Misuse and Misrepresentation of the Teachings of Christ:



Misuse and Misrepresentation of the Teachings of Christ:

A Behavioral Pattern of Christian Leaders

Kyle Matter

June 2, 2004

MS&E 297C – EDGE

Mr. Bruce Lusignan

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Origin and History of Christianity 3

Relevant Doctrine of Christianity 6

Historical Pattern of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christ’s Teachings 8

Recent and Current Instances of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christianity 15

Conclusion: Is there a solution? 19

Works Cited 21

Introduction

Conflict and religion go together nearly hand-in-hand. Humans with differing beliefs have fought each other since the dawn of man. Of the thousands of religions throughout human history, just one has come to dominate Western culture, while another has come to dominate Mid-Eastern culture. The very fact that these two religions exist as separate systems of belief is the result of conflict. Both Christianity and Islam are the rebellious sons of Judah—both can trace a common origin back to the fertile lands of Mesopotamia. In fact, the two religions have spent more time together as Judaism than they have apart as separate entities. Perhaps it is because the ties were so close that the conflict today is so severe. Today, a look back at the histories of Christianity and Islam provides numerous instances of conflict. Each religion teaches peace, yet members of each religion are guilty of war and violent struggle against fellow members and non-members alike. Of course, there are many causes for war and violence in this world, and religion is only one of them. However, in many instances, religious doctrine is used as justification for the militant actions taken by believers. Why does this dichotomy exist between belief and action? Why do religions preach pacifism and loving acceptance, yet the followers of these religions lash out in violent strikes against those with different beliefs—and justify their actions on religious grounds?

Clearly, if there exists a blatant discrepancy between a religion’s teachings and the actions these teachings are being used to justify, there is some distortion, misuse, or misrepresentation of the teachings. What is the source of these problems? There are many possible answers to this question, but nearly every feasible solution has its roots in the shortcomings of man when attempting to live up to the high standards set by religion. Most commonly, the source of the trouble is either a failure to understand and apply the religious teachings correctly—an honest mistake—or an intentional misuse of the doctrine—a malicious intent. In either instance, damage is done and harm is caused because of the action taken for religious reasons or purposes. Was this the intent of Jesus or Mohammed?

Indeed, there is a definite discrepancy between the intent of the founders of each religion and the actions taken by their followers. This paper will focus on the Christian side of the issue, and the wrongdoings that have resulted from misuse and misrepresentation of Christian teaching. This discrepancy between doctrine and action is often most visible in the actions of government leaders and rulers of men. In this world there are many forces pulling on those in charge, often pulling in different directions. A leader’s personal and religious beliefs are one of these forces, yet the others are frequently more tangible, such as the desire to remain in power or defeat an enemy. As a result, religion can be misused or misrepresented to help accomplish these other goals because it is such a powerful motivator of so many people. In looking back through history, we can recognize a pattern of behavior in which leaders and rulers have misused the doctrine of Christianity as moral justification for violent and oppressive action. This behavioral pattern has its roots in Rome almost 1700 years ago, and continues today in the United States. Whereas yesterday the “enemies” were the barbarians and savages who did not share Christian beliefs, today it is Muslims who are deemed “enemies” by misguided leaders. The cast of characters has changed but the plot remains the same.

By exposing the wrongs that have occurred, perhaps we can mend our ways and make peace where there is war. Perhaps we can move closer to the peaceful way Christianity calls us to live if we recognize that the source of the conflict is not God or the Bible, but the humans that believe. First, we will examine the origin of Christianity and how it has spread to gain acceptance worldwide, especially in Western culture. Next, we will review actual teachings of Christianity, particularly those that are relevant to these issues of war, peace, love and acceptance. Then we will begin to establish and describe the pattern of behavior throughout history where Christianity has been misused and misrepresented as justification for violent actions. After that, we will examine the current conflict between the United States and the Middle East, where this behavioral pattern is again rearing its ugly head. Finally we will attempt to develop a solution for this problem so we can right the wrongs that are occurring.

Origin and History of Christianity

It is impossible to discuss the origins of Christianity without first discussing the origins of Judaism, the religion from which Christianity was born. Judaism is the monotheistic religion of the followers of Abraham, a migrant people who entered the hilly area to the west and north-west of the Dead Sea around the latter part of the second millennium BC. The god they served was called Yahweh, and was a god of creation who kept the universe functioning and had supreme powers over the forces of nature (Partner 3). The story of the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham, is recounted in the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament of the Bible in Christianity. The Jewish people lived under a set of laws, which were written out in the Bible. The other works in this book were the prophecies of many Jewish prophets. Over the course of about 2000 BC to the 6th century BC, the common thread of the message of these prophets was that a Messiah, or savior, would come to establish God’s kingdom on Earth (Judaism, Britannica Online). This hope and expectation for the coming king is precisely what caused the rift that divided the Christians from the Jews.

Jesus of Nazareth was born in 4 BC in the small town of Bethlehem of Judea, roughly 6 miles outside of Jerusalem. Most of what we know of Jesus’ life is from the Gospels written about him by his followers. Christian doctrine states that he was a descendant of the line of David, the great King of Israel, just as prophecy in the Old Testament said he would be. Also according to Christian doctrine, Jesus was the son of God, having been conceived in the Virgin Mary. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and studied the Jewish teachings, becoming extremely well-versed in all of the Scriptures. At roughly age 30, Jesus began his public career of teaching and ministry. He selected 12 disciples that would be his closest friends, and began to speak and teach about God. He also performed many miracles and healings. He attracted large crowds of followers who regarded him as a wise teacher and miraculous healer. Many regarded him as the Christ, or the savior the Jews had been waiting and hoping for. However, the Jewish leaders did not share this belief. They viewed Jesus as a threat to their power and authority, and did not believe he was the Son of God, as he claimed to be. Because of this, they plotted against him, and had him arrested, tried, and crucified (Jesus Christ, Britannica Online). For the Jewish people, the story ends there. However, that is simply the beginning for Christians.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was indeed executed, but also that he was resurrected and rose from the dead 3 days afterward. He then appeared to hundreds of people before finally ascending into heaven. The followers of Jesus Christ came to be known as Christians. They were a persecuted minority sect of the Jewish religion that could not be completely snuffed out despite the best efforts of the Jewish leaders. The Gospels, biographies of the life of Jesus, were written and became the basis for the New Testament of the Bible. Because of these books and the efforts of the early Christians, the religion spread quickly throughout the Middle East and into Africa and parts of Southern Europe. However, Christians were deemed a rebellious threat by the Roman Empire, which controlled the entire region, and as such were persecuted harshly. Nearly all of the early leaders of the Christian church, called apostles, were martyred for their faith. The major turning point that transformed Christianity from a minority belief to a widely accepted religion came at the very hands of the empire that sought to eliminate it.

In 312 AD, Constantine was the Western Emperor of the Roman Empire. He was preparing to fight a battle with rival Maxentius when he and his soldiers saw what appeared to be the sign of the cross in the sun. Constantine decided to paint this symbol on the shields of his soldiers in the hopes that it would bring a military victory. The battle that day was an overwhelming victory for Constantine, and as a result, his policy became increasingly pro-Christian. As time went on, Christianity came to be the officially recognized religion of the Roman Empire (Partner 59-61). As such, it was spread throughout the entirety of its territory, and millions of people became new believers in this young religion. Even as the Roman Empire declined and eventually fell, Christianity grew stronger and was accepted more widely. Because of its acceptance in Europe, it was spread throughout the rest of the world as the European powers established their far-reaching empires. From its humble beginnings in the Middle East, Christianity had survived and flourished as it spread westward. Today, Christianity is the world’s largest religion, with over 1 billion followers worldwide.

Relevant Doctrine of Christianity

As the history and origin of the Christian religion is based in Judaism, so too are its beliefs and convictions. Christians believe that man was created in God’s image, perfect and righteous. Adam and Even were the first man and woman, and they lived in harmony with God and Earth in Eden until their rebellion against God caused sin to enter mankind. From that point on, all men would live with the consequences of sin. Man could no longer live up to the holy standard of perfect righteousness set by God, but instead would fall victim to the temptation of evil fleshly desires. In Romans, the apostle Paul writes, “For all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious standard” (Rom 3:23). The Jewish religion was based on a set of laws that were given to man by God in order to reveal this sin, or shortcoming. A large part of this law is the Ten Commandments, given to Moses by God. Christians believe in these laws as well. As a result of this condition of sin, man is separated from God and condemned to death. However, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived a righteous life free of sin, and died as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the problem of sin. Also in Romans, Paul writes, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). As a result of this sacrifice, those who believe in and have a relationship with God and his Son Jesus Christ can be forgiven of their sins and attain salvation and eternal life in heaven.

So the life goal of Christians is to become as close as they can to God by living like Jesus did, free of sin. In other words, Christians are supposed to do the right thing, live a good life, and treat others fairly and with love. How is this accomplished, and how does it apply to the way Christians should treat others? In the book of Exodus in the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments give examples of behavior and actions that are and are not permitted. The most pertinent commandments that apply to dealing with others are, “You shall not murder” (20:13), “You shall not steal” (20:15), and “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (20:16). Jesus took these basic laws a step further and taught his followers to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). Further, when asked who the term “neighbor” applied to, he explained that a neighbor is not merely the product of location, but any man. Jesus was also known for the loving acceptance of people of all different backgrounds, creeds, and beliefs. He commonly spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes and lepers, considered by society to be the lowest of the low.

Jesus was also an adamant pacifist. In response to the Old Testament verse in the book of Exodus that states, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (21:24), Jesus taught “Do not resist an Evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt 5:39). Jesus also told his followers, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). These verses further support Jesus’ attitude of love and peace toward all mankind. At no point during his life or teaching does Jesus promote violence as a solution to a problem. Because the goal of Christianity as a religion is for Christians to follow the example that Jesus set, these virtues of peace and love should be carried out by Christians.

There is one more command of Jesus to his followers that is very pertinent to the treatment of others. After he was resurrected, Jesus appeared to his disciples and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt 28:18-20a). This statement is commonly known as the Great Commission. Jesus and his followers believe that knowing and believing in Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation and eternal life. Thus, the Great Commission is an attempt to spread this good news to all the people of the world. As combined with the teaching of love, peace and acceptance of differences, Christians should be accepting of all others throughout the world while gently attempting to share with them the good news they believe about Jesus Christ.

Historical Pattern of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christ’s Teachings

Ever since there has been both war and god in a society, the two inevitably seem to be linked. In each society, the people feel that their cause is good, and so their god is on their side. “If people worship gods and fight wars, they expect the former to take an interest in the latter” (Partner 1). This pattern can be recognized throughout ancient history, as all great civilizations had their own war gods that they called upon in military efforts. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were no exception to this trend. However, one distinction that can be made is that the Greeks, for instance, believed in their own gods. The Egyptian gods were for the Egyptian people, and would protect them against their enemies. The same is true in the ancient times of the people of Israel, the chosen people of Yahweh. Yahweh intervened on behalf of the Jewish people on numerous occasions throughout their history (Partner 6). Many of these stories are recounted throughout the Old Testament, and they include great military victories against seemingly impossible odds where Yahweh protected his chosen people and routed their enemies.

However, once Jesus Christ came, Christianity became much more than a religion for the people of Israel. On the contrary, it became a religion for “people of all nations” (Matt 28:19), Jew and Gentile. The chosen people of Yahweh were now all the people on Earth. This began to cloud the issue of God’s side when it came to battle. If God’s ultimate goal was to see the salvation of all men, would he still take sides in war? The New Testament states that Christians should “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39) and makes no mention of the Old Testament practice of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24). Further, Christians are instructed to “pursue faith and love and peace” (2 Tim 2:22). In light of this scripture, is there even a place for war within Christianity as a religion?

