Is Bush an Evangelical or fundamentalist Christian?

Is George W. Bush, the current president of the United States, an Evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christian?

Last night, a (Muslim) cousin of mine launched into a long, fiery, passionate, and loud diatribe about how Bush, as an Evangelical fundamentalist Christian, is pushing an intolerant, bigoted, Evangelical, fundamentalist Christian agenda in the US and, especially, abroad (which includes taking action against Muslims, being anti-Islam, etc.). His opening statement was, “There is no difference between Bush and Osama bin Laden. Both are fundamentalists and terrorists. The only difference is that Bush is Christian and Osama is Muslim.”

A number of other (Muslim) relatives I have spoken to in the past have echoed this belief regarding Bush’s religious affiliation: that Bush is an Evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christian and is pushing an Evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christian agenda in his policies, which is a very, very, very bad thing. They also believe that the US government is firmly in the hands of co-religionists with Bush with the same agenda.

Right now, I’m ignoring everything but one quesion: is Bush an Evangelical or fundamentalist Christian? I would like sources, cites, back-up, etc., for any statements. Well-reasoned opinions are also welcome but only concerning the question being discussed.

WRS

I seriously doubt he is either. Take what I say with a grain of salt, given my opinions of him. I see him as a cynical politician who will say whatever needs saying to get elected / re-elected. Now that he is on his second term and for all purposes could be called a lame duck, let’s see what he does. Remember in his first campaign he was a “compassionate conservative” and actually played at courting the gay and minority votes. Then for the second election he courted the opposite pole.

George Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush is Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church is considered one of the more socially liberal churches out there. They are accepting of homosexuals and don’t even take a hardline stance on abortion.

For example there is an openly gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church.

This caused some infighting but former President Bush has never come out against the Church’s decision to ordain a gay Bishop. It’s also heavily rumored in many circles that the entire Bush family is socially liberal and supports abortion, for example.

George Bush himself is a Methodist. The Methodists are also very accepting of abortion, and homosexuality. They don’t declare either abortionists or homosexuals to be “condemned to hell” and also don’t believe their denomination is the “one true path.”

The Methodist doctrine says homosexuals are “people of sacred worth” although they find some of their practices incompatible with Christian teaching. The Methodists stress heavily equal treatment before the law, even to the point where they think religion shouldn’t be endorsed by the state, something many religious groups in America obviously do not agree on.

As far as abortion goes, here is a passage from the Methodist Book of Doctrine:

“In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures”

The Methodist church also openly opposes military conscription, and the Methodist church is decidedly paficist but supports people who choose to join the military.

Methodist doctrine also rejects war as a national policy tool.

So doctrinally Bush does not belong to a denomination that is even loosely related to fundamentalism. He wasn’t raised in a denomation that was even loosely fundamentalist.

Now, obviously many of Bush’s actions don’t synch up with his church. But you must remember bush is a politician and most politicians play a bit of realpolitik to get elected. Who knows how Kerry really feels about abortion, who knows how Bush really feels about abortion, we both know they will say what they think will best get them votes with their voter base.

It seems the consensus (of all of two people) so far is that Bush is simply a politician, whose religious values and beliefs (if he has any) are not reflected in his policies.

According to Martin Hyde, his actions do not agree with what denominational affiliations he has (Episcopal for his father, Methodist for himself).

Two arguments that go against the “Bush is an Evagelical and/or fundamentalist Christian” idea; zero arguments in favor thereof.

Let’s see what else people have to say in the ensuing hours; I will keep a tally every time I check in.

WRS

Thing is, he’s gotten away with convincing all concerned that he is on their side, coy semi-biblical references, stuff like that. Point of fact, there are differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. For one thing, I kinda like evangelicals, and fundamentalists totally creep me out. Evangelicals stress the “good news” of Jesus’ life and teachings, and are more in tune with the essential themes of compassion and love. They are not as apt to go to hand-to-hand combat over the correct translation and interpretation of some Greek or Aramaic nuance.

The Methodist Church is primarily attended by people who haven’t really given a lot of thought to Methodist doctrine, or they would realize that John and Charles Wesley were a couple of pretty odd ducks.

Everyone has their own notion of The Boss, but in mine own mind, if He were to suddenly appear before GeeDubya, He would sieze him by the lapels and put his face an inch away before screaming “What the FUCK! is the matter with you?!”

yJmv.

