In my experience growing up in a very religious protestant community, most church-goers are pretty ignorant about the larger themes of the bible. In church, the bible is presented in sound bites - Read a paragraph, learn a lesson from it. ‘Bible Study’ often means focusing on a specific message for living as a Christian, and reading short passages from the bible to support the message.
Learning the bible that way is like learning a novel by reading individual paragraphs every week, out of sequence. In the end, you may be able to describe specific scenes in the novel very well, but the overall narrative can be lost.
Many people who consider themselves to be well-read in the bible have really just memorized a few dozen passages that they can repeat from memory. They know very little about the context, the history of the times, the social and cultural pressures of the authors, etc. Most of them don’t really have a feel for when the books were written, or even necessary by whom (ask ten Christians, “Who wrote Acts? Or Revelations?” My guess is at least half of them wouldn’t know.)
I mean, if Al Franken said it, it MUST be true right? Its printed on real paper and everything. However, when I bumped into GW the other day (see my up and coming blockbuster book entitled “Partisan Bullshit and the Folks that Swallow it Whole”) HE said that…well, you’ll have to wait for the book I guess. My editor is glaring at me.
To the OP: Why doesn’t GW join a congregation? Beats me. Its not my business or my concern to be honest. In other words, I don’t GIVE a shit about GW’s religious leanings, one way or the other…the caviot being as long as he keeps it too himself. I didn’t care about Clinton’s or Carter’s religious leanings (except to occationally roll my eyes for various reasons). Why does it MATTER if GW is a devout Methodist who simply, for whatever reason, hasn’t joined a congregation in Washington…or if he really has no political convictions at all and is only using it as an election point with religious people???
According to you, I have similar beliefs to the President of the United States.
I haven’t belonged to a church for several years. I was going to a small Episcopalian church throughout most of my childhood, but got frustrated with the pastor’s obsession with keeping women and gays out of the pulpit. So I stopped going and haven’t found a replacement yet.
Bush moved halfway across the country to take a job in which he is supposed to be protecting 300 million people*. I’m sure he is praying and reading the Bible as often as he can. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
*Cue the SDMB left, who will come in and make a bunch of snarky comments about how the Patriot Act and the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment aren’t protecting anyone.
I dunno, if I had spent a year or so reading Acts (or maybe 1/2 year), I think I might have gleened that it is set after the crucification. Still, the anecdote is mostly about Bob Evans.
Since someone asked, when Bush was governor of Texas, he belonged to Tarrytown Methodist Church, here in Austin, and he attended almost every week with Laura.
I have no idea why he hasn’t elected to join a congregation in Washington, but it’s NOT because he hasn’t been in the habit of going to church up to now.
The more I hear about GWB the closer he seems to OBL - both use religion to rally supporters, both disregard the techings of these religions, both are evil hypocrites.
(Thank you astorian. That was an interesting lead.)
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/politics/main611620.shtml
-------- The Bushes reported itemized deductions [in 2003] of $95,043, including $68,360 to churches and charitable organizations, including Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, Md., Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, St. John’s Church in Washington, D.C., the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas and the federal government’s Combined Federal Campaign.
From snopes, I learn that White House spokesperson Jeanie Mamo maintains that W and his family have attended services at St. John’s Church, “an Episcopal congregation located in Lafayette Square across from the White House”, Lincoln Park United Methodist and Washington National Cathedral.
On preview, for Reeder:
According to this religious news article "Bush, 54, is a member of Highland Park United Methodist Church in the Dallas area and regularly attends Tarrytown United Methodist church in Austin, Texas, when he is at the governor’s mansion there. "
Actually, no, not necessarily. The larger spiritual community frequently sucks. Being a part thereof often sucks, and sucks the good Christianity right out a person. Fellowship is great, it’s important for growth, but it’s got to be in the right time and place, and it needs to be directed by God.
A President – or for that matter, a janitor – should choose to join a congregation because they are convicted that doing so is what’s best for his relationship with Christ and his Christian walk, not because it’s what’s expected or what would look best or put forth some particular public image. Christianiity isn’t about outward appearances, nor conforming to a role defined by men. And on matters as deeply personal as where one worships, the only standard that can be acceptable to any “good Christian” is “no master but God, no statute but His Word, no judge but Christ.”
