Slate: Does God endorse George Bush?
An interesting and timely question. I honestly wrestle with this. As a Lutheran, I believe strongly that everyone is called by God - that they have a "vocation" (from the Latin vocatio, or "call"). My vocation or calling at this moment is to be a minister of Word and Sacrament. But I believe that my calling is more specific than that, even - that I'm called to be the pastor here, in Litchville and Hastings, ND.
The Bible, and old Saint Martin himself, assert in numerous places that the rulers of this world have no power except what God gives them. God uses them to build up his people, or to punish them, but the rulers are always understood as under the control of the divine hand. Luther went so far as to argue that a Christian ought not rise up against his ruler, even if a tyrant, because God has many ways to handle a despot if he so chooses. The Christian's calling, Luther claims, is to pray for those above him, to obey insofar as faithfulness to the Gospel allows, and to correct insofar as is called for by the Gospel, in a spirit of humility.
Which brings us back to Bush.
Allowing that even despots might be guided by the hand of God, is it possible that Bush - who received no electoral mandate - has nevertheless been given some sort of divine mandate? (Slate quotes Gen William "Jerry" Boykin, in a marvelous example of spin control: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of America did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.")
OK, so I could grudgingly accept the notion that Bush has been called to some sort of public service, that his vocation is to be a leader of some kind in this country.
But why do I resist the idea that he might have been called to the presidency (if not in 2004, then perhaps in 2000)? Because my own calling is not a general one, simply "to be a pastor." As I've mentioned, I find my own calling to be very specific: "To be a pastor in this place at this time." There seems a layer of hypocrisy in expecting people to accept my own specific calling, while challenging what George W. Bush clearly understands to be his vocation: "To serve the public as President of the the United States at this time in history."
A few things to keep in mind:
(1) If Bush was indeed called in 2000, that does not necessarily mean, as the article points out, that he is called to a second term.
(2) God has a history of calling bad leaders as a punishment on his people for falling away. What if the great punishment on America that the religious right is sure God has sent against us was not AIDS or the attacks of Sep. 11, but the presidency of George W. Bush? If America has lost its way, could our current president be God's judgment against us rather than God's "messiah" for us? The Bible would certainly allow either understanding of his calling to lead.
(3) I believe that we are capable of mishearing God's call... or, more accurately, of hearing our own desires and assuming that they are God's call. I'm with Luther here - when a person is living at odds with their vocation, the result will be strife all around. It could be possible that GWB has allowed his desire for the most powerful office in the world to lead him away from God's true calling for him. Vocation must always be pursued in humility, a trait I have not seen much of in this president.
I still don't know what to think of this issue. It's hard to pass judgment on another person's sense of call. I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter - please post them (anonymously, if you like) in the comments section below.
The Bible, and old Saint Martin himself, assert in numerous places that the rulers of this world have no power except what God gives them. God uses them to build up his people, or to punish them, but the rulers are always understood as under the control of the divine hand. Luther went so far as to argue that a Christian ought not rise up against his ruler, even if a tyrant, because God has many ways to handle a despot if he so chooses. The Christian's calling, Luther claims, is to pray for those above him, to obey insofar as faithfulness to the Gospel allows, and to correct insofar as is called for by the Gospel, in a spirit of humility.
Which brings us back to Bush.
Allowing that even despots might be guided by the hand of God, is it possible that Bush - who received no electoral mandate - has nevertheless been given some sort of divine mandate? (Slate quotes Gen William "Jerry" Boykin, in a marvelous example of spin control: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of America did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.")
OK, so I could grudgingly accept the notion that Bush has been called to some sort of public service, that his vocation is to be a leader of some kind in this country.
But why do I resist the idea that he might have been called to the presidency (if not in 2004, then perhaps in 2000)? Because my own calling is not a general one, simply "to be a pastor." As I've mentioned, I find my own calling to be very specific: "To be a pastor in this place at this time." There seems a layer of hypocrisy in expecting people to accept my own specific calling, while challenging what George W. Bush clearly understands to be his vocation: "To serve the public as President of the the United States at this time in history."
A few things to keep in mind:
(1) If Bush was indeed called in 2000, that does not necessarily mean, as the article points out, that he is called to a second term.
(2) God has a history of calling bad leaders as a punishment on his people for falling away. What if the great punishment on America that the religious right is sure God has sent against us was not AIDS or the attacks of Sep. 11, but the presidency of George W. Bush? If America has lost its way, could our current president be God's judgment against us rather than God's "messiah" for us? The Bible would certainly allow either understanding of his calling to lead.
(3) I believe that we are capable of mishearing God's call... or, more accurately, of hearing our own desires and assuming that they are God's call. I'm with Luther here - when a person is living at odds with their vocation, the result will be strife all around. It could be possible that GWB has allowed his desire for the most powerful office in the world to lead him away from God's true calling for him. Vocation must always be pursued in humility, a trait I have not seen much of in this president.
I still don't know what to think of this issue. It's hard to pass judgment on another person's sense of call. I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter - please post them (anonymously, if you like) in the comments section below.
posted by Bob at
2:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home