The issue would not be nearly as complicated if Christianity were simply a religion that remained a completely separate entity from all other aspects of life. However, that is impossible and has not been the case ever since Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Empires do not generally survive and flourish without fighting battles and wars, and while Constantine was undoubtedly sincere in his faith, he was also sincere in his desire to maintain his empire. So making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire made the church “a consenting party to war, even if it persisted in its formal rejection of bloodshed” (Partner 59). This causes a great dilemma for the church, and also marks the establishment of a pattern of behavior by government leaders and rulers of men of misusing and misrepresenting the teachings of Christianity. Constantine called upon Christianity to help ensure victory in battle, not just to achieve salvation for himself and his people. “An Important element in Constantine’s move toward Christianity had been its supposed promise of victory in battle” (Partner 59). This is a blatant misuse of Christianity, and the pattern established then by Constantine continued to live on throughout the history of the Roman Empire, and ultimately still exists today.

After Christianity had been adopted by Constantine, the Roman Empire continued to fight wars with barbarians in Europe. These were wars that had been waged for centuries. However, now the Romans had a new motivation for fighting. The barbarians were also unbelievers, or non-Christians, and thus, in their opinion, the enemies of God (Partner 62). The Roman leaders convinced their soldiers that they were serving God by going to war against these people, another blatant example of misrepresentation of Christianity. Nowhere in the Christian scripture are Christians commanded to fight against non-believers. Rather, Christians are instructed to love their neighbors and enemies alike.

Even as the western part of the Roman Empire gave way to barbarian kingdoms, this pattern of behavior continued. “The barbarian kings, inevitably, became warriors for Christ.” This very notion of a warrior for Christ in the violent, literal meaning of warrior is not backed by Christian scripture and is wrong. At times, the objective of the wars of the barbarian kings, especially of King Charlemagne, was the conversion of pagans (Partner 63-4). Again, the very practice of fighting a war against non-believers for their conversion to Christianity is not backed by the Christian notion of making disciples of all nations, and is consequently wrong. However, though they felt uneasy about it, the Pope and the Catholic Church were powerless to reject this misrepresentation and misuse of their religion because they relied on the emperor for their protection. Charlemagne, Western Emperor 800-814, stated that one of the main duties of the Pope was to pray for the success of his armies. Further, when a pope crowned an emperor, he handed him a sword. This ceremony is full of symbolism, as the monarch is designated the defender of the church, and uses the sword on its behalf (Partner 64). As a result, the church became undeniably attached to the wars of the empire.

Though the Pope could not reject outright the wars and battles fought by the Emperor, he did not at first accept the violence either. Pope John VIII protested against the use of bishops of the church to organize the defense of the empire from attack by Arabs. As evidenced, the emperors met their own needs by misusing Christianity, and as a result were not always in accordance with the leaders of the church. As time went on, there were more examples of uneasiness and disagreement between church and state.

This marriage of clerical and royal military power was later to be challenged by churchmen whose consciences were offended by it. The dynasty of popes . . . was denied power in 1046, and replaced by a series of so-called ‘Reform’ popes whose mission it was restore ancient church discipline and to take away from the impure, self-interested lay hands the holy things that belonged to the church (Partner 66).

The church had recognized how far separated the empire’s use of the religion had strayed from the original intentions of Jesus Christ, and attempted to fix this serious problem. Although an effort was made, this pattern of behavior was too deeply rooted and entrenched to be eradicated.

This was not the only instance of an attempt to reform the Christian church. In another attempt to return to a purer form of the religion, Martin Luther led the Protestant Reformation of the church in the 16th century. Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope because he believed that the Catholic Church had, again, strayed too far from the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Thus his movement created a new denomination of Christianity, called Protestantism, which would come to be accepted widely (Martin Luther, Britannica Online). In another breakaway movement, King Henry VIII of England separated himself from the Catholic Church after the Pope refused to grant him a divorce. This action represents another deliberate misuse of the Christian religion by a ruler. Very transparently, King Henry VIII decided what he wanted to do, and when the church would not allow him to do so, he created his own church. After King Henry VIII, the Christian movement in England was realigned with Luther’s Protestant Reformation and the Church of England was established (Church of England, Britannica Online).