As for Don Evans, his knowledge - or lack thereof - of Luke and/or Acts and the veracity - or lack thereof - of cites on the matter from Al Franken, it’s approximately as relevant to the matter of G.W. Bush’s church attendance and “personal piety” (which is really nothing any earthly individual has any fitness or capability to assess) the relevance meter is pinging on -30. It’s meaningless.
Don Evans claimed that he and George Bush studies Luke/Acts for an entire year. In depth. To a Newsweek reporter.
Yet when asked about what Acts was about, he stood there like a deer caught in the headlights.
Then he made reference to a scene which could not have possibly been in Acts, since that book takes place after Jesus is crucified.
The point is that the story about the Don Evans/GWB bible study group appears either to be a fabrication or a mischaracterization of the group’s get-together. Similarly the claim that Candidate Bush read the Bible every day appears to be false. It is a shame that the Bush campaign chose to push a particular public image that was so inaccurate.
I noted in the OP that many believe that one does not have to go to church to be a good Christian. TeaElle’s remaining points are valid, IMHO, although I’ve heard other theological views expressed. Indeed, the religious tradition that I was raised it was rather quieter than the one espoused by the President.
Which has nothing to do with what George W. Bush knows about Luke or Acts (which was never a point of debate) or why George W. Bush does not regularly attend any specific church in Washington D.C.
If this debate were about Don Evans lack of absorption of Biblical knowledge, it’d be on point. But to extrapolate anything about G.W. Bush because Don Evans reportedly isn’t conversant in Luke or Acts is a stretch. Don Evans alleged lack of knowledge is a reflection of his knowledge, nothing more – and frankly, I personally need a better cite than Al Franken. Actually, no, I don’t. Because I don’t care what Don Evans knows about Luke or Acts. It isn’t relevant to me. If you want to talk about what Bush knows or what Bush has studied or what Bush was doing during this Bible Study, gave me some material that talks specifically about Bush in that context, because I’m not going to play inference and implication and guilt by association games.
I also don’t know that we have reasonable evidence – from one vague reference to one supposed question that was allegedly not answered or brushed aside – that Bush doesn’t read the Bible every day, but even if he doesn’t, it’s not necessarily significant evidence of anything other than the basic fact. A lot of serious Christians (myself included) don’t read the Bible itself every day, but may spend time reading and studying Biblical reference materials and exegetical studies. Many (myself included) begin each day with devotional material based upon and containing passages of scripture, which are extremely meaningful toward spiritual growth but aren’t “reading the Bible.” And you know what, it’s not anyone else’s business, and it doesn’t impact anyone else. I have utter disdain for the Bush 2000 campaign for making G.W. Bush’s devotional habits a matter of discussion (and Bush/Cheney '04 if it’s happened again) and I commend Mr. Bush for personally endeavoring to keep his private spiritual practices just that: private, because they’re, I repeat, not anyone else (on earth’s) business.
Lots of people are religious without attending church. “If Bush is so religious, why doesn’t he join a congregation?” is like asking “If Smith is so musical, why doesn’t he join a record club?”.
You can be Biblically quite illiterate and still be deeply religious. My wife is a woman of deep faith, yet she surely could not tell you what the Acts are about and probably could not name you five books of the Old Testament. And you can be a Bible scholar and have no faith at all. There is one poster that knows much more about the Bible and Biblical history than 90% of the faithful, yet does not as far as I can tell profess any faith. So Bush doesn’t know Acts. Big deal- ask 10 churchgoers and see how many do. So bashing Bush for church attendance and Biblical knowledge is a bit unfair.
I think what IS fair is to compare Bush’s alleged faith to his actions. Surely he does not follow the pacifism of Christ, and I think it can be argued that feeding the hungry is not anywhere near a priority for him as it was for Jesus. You can’t have it both ways- profess to be a man of great faith and then act in contradiction to that faith.
Sighh… anyone who wants a “cite” for Bush’s church attendance need only enter the president’s name and “Tarrytown United Methodist” in Google. The results will speak for themselves.
Not that it matters. The people who’ve said in this thread that Bush is a fraud and charlatan who doesn’t really believe what he professes to believe are wrong, dead wrong, demonstrably wrong… but they’ll never admit that. Up to now, many have been arguing SIMULTANEOUSLY that Bush is a religious wacko AND a total fraud who merely pretends to be religious to get votes!
So, once they learn that he’s NOT a fraud, they’ll just go back to saying he’s a religious wacko. (“I was wrong, I didn’t know what I was talking about, so I’ll shut up now” would be the proper response, but I won’t hold my breath waiting to read those words.)
