A dangerous entanglement of religious expression
by Tom Roberts, editor of NCR
Many news organizations have received news releases recently outlining the
ambitions of some evangelical fundamentalist Christian groups to begin relief
work in Iraq the minute the bullets stop flying. No doubt, they will be in line
behind a host of other agencies and groups negotiating with the government and
the military on exactly who will be dispensing humanitarian aid when the
rebuilding of Iraq gets underway.
The curious thing is that some of the recent
announcements come from groups whose leaders have made some rather
nasty remarks about Islam in recent months.
For instance, the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of
legendary evangelist the Rev. Billy Graham, has taken a different tack from his
father, who, immediately after Sept. 11, urged tolerance toward Muslims.
The son, several months later in interviews and
in a book he’s written, described Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion.”
His relief group, Samaritan’s Purse, wants to take relief aid and the young
Graham’s version of the Christian message to Iraq.
So does the Southern Baptist Convention, even
though a former leader, according to a recent report in The New York Times,
last year described the prophet Muhammed as a “pedophile” and “terrorist.”
That same Times story said the Bush
administration is attempting to put some distance between itself and the aid
groups without offending Religious Right voters.
It is a dance that some politicians have been attempting
for some time -- keeping the Religious Right happy while staying far enough away
to remain untainted by its most extreme views .
In the late 1980s, before the elder George Bush
began his run in earnest for the presidency, a woman who was editor of a
conservative Protestant evangelical magazine called me to tell me of a meeting
she had attended at the then-vice president’s home. She said he had gathered a
number of evangelical Protestant editors, with the help of the Rev. Jerry
Falwell, to discuss his religious beliefs.
A few stories were done on the gathering, during
which Bush explained that although he might not always use the language of
evangelical Christianity, he was a true believer who had been raised with the
Bible. Many of us then viewed the story as an oddity, an example of what
politicians have to do to cement relationships with particular constituencies.
Since then, however, it has become clear that
the religious right has definite designs on shaping domestic and international
policy. This is not religion that seeks to inform politics, it is religion that
wants to be a major player. And some would contend it has become just that, in a
big way.
In recent weeks, we’ve run stories depicting the
significant effect of conservative Christians on the current Bush
administration, as well as the president’s view that God has conveyed a special
“call of history” to America. His deputy director of public liaison, Tim
Goeglein, was quoted as saying he thought “Bush is God’s man at this hour,” and
Time magazine reported, “Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by
the grace of God to lead at that moment,” referring to the terrorist attack of
Sept. 11, 2001.
What some might see as moral clarity others see
as a dangerous entanglement of religious expression and theology that wraps
itself around a specific world view.
In the case of the anti-Islam Christians who
want to distribute aid, the danger becomes clear. No one needs further fuel on
the smoldering suspicions of the Arab world that this is a Christian-Muslim
battle, a revisiting of ancient enmities played out by a modern superpower with
high-tech means. In this case, a far more inclusive God is essential. |
