Conventional wisdom holds that Bush's presidency rests largely upon the support of evangelical Christians. This may be true, but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily appropriate for evangelicals to support Bush. It is possible to argue that, in fact, voting for Bush would be contrary to important evangelical values and goals.
An evangelical Christian writes:
We must first ask ourselves, "Which candidate would help facilitate the spread of the gospel?" Or, to put it another way, "Which candidate would harm the spread of the gospel least?" As president, neither candidate could overtly preach the gospel - they are running for president, not pastor of the United States. However, America has projected itself to the world as a "Christian nation" - even though America has never officially confessed Jesus Christ as Lord - and it is often taken to be Christian nation. That is especially the case when the president of the United States self-identifies as a Christian. As such, the behavior and policies of such a president not only reflect on himself and America, they reflect on Christianity. That may not be fair, but that is the perception, and perception is reality.
If the main thing is to convert non-believers into believers, then we must ask ourselves, "Would either of these candidates make nonbelievers less receptive to the gospel?" ... Does George W. Bush adversely affect the spread of the gospel? Bush strongly identifies himself as a Christian, and an Evangelical Christian at that. As such, his actions reflect upon Christianity as a whole. All professing Christians are implored to be careful of our witness - the way we live, the decisions we make, and the way we treat our neighbors from the greatest to the least of these our brethren reflects on Christianity as a whole. It's what we call "maintaining our witness" and it is essential to the spread of the gospel, because whether or not we ever open our mouths to share Jesus with someone, the lives we lead display what we believe. The more prominent the Christian, the more important it is for them to maintain their witness because the light that they shine will be seen by many people.
Has George W. Bush maintained his witness? Do people see Bush's works and glorify God in heaven? (Matthew 5:16) George W. Bush has displayed character that is unbecoming of a Christian, and that adversely affects the spread of the gospel. It is said that you can see the true character of a man in how he behaves when nobody is looking - a man of integrity behaves the same way in public and in private, while a scoundrel does not. When he thought nobody was listening, when he thought the microphones were turned off, George W. Bush leaned over to Dick Cheney four years ago, pointed out a reporter and called him a "major-league @sshole" -- Bush's words. When a reporter from the Hartford Courant once asked what he and his father talked about when they were not talking politics, born-again George W. Bush replied, "P*ssy." Bush's words. ... George W. Bush has shown that he will not be called a girlie-man, such that when Condoleezza Rice was meeting with some Senators in 2002 about Iraq, Bush poked his head into her office and quipped, "F*ck Saddam. We're taking him out." Bush's words.
Now, it is true that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It is also true that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9) However, it is also true that one who has repented of his sin should bear the fruit of that repentance. Does George W. Bush bear such fruit? The Bible says that "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion." (Proverbs 28:13) Yet, when asked about his pre-Christian days, Bush conceals his transgressions - he neither confesses nor repents, and he says nothing about his actions being sinful or wrong. George W. Bush's response to questions about his pre-Christian days was "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." George W. Bush has never taken responsibility for his own actions - he has others fight for him and then places the blame for failure on anyone but himself. This is not the kind of character that a Christian should display - least of all a Christian in the highest office in America...
Now, this author doesn't regard John Kerry as being particularly better in terms of promoting the evangelical Christian agenda, but he also doesn't think that Kerry does as much damage to that agenda through his actions. Conservative evangelicals make a big deal about America being a "Christian Nation," but one has to wonder what sort of image of Christianity they are giving the world. Not even evangelicals in other nations agree with American evangelicals' support of the war in Iraq. Why would anyone else consider the image of Christianity being presented here to be anything remotely positive?
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment