I am combining rant points today, not because I am lazy, but because they are converging.

A friend and I have discussed the contemporary evangelical emphasis on the personal relationship with God. As I understand it, the idea of "works" was replaced (and for many, many good reasons) with a grace based theology. All of that makes sense, but it has morphed into something else. At least under works, people were required to actually do something. Under the contemporary theology, the obligations are as follows: pray, read the bible, communicate with God, attend Church and worship. Your banned behavior is essentially sexual and personal in nature. Don't cheat on your wife, don't be gay, don't have pre-marital sex. Don't do drugs, drink too much, and (possibly) don't gossip or steal pens from the office. Seem like I am dismissing it? Maybe. Kind of frustrated this morning. The problem I have with it is two-fold: the reason I am supposed to pursue this relationship with God appears to be all about me. The works doctrine was at least supposed to help those around me. But the relationship is another me-focussed activity where I benefit from my relationship. How will others know? As far as I can tell, because I would tell them that I pray, communicate with God, attend Church, and generally speak the language of Churchese. Any benefits to those around me are incidental. Perhaps I lead others to the church and get them to have that relationship for them. But I am not expected to act in ways that are beneficial to a broader community.

Second part of the Rant: another friend and I have discussed the morality of GWB. I heard some doofus on Fox the other night saying that Bush was not the first President to talk about his faith (though his is more open and in-your-face), but he was the first to try to act on his faith. Act? How the hell? He has certainly given lip service to the points above: he allegedly prays, reads his Bible, reads a devotion, has a personal relationship with God that he will tell whoever wants to hear about it, and we know he attends church (just as just about every recent president--except Reagan, ironically). Check, check, check. But, where is the f-ing fruit? Where is any proof that he acts on that faith? Has he treated his enemies, either political adversaries or international foes, differently than previous presidents? Well, kind of. He ruthlessly punishes political adversaries and bombs his international foes. Has he brought meekness, love, kindness to the process? Has he? If you take away his talking about faith, would you know or suspect he was a Christian? That is the standard, I think.

He has, as I noted above, treated his political foes with a kind of ruthlessness that is hard to imagine with Christ. Imagine Jesus saying that McCain had fathered a black baby (and meaning that as an insult)? Or criticizing McCain as possibly betraying his country as a POW. Imagine Christ saying "bring it on." Pursuing "usable" nuclear weapons? Invading countries? How about mocking Karla Faye Tucker on death row? How about going to Bob Jones University and embracing racism? Sorry, but that doesn't sound like the Jesus I believe in. Not even close.

But that appears to be the rub. Bush has all the aspects of contemporary evangelicalism down. He does the relationship thing, and just like other evangelicals, he is not expected to actually act on them. He is not expected to treat God's creation with respect (not a moral issue), nor is he to address greed and the love of money (a moral issue only if you are Scrooge), and he is certainly not to address capitalism critically (it is a divinely ordained, magical self-moderating economic device). He is not asked to address his own weaknesses (beyond sex and beer) and is not asked to actually act like Christ, just to merely figuratively wear the WWJD bracelet.

I know that there are many evangelicals who are good people who work hard to be moral. I am deeply frustrated by what I see as evangelicals embracing someone as a good christian man, while completely failing to hold him accountable for acting on that faith. "You shall know them by their fruit" only applies to Monica and the blue dress, evidently. And I think that stinks. I am amazed that people seem to care so little about the environment that they will reelect this man. I am amazed that people don't mind the growing gap between the have's and the have not's. I am amazed that people lament divisiveness in politics and then seek to reelect the great divider.

Done for now.