wrong and we have since found out that indeed, he was wrong. Acting on supposition leads to such bad actions.
  • Continuing what Jesus had to say about enemies: "To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well." (Luke 6:29) Gandhi found this inspirational: "When I read in the 'Sermon on the Mount' such passages as 'resist not him that is evil, but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also,' and 'Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven,' I was simply overjoyed, and found my own opinion confirmed where I least expected it.' - Mahatma Gandhi on the genesis of Satyagraha." In the movie "Gandhi", I believe there was a good interpretation of this, saying basically that he thought it meant to show that you are determined to do what is right, not that it meant that you should allow people to beat you up. This was consistent with Gandhi's policy of non-violence. Gandhi was a better Christian than George Bush.
  • One of the greatest and most representative of Jesus' teachings is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:2-10):
    • Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    • Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
    • Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
    • Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
    • Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
    • Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
    • Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
    • Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    That Bush already falls short of being Christian with regard to his desire to wage war has already been established. What about his attitude toward the poor, for instance? "Poor in spirit" does not describe George Bush in any way, shape, or form. "Rich in spirit" is more like it. Who got the benefit of his tax cuts? While Republicans talk about the "average" refund, the fact is that the people who paid the most got the bulk of it. And, as Bush said, why not? Those who paid the most deserve the most back, right? I don't think so. A "poor in spirit" attitude would recognize that those who benefit the most from a society also have a responsibility to see that the poor also reap some reasonable benefit from that society. After all, who does the work that makes the rich wealthy? But when the country runs into budget problems, who suffers? The rich? Obviously not. It is the programs the benefit the less fortunate that are always cut first because the collective voice of the poor is drowned out by the rich, screaming that their pockets are being picked.