Both the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church were to have far-reaching effects on the rest of the world due to the global empire building of the European powers that would occur. As the European nations raced to capture territories in the New World, they continued to misuse religion as a justification for their actions. There were certainly many sincere missionaries in these nations who desired to follow the Great Commission and share the Christian Gospel with the indigenous people of the New World. On the other hand, the rulers of these nations were filled with greed and sought new land, resources, and wealth from the newly discovered lands by any means necessary. So because of this, spreading Christianity served as cover for enslaving and murdering the native people of the Americas. Explorers like Columbus and the later Conquistadors were representatives not only of the nation that sent them, but also of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, their ruthlessness against the indigenous people was unparalleled. They showed no mercy in their dealings with these people, much less any of the ideals or teachings of Christ in which they were supposed to believe (Armour 123). But it was easier for a monarch to justify these missions to himself and to others when it was deemed to be a missionary as well as an exploratory effort. Although the monarchs’ “stated purpose was to spread Christianity,” the actual intentions had little or nothing to do with Jesus Christ (Armour 125). Yet again, Christianity was misused by leaders and misrepresented to their people. Though their intentions were less than genuine, the effects they had in spreading Christianity were great. As a result, Christianity became established and accepted throughout the New World. After the American Revolution, the United States was founded on the principles of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. Yet Christianity was (and still is) the dominant religion in the United States, and has great effects on policy.

Another aspect of European imperialism that called upon Christian motivations was a competition of sorts with Islam, as both religions were attempting to spread throughout the world and gain more converts. Like the aforementioned events, this competition was yet another example of this pattern of behavior where rulers and leaders misused the teachings of Christianity for violence. This competition was played out through a series of Crusades, and these Crusades also marked some of the first explicit and outright battle between Muslims and Christians. This too, unfortunately, is a historical event that was bound to repeat itself.

Islam shared a common heritage with Christianity. Both believed in the same god, the God of Abraham, because both were descendant of the people of Israel. After its beginnings in the 7th century AD, Islam was not only a religion but a growing empire as well. The Muslims began to expand their territory throughout the Middle East, into Africa, and also in parts of Asia (Haleem et al 6). This growth of Islam created a reaction amongst Christians in Europe. Rulers in Europe felt their power threatened by the expanding Muslim Empire, and the counteroffensive assembled was the Crusades. Those who coordinated the Crusades in the 11th century provided many motivations for the Crusaders, and many fell into the behavioral pattern aforementioned. There was misrepresentation of Christianity, telling Crusaders that God wanted them to go to war against the Muslims and take back the Holy Lands. Many participants were convinced to go by the “air of apocalyptic expectation” (Goddard 84). Leaders told them that they could “secure eternal salvation” by going to fight for the Christian cause (Goddard 84). Nowhere in the Bible is this line of reasoning supported. The Christian Bible teaches that the only path to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ, not through any good deeds or actions (Eph 2:8).

The Crusades continued for over two hundred years, and were characterized by great violence and many deaths. After the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, the scene was described as follows: “Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. For three days the bloodshed continued” (Goddard 89). This scene is clearly not the expected result of the teachings of Christianity of peace and love. Nevertheless, the rulers organizing these Crusades continued to use religious motivations to recruit more fighters (Armour 66). In an example characteristic of many others, one ruler “requested papal influence in recruiting fighting men from Western Europe,” and Pope Urban complied, calling the Crusades “a righteous war” and promising “absolution and remission of sins to those who died in battle” (Haleem et al 7). This, again, is a blatant misuse and misrepresentation of Christian teachings. The Bible teaches that only God has the authority to forgive sins, and they are forgiven through confession and belief in Jesus’ death on the cross (Mark 2:7, Acts 10:43).

The Crusades were perhaps the most obvious and blatant misuse of Christianity by rulers and leaders that has ever occurred. Christian scripture teaches loving acceptance of all other people, and of course this includes Muslims. However, after being asked to help motivate more fighters against the Muslims by Emperor Alexius, Pope Urban II called the Muslims “a race absolutely alien to God” (Armour 63). As time went on, the Christian Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular languages of Europe. With the advent of the printing press, more and more believers were able to read the Bible for themselves. Before these two events, the clergy were the only ones with real access to the actual scriptures. In more modern times, since more people know the Bible for themselves, such blatant misrepresentation is not feasible and would be called out. “Only a tiny number of Christians think of the people of God as subject to the duty of waging holy war” (Partner 298). However, the behavioral pattern of misrepresentation by leaders is still occurring. Many parallels can be drawn between the current foreign policies of the United States in the Middle East and the Crusades in the Holy Land hundreds of years ago.

