Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: George-Bush

  • Great Days but Bad Quarters

    Rossini said of Wagner that he had great moments but bad quarter hours. I’m paraphrasing this as a short post-mortem on President George W. Bush. I think that several times during his presidency, George Bush showed the potential for greatness, but only for a moment. The way in which he has handled the transition, for example, at a minimum shows his capacity to be gracious and his willingness to work together with others. I could only wish that he had shown this ability during the rest of his presidency.

    There were also moments when he showed an ability to communicate. There were a number of good speeches, though he doesn’t have truly great presentation, he can be quite adequate to the task. But apparently he didn’t see the need to communicate a vision to the country.

    Don’t get me wrong on what I am about to say. I am an implacable foe of the war in Iraq. I believe that we will not be happy with what will be left months and years after we withdraw, and I believe we would be unhappy with the result if we stayed another five years lost a few thousand more troops, and then withdrew. That’s because our goals in going to war there were nonsense from a strategic point of view.

    But having chosen to go to war, President Bush acted as though there was no need for continued support of the war. There are indications that many in his administration thought the war would be much easier. I have a hard time crediting that level of stupidity. I find it easier to believe that certain people thought the war would sell better presented as an easy thing, and then it would be easier to get additional support by pointing to troops in harm’s way.

    In a democracy, one of the strategic resources for a war is public support. In deciding to go to war, political leaders need to calculate that they have enough support from the American people to carry their war to a conclusion. The arrogant decide that if they start a war the public must support it as a patriotic duty. This is nonsense. Patriots should vocally oppose bad wars. It’s our duty to our country and our troops.

    But this kind of quick sell of a concept followed by an assumption that, the decision having been made, the people would stick with him, seems to have characterized Bush’s presidency. Even with very bad decisions, a more constant communication would have helped.

    In the transition, while President Bush has been much more gracious and has helped facilitate an effective transfer of power, his powers of communication have actually dimmed, in my view. His farewell speech was laughable and seemed even more detached from reality than normal.

    I’m reminded of the day I watched the Southern League All-Star game in Jacksonville, FL. I was there because my stepson, John Webb, was one of the pitchers, but he doesn’t come into the story. A batter whose name I don’t remember stepped up to the plate, swung with great power at a pitch, lost hold of the bat, and sent it several rows into the stands. Some fans, who should receive psychiatric care, tried to catch the bat, but it crashed to the ground.

    The 43rd president thinks history will judge him much more favorably than he is judged now. In the sense that the distance of time makes failures seem less disastrous, perhaps it will. But I believe he will be remembered as a president who had great challenges and great opportunities, stepped up to the plate, and swung the bat at the ball with vigor. For a moment, those of us who wished him well looked for a home run. But much like that batter at the all-star game, he lost hold, and the bat flew into the stands, threatening the well-being of bystanders.

  • George Bush and God Concepts

    A number of folks around the internet have gotten pretty worked up about [tag]George Bush[/tag]’s comment to an Al Arabiya reporter in an interview that he believes Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Here’s an extract (source: www.whitehouse.gov):

    Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren’t religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that — we had a person blow up our — blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that’s not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

    Amongst those who have responded negatively to this is Joe Carter who applies considerable logic to refuting this idea that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Carter is pretty thoroughly convinced that it just can’t be so.

    As a note to any liberals who are crowing about Christian conservatives turning on Bush, I must note that in my part of the world, Bush is often regarded as a liberal himself. Conservative Christians haven’t been all that much on board with him from the time of the primaries. He was certainly better than Kerry from their point of view, but he is not one of theirs. It shouldn’t be surprising that when he talks about religion, it’s not pure conservative evangelicalism.

    Further, let me note for the record that I am a trinitarian Christian who accepts the incarnation as the central doctrine of Christianity. In other words, I believe that Christ was divine, and more specifically uniquely divine, i.e. not just having a divine spark, and in a way that I and other people are definitely not divine. Thus I differ from the Jewish and Muslim concepts of God.

    But there are two major issues that I think run through this debate. First, one’s concept of God is, hopefully, something different from one’s God. In fact, worship of the concept is something I discussed in an earlier post Conceptual Idolatry. Second, just how “right” does one have to be about God in order to worship him? I’m going to very briefly look at these.

    All of us have some sort of concept in mind when we refer to God. It may be a concept that we reject as impossible, or it may be one in which we put our trust. The quality and value of our concepts vary substantially, I would guess. God is not limited by, defined by, or fully described by our concepts. It almost goes without saying that as a trinitarian Christian my concept of God differs from the Jewish or Muslim concepts, amongst many others. It differs in smaller ways from the concepts of God held by my fellow Christians, including those who are worked up over George Bush’s concepts.

    I would like to think that my concept of God is more accurate than mine. I come to the Father through Jesus Christ (John 14:6) and I believe Jesus gave the clearest picture of God for us. I don’t regard this as exclusive, since I believe one can follow a road without necessarily comprehending all the roadsigns. (If anything generates a comment, that one should, but I’m not going to explain further in this post, so there!) I am, however, fallible, and I’m quite certain that my concept of God is not perfect.

    So we could replace the question first with this: Are our concepts of God the same? No. Are the similar? In many ways, they are not.

    But if we are truly monotheistic, we believe there is only one God. So I think there is a second question: Can you worship God (the only one there is) when your concept is flawed, even seriously flawed? Well, Paul suggested that the Athenians did, in worshiping their unknown God:

    ?23? For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” — Acts 17:23 (NRSV)

    Paul, as reported by Luke, starts from the point of view that they are, in fact, worshiping this unknown God, even though they don’t know him, his attributes, his name, or anything whatsoever about him. Is Paul asserting a theological point here that one can worship a God one does not know? He could be simply starting from his opponent’s viewpoint in order to lead them to his, but it seems to me that he does allow that they are actually worshiping God in some way, however partially. Romans 1 and 2 I think expands on this idea quite a bit. People who do not know God explicitly nonetheless can serve him.

    So I think the arguments fail on both points. That two people’s concepts of God differ does not mean they are worshiping two different gods, any more than the fact that my concept of my wife and someone else’s differ means we’re talking about different people. Further, one can worship something one does not know.

    Does this mean that I accept the doctrines and concepts of Islam on the same basis as I do my Christian doctrines? Not at all. If I did, I would be a Muslim. I simply believe they are worshiping the same God, not because of how right or wrong they are (or I am), but rather because I believe there is only one God available to worship.