FYI the British press like to call him that. And also cite it as the biggest reason for his re-election.

Gotta vote for the “manipulative Christian” option. Bush plays up the fundamentalist act (at the direction of his handlers, natch) because his easily-manipulated fundamentalist base needs such a showing to dance to his tune. But once their eyes are off of him, he can be just as decadent and sinful as anyone else.

“All holy piety in public, and all peeled grapes and self-indugance in private.”
–Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Bush is a “born again” Christian, which could be either a fundamentalist, an evangelical, or neither. I’m no expert on these matters, but my understanding is that “born again” just means you were probably raised a Christian, but didn’t get the point of “accepting Christ as your personal savior” until sometime later in life. At that point, you become “born again”. Jimmy Carter described himself thusly as well.

Born again Christian is a vacuous term.

A huge portion of the Protestant denominations do not believe in infant baptism et cetera because they don’t believe individuals make spiritual decisions until they are at a higher intellectual level. These denominations typically believe infancy and early childhood are “grace periods” (of course meaning if one dies in that period heaven is assured, because god created humans whose minds do not develop the capacity for true sin for some years.)

So in the strictest sense the first time you publicly accept Jesus Christ as savior and the Lord his father as God, you’ve been “born again” as a Christian.

But again it is a loose term. It also very often refers to people who are either without faith or even people with a troubled past who find god and change their lives to live under Christian doctrine.

Bush is definitely a born again Christian, but many many denominations use the term.

Also strictly speaking the fundamentalist movement is of arguable strength in America.

There is no “fundamentalist” Church, for example. Some point to the Baptists or the Pentecostals. But the Baptists are a very unorganized group, with two very large denominations and several smaller ones. Several northern baptist traditions are extremely contrary to the more fundamentalist Southern Baptist traditions.

Furthermore most of the denominations that are associated with fundamentalism are not denominations with an established hierarchy. So there is no true organized and central doctrine. Many Baptist churches for example are members of the Southern Baptists because the SBC provides supplementary funds and also helps pay a nice retirement to retired pastors. For the members of these SBC churches it’s all win and no gain, because SBC doctrine can be flagrantly ignored as each Church is independent and in the baptist denomination decisions are usually made by all adult male members of the church in a strictly democratic voting structure.

Also many groups that are labelled fundamentalist by outsiders label each other, derisively as fundamentalist.

There is also an important aspect to American religion that many everday churchgoers are much more attuned to their individual spiritual leaders and have little to no real information about their denomination as a whole. There are even people who follow fundamentalist preachers but probably aren’t really fundamentalist as they would disagree with some of the fundamentalist mind set, they just don’t know any better because it’s never really laid out for them.

The typical American chooses a church by sampling the ones in his/her proximity. Not by researching denominations and seeing which one has a belief system he/she agrees with.

A typical fundamentalist sermon isn’t always going to be vastly different from a Methodist sermon or an Epsicopalian sermon. Some of them ARE vastly different, but not all.

Fundamentalism is completely unorganized, poorly defined, and we don’t have any solid figures on how many Christians are even in the movement.

IN the strictest sense fundamentalism is believing in the five fundamentals:

Inerrancy of the Sciptures
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
Substitionary Atonement
Bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
Bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

On the last four fundamentals there aren’t many people in Christendom that don’t have those beliefs.

The inerrancy of the scriptures is a different matter. Most all denominations feel that the scripture is the divine truth and is offered as truth from god’s mouth. But the majority of denominations believe that mankind can make mistakes in the interpretation of God’s word. And a good chunk also believe each person can take different lessons from the bible, and that all of these are different forms of the same truth.

Fundamentalism’s greatest contradiction to me is this belief that not only are the scriptures inerrant, but that only one specific interpretation is inerrant. That’s the problem.

They claim the scripture is inerrant. So a problem arises, they say, well John X:XX says this, that is final, no argument. But if someone says, “yes but that could be taken to mean that xxxx” the fundamentalist response is “no, that’s not possible because the scripture says XXXX!!”

That’s where fundamentalism departs largely from other denominations. There is belief that you cannot reinterpret the bible in any way. The big contradiction is the fundamentalist movement has no central organization so no way to establish this one “inerrant” interpretation of the bible. So the fundie movement is in large part powered by coalitions and inter-denominational groups and individual spiritual leaders.

