Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professors oppose Bush 'theology' -
Pasadena Star News ^ | October 9, 2004 | Marshall Allen

Posted on 10/10/2004 9:34:59 AM PDT by UnklGene

Professors oppose Bush `theology' -

By Marshall Allen , Staff Writer

PASADENA -- A group of Fuller Theological Seminary professors, saying they are responding to a "grave moral crisis' in America, are signing a statement opposing President Bush's alleged convergence of God, church and nation and what they call his "theology of war.' Glen Stassen, Fuller's Louis B. Smedes professor of Christian ethics, said Bush's religious rhetoric confuses the cause of Christianity with that of a nation at war.

For instance, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address the president labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "axis of evil,' Stassen said.

"Calling the three nations the 'axis of evil' and refusing to acknowledge any errors that he has made, that sets up a dichotomy between righteous United States and unrighteous 'axis of evil,' ' Stassen said. "... It leads to a crusade in which Christians think the Christian thing to do is support war-making against an allegedly unrighteous enemy.'

The statement of beliefs, called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence,' criticizes Bush's use of scripture in a speech on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush described the hope offered by America by saying, "... the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.'

These words, used in the Bible, apply only to Jesus Christ and no political leader has the right to "twist them into the service of war,' the confession says.

The statement began circulating among the faculty Tuesday, Stassen said. Its assertions include the claim that Jesus Christ knows no national boundaries, that Christians should have a strong presumption against war and that Christians should exercise humility, which would temper political disagreements.

About 20 professors have signed it, though it has not made the full rounds at Fuller, Stassen said. Stassen expects that almost all of the seminary's 80 full-time professors will sign it. Fuller is the largest evangelical seminary in the country.

The current confession is not the first time Fuller professors have publicly objected to Bush. About 40 faculty members signed a September 2002 letter opposing Bush's statements about a unilateral pre-emptive war in Iraq. Bush is now campaigning on pre-emptive war and using Christian language in the process, Stassen said.

The Fuller educators are part of a national movement of theologians and ethicists who are signing the document. They are being organized by Stassen, George Hunsinger of Princeton Theological Seminary, Richard B. Hays of Duke Divinity School, Richard Pierard of Gordon College and Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine.

The same five leaders endorsed a recent ad campaign in the national media that proclaims, "God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat.'

Dan Palm, political science chair at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical Christian school, said the statement is not something he would sign. Palm said his primary critique of the statement is that it's a caricature of the Religious Right that seems designed to get politically liberal Christians out to vote.

Palm especially objected to a paragraph that suggested pastors are not preaching about teachings of Jesus such as "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.'

"I think that's really a low, cheap shot,' Palm said. "I think there's room for honest disagreement among Christians for when the right time is for using military force.'

Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly, a conservative political organization based in Monrovia, said the movement opposing Bush's religious rhetoric sounds like it has a left-wing agenda.

"It sounds like these Fuller professors are trying to use religion to their own political end,' he said.

Spence said that Bush's use of religious imagery is no different than any other president's.

Ronald Reagan's "City on a Hill' speech was clearly a biblically based vision for the future, he said.

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton also frequently used religious imagery, he said.

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, said he won't sign the statement because he doesn't want to appear partisan. Mouw said he has critiques of both presidential candidates.

Mouw doesn't oppose Bush's claims that God favors freedom, but said "it's always dangerous for a nation to see itself as God's appointed agent in the world.'

Mouw, who opposed the war in Iraq, said he doesn't know Bush's intentions, but said his language resonates with evangelical Christians, some of whom consider him to be speaking for God.

There's a danger in the Christian community of people being uncritical in their endorsement of American interests, he said.

According to a recent study on religion and politics from the University of Akron, 68 percent of Americans want a president to have strong religious beliefs and 63 percent are comfortable when candidates discuss their faith.

Marshall Allen can be reached at (626) 578-6300, Ext. 4461, or by e-mail at marshall.allen@sgvn.com . For the the text of the theology letter click here


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: antibush; buh; bush; calltorenewal; christianleft; evangelicalcovenant; evangelicalleft; fullerseminary; marxist; marxists; socialist; socialists; sojourners; wallis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: Elvis van Foster
Is this guy confused or what?... YES...NOT ONLY CONFUSED BUT STUPID IF HE IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT...
21 posted on 10/10/2004 10:16:16 AM PDT by UltraKonservativen (( YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: UnklGene

I wish they would answer this great old puzzle.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


23 posted on 10/10/2004 10:24:05 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Rather calls Saddam "Mister President" and calls President Bush "bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

...it's always dangerous for a nation to see itself as God's appointed agent in the world....YOU ARE FRICKING RIGHT PROFESSOR SINCE THAT IS WHAT ISLAM BELIEVES AND THEY ARE DAMN DANGEROUS.
IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE ME MR. THEOLOGY PROFESSOR GO OVER THERE AND GO TELL THEM THAT YOU LOVE THEM SO...

THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE BULL EXCREMENT PART.

ARRRGGGG ! YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID!!!!!


24 posted on 10/10/2004 10:28:32 AM PDT by UltraKonservativen (( YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The professors oppose more than Bush's 'theology'.
25 posted on 10/10/2004 10:29:02 AM PDT by D-fendr (They can't steal it if it isn't close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
How do they stand on this issue?

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President . having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

where has the US DOJ been on this item? Remove KERRY from the Senate NOW!

26 posted on 10/10/2004 10:30:42 AM PDT by Henchman (Kerry lied, good men died!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Floyd R Turbo

Is Fuller a member of the "Revisionist Theology" Movement?


27 posted on 10/10/2004 10:32:12 AM PDT by zzen01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: UnklGene

Jesus, who IS God, knows boundaries. God used nations' kings, boundaries and militaries quite frequently in Old Testament times, both for the discipline and restoration of His people.

A novel approach for the 20 signing "Professors" at Fuller; Check out the Bible, then spew forth your opinion.


29 posted on 10/10/2004 10:40:23 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Drivers of SUVs without brush scratches should be horsewhipped! ><BCC>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
Mouw doesn't oppose Bush's claims that God favors freedom, but said "it's always dangerous for a nation to see itself as God's appointed agent in the world.'

Certainly, this isn't without historical precident.

30 posted on 10/10/2004 10:44:48 AM PDT by DrDavid (T H-K: Vote often. Vote well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

If someone wants to be argumentative, they can spin almost anything their way. Just so much bull pucky.


31 posted on 10/10/2004 10:46:01 AM PDT by Oreo Kookey (How, indeed, do we click our tongues at beheadings and look the other way from abortion? I weep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Ok, I don't care if they are religious men, they are a#$wipes.


32 posted on 10/10/2004 10:49:21 AM PDT by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arkady_renko

Why the Left Is Not Right --- ­The Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe by Ronald Nash

Book Review: Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - December 1997 by Doug Bandow
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3918

When it comes to religion and politics, most media attention is focused on the right. And it usually isn’t positive coverage. Religious conservatives are presented as threatening America’s constitutional balance, women’s right to choose, gays’ civil liberties, and much more.

Yet religious activism runs both ways. As Ronald Nash, a professor at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, notes in Why the Left Is Not Right, there is an active and diverse religious left in the United States. To be sure, these people, who once “proudly proclaimed their liberal or radical connections,” now “describe themselves as moderates and centrists,” notes Nash. But their policy positions remain unashamedly left-wing.

Nash divides the religious left into three parts: liberal mainline Protestants, liberal Catholics, and left-wing evangelicals. There’s no doubt where Nash stands. He argues that these groups have been used (willingly or unwillingly) by the Democrats for electoral purposes and have helped “demonize politically conservative Christians.” A prolific author and entertaining speaker, Nash obviously views himself as among the demonized right.

In his view, the central argument is not whether people of faith should be concerned about peace and justice, but what those terms mean. The evangelical left has appeared to have simply assumed the standard liberal understanding of the words and then discredited anyone (including their politically conservative brethren) who understood the terms differently and who pursued the objectives of peace and justice in a different way.

Perhaps the greatest value of Why the Left Is Not Right is that it shows how political activism by people of faith is neither new nor restricted to conservatives. Indeed, even as evangelicals were receiving exaggerated public attention for entering the political process, mainline Protestant denominations were promoting Democratic political causes domestically and communist revolutionary movements abroad. It is a story worth remembering when the media and political establishments pour obloquy on traditionally less active evangelicals and fundamentalists as they seek to protect themselves and their values from government intrusion.

Much the same politics has been on display within the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics were once “thoughtful enemies of secularism, humanism, and the liberal welfare state,” writes Nash. Many still are, but as Nash puts it, “large cracks have appeared in the political and social thinking of many educated Catholics.” The 1985 Pastoral Letter on the economy, for example, was as political as anything emanating from the Christian Coalition. Even more radical have been specific segments of the church, such as the Maryknoll Order.

However, Nash devotes most of his attention to the lesser-known left-wing evangelicalism. He argues that the New Left and “the adversary culture” of the 1960s spawned political liberalism among Protestants who purport to hold a more conservative, orthodox theological view. Nash focuses on three leading leftish evangelicals: Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; Ron Sider, founder of Evangelicals for Social Action and author of Rich Christians in a World of Hunger; and Tony Campolo, sociology professor, well-published author, and presidential confidante.

The scrutiny is warranted, though Nash seems more skeptical of the trio’s good intentions than is justified. Wallis, for instance, lives his beliefs. Two decades ago Wallis moved his magazine to a poor section of Washington, D.C., and formed a community of the same name. At the same time, however, he has, as Nash points out, remained imbued with the leftist Zeitgeist of the 1960s. The boat people fleeing communist Vietnam, Wallis wrote, were leaving “to support their consumer habit in other lands.” Their departure should not be taken to “discredit” Vietnam. Wallis’s views toward Cuba and Nicaragua were similarly skewed.