Recent and Current Instances of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christianity

As aforementioned, the United States was founded on the principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion. Because of these facts, Christianity or any other religion is not the official religion of the United States, although it is the majority religion. Because many people in the country are Christian, an appeal to Christianity can be a very powerful thing for a politician. However, these appeals must also be relatively subtle in order to not rouse the wrath of those sensitive to separation of church and state issues. Though the playing field is much different than it was centuries ago, the pattern of leaders’ misusing and misrepresenting the teachings of Christianity to promote violence continues.

Some of the leaders that are misusing Christianity are outside the government. There is a certain theocracy that exists today in the United States especially amongst fundamental Christians, the so-called Moral Majority or right-wing Christians. One of the leaders of this movement is the Reverend Pat Robertson, who makes regular religious broadcasts to millions of Americans. This gives him a position of great influence and power. Recently he has become discontented with the direction of the Supreme Court in some of their decisions. In citing the wrongdoings of the Supreme Court in a letter to Americans on his website, he stated that the Supreme Court “ruled prayer out of the public schools . . . ruled the Bible out of public schools . . . ruled the Ten Commandments were illegal in schools . . . and declared a constitutional right to consensual sodomy” (Robertson 1). In the United States, Robertson has every right to express his discontent and even to persuade others of his position. However, Robertson does not stop there with simple persuasion. He tells his readers and listeners that “the Supreme Court is bringing upon this nation the wrath of God” (Robertson 1). Robertson threatens that “no culture has ever endured which has turned openly to homosexuality” and asks Americans to “join with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court” (Robertson 1). Further, he goes on to describe the physical ailments of 3 of the justices, and pleads with Americans to appeal to God for change. By telling Americans in no uncertain terms that God wants them to pray for change in the Supreme Court, Robertson is misusing the teachings of Christianity.

The other recent major instance of this behavioral pattern is in the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. It seems that the conflict between Christianity and Islam has come full circle since the Crusades nearly 800 years ago. Muslims are again perceived as a dangerous enemy by misguided leaders, now more for their perceived terrorist threat than for an expanding empire. Because of this religious conflict, Presidents of the United States with strong Christian convictions have the opportunity to appeal to this conflict as another reason for war. The roots of this sentiment date back to the Gulf War in 1990-1991, when Saddam Hussein claimed that “we are taking the right path for peace and jihad, not only for all Muslims but for all nations” as he invaded Kuwait (Haleem et al 145). One of the major motivations for U.S. intervention in Kuwait was the need to protect our oil supply. However, the protecting oil is not the most acceptable reason for going to war for the American public. Since the religious context had already been placed in the conflict, U.S. leaders were free to appeal to the fact that “the war over Kuwait was ‘just’ according to criteria long established in the Christian tradition” (Haleem et al 157). Religious reasons were not explicitly used as motivation for going to war, but this was just the beginning.

There has been a lot of discussion and debate about whether George W. Bush feels as though he has a “divine mandate” as President of the United States. This position can be supported by the fact that Bush is an outspoken Christian. Through some of his comments, it can be inferred that “he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission” (Caldwell 1). What worries many people is not that Bush is talking about God, but that

He's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology--from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency (Caldwell 1).

Bush has transformed what he believes to be his personal calling into a calling for the nation. This calling has included making war with Iraq for the stated purposes of finding and eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction and protecting America against terrorism. However, he has said that, "We defend the security of our country, but our cause is broader." Bush has stated that another reason for war with Iraq is “what he characterized as America's moral obligation to the rest of the world” (Merzer, et al 1). Systems of morality are directly linked to religion, and in this case, to Bush’s Christianity. Bush is making appeals to Christianity as a cause for war with Iraq in both subtle and obvious ways. In doing such, he is misusing the teachings of Christianity.

Many others feel that Bush has overstepped his bounds as a Christian in office. The General Secretary of the National Council of Churches said, “President Bush converted to a kind of Christianity that believes God is a warrior.” Other reasons for war with Iraq like Weapons of Mass Destruction have not panned out, and the U.S. is quick to downplay the role of oil. Bush is accused of “looking for an explanation that has the greatest resonance with the American public” (Monkerud 1). In a nation where 60 percent of the people are members of a church and 95 percent believe in God, calling on God as a reason for war is very resonant indeed (Demerath 220). Some feel that Bush’s underlying message is a “holy war against the axis of evil” and that “other conservative presidents . . . never used religion to justify their actions the way President George W. Bush does” (Monkerud 1). In doing these things, President Bush has misrepresented the teachings of Christianity. Even if these actions are honest mistakes, and he is simply misled in his faith, damage is still being done. Violent actions are being taken against people, and these actions are being justified by Christianity, in which there is no basis for violence. This unfortunate pattern continues even today. Perhaps it can be best summed up in this statement by Gregg Carter, a sociologist at Bryant College:

What a paradox. Christ's central messages on how we should come to terms with our enemies-through love and charity-are ignored, overlooked, and disregarded by a nation and a majority of its people who claim to be the heirs of these messages and of their author (Monkerud 1).

Conclusion: Is there a solution?

So many wrongs have been committed over such a long period of time, and yet still this behavioral pattern continues. Should we, then, be pessimistic as to finding a solution to this problem? Is there something that can be done to change this behavior and restore the true teachings of Christianity? The short answer to these questions is that there is hope for the future because actions are already being taken to help ameliorate these problems.

Firstly, there are many Christian churches in the United States who recognize this problem and are taking action. Many Christians in the United States and the entire world do not take lightly the misuse of their religion. There has been great opposition by many Christian organizations to the war in Iraq, and especially to the reasons given for fighting it. These Christians in the country are weary of their God being misrepresented, be it by George Bush or anyone else. Also, many Christian churches are teaching Biblically-based Christianity, which relies on the words and intent of Jesus Christ for direction. These churches instruct members directly in what Jesus taught, and by doing such are helping to sustain a body of believers that will be well-trained in the true teachings of Christianity. The members of these churches will be less likely to be taken in by misguided appeals to God or Christian morals.

Also, there are organizations and alliances working between faiths to help foster understanding and cooperation between Christian and Muslim. These organizations seek to educate people that the similarities between all believers in god are greater than the differences. By recognizing this, and taking the attitude of loving acceptance of others taught by Jesus himself, we can promote peace and lessen the existing conflict. The largest interfaith organization in the United States is The Interfaith Alliance. This group promotes the idea of “one nation, many faiths,” and calls for separation of religion from politics and government. Members of the Alliance are against the war in Iraq, and are working to promote peace in the United States and worldwide. With more and more groups working toward these goals of acceptance and peace, this problem can and will be made better in the future.

Even as individuals, we can help to fix this problem. We must realize that the purpose of Christianity or any religion is not to make conflict and war, but to make peace and acceptance. Christians in the United States and the entire world must embrace the teachings of Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9). Christians are called to be peacemakers, and that is precisely what they need to be.

Works Cited

Armour, Sr., Rollin. Islam, Christianity, and the West. New York: Orbis Books, 2002.

Caldwell, Deborah. “George Bush’s Theology: Does President Believe He Has Divine Mandate?” Feb. 12, 2003. Free Republic.

< >

“Christianity.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.

“Church of England.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.

Demerath III, N.J. Crossing the Gods. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001.

Goddard, Hugh. A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Haleem, Harfiyah Abdel, et al. The Crescent and the Cross. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1998.

< >

“Jesus Christ.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.

“Judaism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.

“Martin Luther.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.

Merzer, Martin, et al. “Bush expands reasons for war.” Feb. 20, 2003. San Jose Mercury News.

< >

Monkerud, Don. “Love Your Enemy or Kill Him?” May 7, 2003. Green Left. < >

Partner, Peter. God of Battles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

The Student Bible, New International Version. Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download