Obviously that is not an environment that bodes well for establishing the “one, true, inerrant interpretation” of the bible.

Evangelicalism believes that the ultimate truth is in the scripture, but that each individual will find that truth in different ways based on their own personal understanding of the bible. See how drastically that varies from fundamentalism.

Some people say that “some evangelicals are fundamentalist, but not all fundamentalists are evangelicals” I disagree and find the true ideas behind each to be irreconciliable. You can’t believe each individual worshipper can find his own truth if you believe that there is only one correct interpretation of the scripture. I think many evangelicals devolve into fundamentalists and that is where the confusion lies.

Also a side note keep evangelicalism separate in your mind from evangelism. Evangelism is simply the spreading of god’s word and more or less conversion efforts.

If one was to identify and peg “the” fundamentalist movement strictly it would most easily be defined as the movement that believes in the five fundamentals and believes strongly in an involvement in social life and a strict enforcement of its ideas across the board. These fundamentalists are the ones who are against gay marriage, abortion, et cetera.

It’s possible of course, though, to be a fundamentalist in all regards but not believe you have to enforce your beliefs on others. So there are “tame” fundamentalists that don’t hurt anybody.

It’s my understanding that W takes his moral cues from his wife, Laura, who is Methodist.

Bush apparently started reevaluating his spiritual convictions in 1984.

From Frontline

Frontline actually did another episode examining Bush’s evangelical connections

George W. Bush only Believes he is a Christian. He does not understand the Spirit of Jesus.

GW is a pharisee: One who believes Law takes precedence over Truth.
rwjefferson
Peace through Liberty

Thankyou Martin Hyde for that extremely informative post. I feel as if scales have dropped from my eyes with regard to some of my understanding of Christianity in America.

Nah, he’s not a fundamentalist. Because your faith leads you to believe and act certain things doesn’t make you a fundamentalist.

No, Bush has a higher body count.

Martin Hyde made a good point in saying that the phrase: “born again” is a vacuous term among Christians. I might add to that: the word “Christian” is just as vacuous. Their are probably just as many opinions of what a Christian is as their are for what a fundamentalist is. But, for lack of a better term, I’ll use it in my illustration to describe one who has accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour.

The question I wish to pose is: Is one “born again” (as GWB has claimed to be) who has accepted Christ as their saviour? If so, what are the signs of one who is a truly “born again believer?”

The phrase “born again” has been hijacked by a few narrow stripes of Christianity. It comes from a Bible quotation, and it means baptism. The ceremony symbolizes belief in Jesus, and every Christian has been born again. That’s right, every Christian, not just the Falwellites and the Robertsonians. Every Catholic was baptized, born again. Every gay Episcopalian, too. When I was a 13-year old Presbyterian, I was read the “born again” passage when I was baptized. I am tired of being told that I’m not born again because I’m not an abortion-hating, gay-bashing Republican.

I’d also like to thank Martin Hyde. I learned something today. This may be continuing the born-again hijack, but I noticed something the Sunday before last when my church had a baptism. Immediately before the baptism itself takes place, the prayer book says this (emphasis mine):

Now, the way I read this is Episcopalians are born again at baptism. Since I was only a few months old at mine, I can’t report any profound spiritual experience.

As for the OP, I think I’ve heard the President has attended a Methodist Church while in office, but the image he presents of his Christianity doesn’t match my impression of Methodism, and I have been friends with several Methodists.

CJ

Catholicism also has Confirmation, which could be interpreted as “born again.” Basically, it’s a confirmation of your faith in Christ and your affirming your baptism. However, one also takes a new name at Confirmation (added to your middle name-in case you wondered, mine was Brenda), a Saint’s name or variation of, to become a “new person”, technically, in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit.

So that could also be understood as being “born again.” You receive a gold pin in the form of a dove in remembrance of the Pentecost.

The man is neither. He doesn’t even go to church. Even Clinton went to church upon occasion. Carter taught sunday school.

If there is a God. Bush will burn hotter than most of us.

Not true. He doesn’t have an official home congregation, but that doesn’t mean that he never attends church. There’s a big difference between the two.

If there is a God none of us know a damn thing about how he will receive George Bush in death.