Wallis’s economic opinions also were long solidly collectivist. The collapse of socialism abroad seems to have chastened him­he now calls himself centrist and asserts that he is independent of Democrats and Republicans alike­but he remains wedded to interventionist policies. Conservatives, Wallis charges, retain an “attachment to institutions of wealth and power, preference for the status quo, and the lack of a strong ethic of social responsibility.” Unfortunately, while Wallis now criticizes abuses by government, he underestimates how the activist state promotes concentrations of wealth and power, supports the status quo, and undermines social responsibility.

Similar is Nash’s case against Ron Sider. Sider is a gentle spirit who has borne substantial liberal criticism for his opposition to abortion and gay rights. Unfortunately, however, on economic policy he has always placed intentions before results. Thus, as Nash documents, Sider has long advocated the sort of government intervention that has been tried and found wanting throughout this century. While criticism is rife of the Christian Coalition for seemingly attaching itself to the GOP, Nash points out that “Ron Sider, the person who comes closest to being a moderate member of the evangelical Left, has himself spent years trying to elect liberal, typically Democratic, candidates to public office.”

Tony Campolo is probably the most public of the three, given his high-profile contacts with President Bill Clinton. Campolo also criticizes government, but seems committed to statist remedies when it comes to solving specific problems. Nash doesn’t stop his criticisms here, however; he goes on to question Campolo’s evangelical credentials, given the latter’s views on such issues as abortion, feminism, and the environment.

Through his analysis, which concludes with chapters on economics and poverty, Nash shows how even the best-intentioned of religious believers can come up with solutions inimical to the interests of those they wish to serve. But Nash, who has been on the receiving end of endless left-wing barbs, puts an unnecessary edge in his own analysis. Perhaps nothing irritates Nash more than the evangelical left’s flirtation with Bill Clinton.

Yet the opinions of Wallis, Sider, and Campolo reflect ignorance rather than malice. I’ve met and debated all three. All want to help those in need, seem to have been affected by the decline of statism, and were willing to acknowledge contrary arguments. They deserve to be criticized, not demonized.

Why the Left Is Not Right deals seriously with an important subject. Despite the public perception that religious activists gravitate toward the right, many people of faith have embraced collectivist remedies despite the ill effects on those most in need. In short, Nash’s basic thesis is correct: the left is not right.

Zondervan • 1996 • 222 pages

Doug Bandow, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).


33 posted on 10/10/2004 10:55:47 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (All DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Matthew 5:14-16 (NIV)
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. [15] Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. [16] In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

I thinke the context in the above still matches the President's quote and Reagans and they are the words of Jesus....

The Fuller folks have forgotten, if you are in Christ, you are the light...

I'm not saying if Jesus would or would not have agreed with the War on Iraq, my belief is that he raises up nations and tears them down. Unrigteousness in Iraq and it's leadership was and is demonic. Daniel witnessed the work of the Prince of Persia, when he was at th Tigris river.

If this leads to a more stable situation for Israel in the long run, I know God is behind it. Look at the situation. Iran is now isolated. They have Aghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other. We have troops in both nations, as well as Kuwait and Qatar.

Libya suddenly is becoming more reasonable

Syria is now cut off from support from Iraq. We now have the region so cut up that none would be in a position to
attack Israel with any real hope of success.

Don't know, sounds like it might be God to me.


34 posted on 10/10/2004 10:56:36 AM PDT by jdluntjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Henchman

Hmm I am guessing the serviceman's oath would apply here.
I am sure that negotiation for the communists would also apply!


I AGREE, REMOVE KERRY FROM THE SENATE


35 posted on 10/10/2004 10:57:07 AM PDT by billakay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

Dear Professors:
GET A JOB!!!


36 posted on 10/10/2004 10:58:08 AM PDT by Tigercap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
"The professors oppose more than Bush's 'theology'."

Unlike President Bush, The Religious Left have a *Relativistic Worldview*

37 posted on 10/10/2004 11:04:15 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (All DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NZerFromHK

Exactly! I regret to say that is what our son turned out to be after attending Fuller.


38 posted on 10/10/2004 11:08:04 AM PDT by LittleBoPeep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
A group of Fuller Theological Seminary professors

I wouldn't trust this group of retards to wash my imaginary cat.

And I hate that cat.

39 posted on 10/10/2004 11:12:46 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene
FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

President's Office Phone: 626-584-5204

E-mail: pres-asst@dept.fuller.edu

These silly anti-war professors seem to be always with us, like warts. Their lack of political judgment is an embarassment to the Christian community and to all informed conservatives. It would be interesting to know to what extent they protested the persecution of Christians in Africa, or for that matter, what stand they have taken on the abortion holocaust.

Fuller Theological Seminary

135 N. Oakland Ave.

Pasadena, CA 91182

40 posted on 10/10/2004 11:33:46 AM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson