catapult magazine

“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”

— President Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Why does it scare me that somebody so powerful talks like he has God sitting on his shoulder?

I’m not sure why it bothers you. Many people consider it a comfort that God is with them, leaders of nations included. I don’t see why it’s any scarier that Bush tries to do what his god says than the fact that other leaders have their own gods determining what they do. The question for Christians should be whether or not Bush is following the one true God—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who has achieved victory over death in the form of Jesus Christ—or is merely a servant of his own ego, capitalistic ideals etc.

It seems a very “European” sentiment to distrust people who say they want to do God’s will. After Europe’s experience with Imperialism and the Crusades, it is understandable why Europe started to put its trust in science, in history, in people who have learned to think reasonably etc., but perhaps we’ve allowed historians to tell Europe’s story in a distorted way, in a way that writes God out at the end of the nineteenth century instead of recognizing man’s (and women’s) own failures to listen for God in the times and places they were given. In this day and age, I hope God does make Himself known again, as One who is not a tool to be used for political gains, but the sovereign ruler who defies man’s feeble attempts at controlling the world and God Himself. If God truly is in charge, this will happen with or without Bush’s actions or inactions.

Maybe what is so bothersome is how Bush phrases himself. It is one thing to proclaim that you’re seeking and desiring to do God’s will. It is quite another to say, in absolute terms, that you ARE doing God’s will. For those of us who feel that Bush hasn’t acted wisely, how do we defend our God, a god who is being painted so differently by Bush than by us?

My poetry prof this past semester said once, in the facetious way he usually talks, “Corruption is OK in the usual sense—but these guys seem to think God is on their side. It’s scary.” And I realized I wouldn’t even know where to begin to explain that Bush and I may be talking about the same god but Bush’s god says “do this” and my god says “he shouldn’t be doing that.” No wonder non-Christians have trouble believing in this god.

The reason it bothers me is that the two don’t seem to go together. When I look at the spiral of violence that Bush’s decisions have propagated, I have a hard time seeing divine guidance.

I have a hard time hearing people say “God told me to do this….” regarding their own lives, let alone a man whose decisions have such ramifications for the rest of the world, and the number of lives that are hanging on them.

I think the problem can be seen by contrasting statements like these:
“God told me to blow them up real good, and I did….”
“God told me to love my enemy, and pray for them, and I did….”

I don’t think it’s that I distrust people who want to do God’s will—it’s that I distrust people who do things that seem to me to be outside of God’s will, and claim to be doing it at God’s request.

The only way to know we’re within God’s Will is to conform to His Word, so maybe it would be good—since we’re asking what God’s Will might be—to go to the Bible.

Christ’s message is no doubt one of peace, not military victory. But the God of the Old Testament did give violent instructions. He even used evil nations and armies for his own purposes, to punish His own people. So does God’s nature change? This notion of God not using violence seems strange, especially if we think of God as never-changing. Why would he stop using violence after Christ came? What changed His mind?

lately, the notion of “black and white” has come up in a lot of my conversations so i’ve been thinking about it a lot.

it seems to me that God has never changed, but the way he relates to his people has changed intentionally. if he was using the period of the Old Testament to teach his people that living according to black and white laws of our own will is impossible, maybe he was also showing them what life under the rule of a black and white God might look like—he’s either for you or against you and when he’s against you, there’s no winning. i also believe that it’s possible God was saying to his people, “If this is the kind of God you want to make me, I’ll play along only to show you how undesirable it is.” the people were crying out for a violent God, one who would give them political victory over their enemies.

but in reality, the concept “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” doesn’t exist. even when we turn our backs on God, he loves us and forgives us and even when we are trying to do his will, we could easily be going against it. perhaps the life of Christ teaches us that, while violence is inevitable in a gray and broken world, it’s not a tool we should use to do “God’s will.”

does any of this make sense?

It’s always interesting to think about this topic. I’ll have to think some more about what you suggest, kirstin. Something doesn’t sit quite right about God becoming what we want him to be, even if it is to teach us a lesson. (eg. “I’ll command you to kill those people because you want me to, and then you’ll realize how undesirable it is.” In the meantime, what about the dead people?)

I think a crucial difference between the OT and the NT is of course the waiting for and expectation of a saviour, and the largely exclusivist nature of God’s relation to people (Israel is chosen—and from Israel will come the saviour). When Christ came and fulfilled the law so that we no longer have to, I think he more fully revealed to us the nature and will of God. (We’ve heard it said, an eye for an eye…) So maybe it’s not that God changed, but that we have a more complete revelation of him.

By the way, I’m not saying God never uses violence anymore. I’m saying we’ve got to be careful about doing violence and offering it to God and telling others it’s God’s way of working. It seems relatively clear to me that we’ve been instructed to avoid violence whenever possible. Just because we do something doesn’t mean it’s God’s will, and just because God may use violence for good, doesn’t mean that he wanted it to happen. God can take evil and use it for good, but he doesn’t do the evil.

Also, don’t you think it’s a little different situation with a democracy (or a republic) than with a nation led by God? Who is God going to give the violent instructions to? (I know, now we’re all prophets and priests. I’m surprised there aren’t more “Christian Terrorists.”)

I realize that’s a little stream of consciousness. I’m happy to clarify anything that requires it.

PS. Do we know if Abbas quoted Bush correctly & in context?
Plus, English (maybe???) is his second language. Were there subtleties he could have missed?

Other witnesses (particularly if English/American) would be helpful.

I remember my first real awareness of the power of a misquote:

When some years back Dan Quayle was*** badly*** misquoted. And the media did a virtual tarring & feathering of him. (By then, the idea of a white male conservative man (in itself…)was already considered potentially evil by some. Never mind judging a person by their correctlay quoted ideas & their record…)

(I read the offensive quote in context…Was not the same. Not directly opposite of what the media portrayed it, but the context made a big difference.)

Whatever you may think of Quayle, he did not deserve to be blatantly quoted out of context.

Didn’t reporters learn the basic techniques of scholarship in college? *******(Guess not/)********

And then, if we KNOW Pres. BUsh is correctly quoted we can go on and assess his quote.

I wish to note
(tho I would not be too thrilled if the quote were accurate)
—-I wish to note that we have more fear in the last 10-15 years of a “god” quote from a leader than we used to have.

Whether or not that fear is rationally justified by various bad experiences is again another thing.

It’s easy to misquote Bush, I think, partly because he says provocational-type things that cause an immediate reaction. Like when, in answer to a question about his thoughts on the changing of the sodomy laws in Texas, he started mentioning something about how he believes we’re all sinners… Most people took that to mean that he saw homosexuality as a sin, which takes his point in a different direction than was intended.

Seems to me he often also gets ‘misquoted’ because he just says plain dumb things sometimes. I say dumb things too, but a president is held to a higher standard. There’s a reason why he almost never holds news conferences where reporters are allowed to ask questions. And frankly, I don’t think his ’we’re all sinners’ comment in that context can mean anything other than what most people took it to mean.