Some real insight into George Bush's thought processes

Faith, Hope and Clarity
By ROBERT WRIGHT

The Bush administration is suddenly taking pains to calibrate the president's devoutness: yes, Mr. Bush is very religious, but he's not too religious - not hearing-voices religious.

Last week several White House aides insisted that, contrary to the witness of the televangelist Pat Robertson, the president never said God had guaranteed him a low casualty count in Iraq. And as for those reports about Mr. Bush feeling summoned to the presidency: Laura Bush denies that her husband sees himself as a divine instrument. "It's not a faith where he hears from God," she said a few days ago.

It's hard to settle "he said, she-said" questions, let alone "he said, He said'' questions. But there is a way to get a clearer picture of religion's role in this White House. Every morning President Bush reads a devotional from "My Utmost for His Highest," a collection of homilies by a Protestant minister named Oswald Chambers, who lived a century ago. As Mr. Bush explained in an interview broadcast on Tuesday on Fox News, reading Chambers is a way for him "on a daily basis to be in the Word."

Chambers's book continues to sell well, especially an updated edition with the language tweaked toward the modern. Inspecting the book - or the free online edition - may give even some devout Christians qualms about America's current guidance.


According to the online version I linked to…there are several…:

My Utmost For His Highest, by Oswald Chambers is the most used Christian devotional reading other than the Bible itself.

which puts it in a position relative to the teaching of Jesus the Christ similar to that which the Sharia holds relative to the teachings of Mohammed.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/7244
Posted by Prometheus 6 on October 28, 2004 - 8:52am :: Politics | Religion
 
Prometheus 6's blog | latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

which puts it in a position relative to the teaching of Jesus the Christ similar to that which the Sharia holds relative to the teachings of Mohammed.

Eh?

Posted by  Al-Muhajabah on October 28, 2004 - 5:51pm.

Neither is anything more than men's interpretations of the original words. Both fit those words into the existing social assumptions rather than changing the social assumptions.

And (opinion time) neither teacher would be impressed with the outcome of the efforts.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on October 28, 2004 - 6:20pm.

As a technical term, "Shari'a" refers to the two primary sources of Islamic law, the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad. The term "fiqh" (jurisprudence) is used to refer to the body that consists of these two sources plus the interpretations of the scholars. In practice, of course, what people call "Shari'a" is actually their own interpretation and may bear little or no resemblence to anything that Muhammad actually taught.

What I mean is, I understand what you're trying to get at, and I don't actually disagree with you, but the phrasing is a bit confusing. Maybe it would be better to say "Which puts it in a position relative to the teachings of Jesus similar to that which many interpretations of the Shari'a hold relative to the teachings of Muhammad".

Do you see what I'm saying?

Posted by  Al-Muhajabah on October 29, 2004 - 11:39am.

I see what you're saying. I may edit that line.

I often wonder whether it's best to use technical precision or work with terms as people use them. It's always a judgement call.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on October 29, 2004 - 4:28pm.

It's probably only someone like me who would find the phrasing odd.

I had never heard of this book by Chambers before, so it seems to be important only for some Christians; I would be surprised if most Christians around the world had even heard of it. The Shari'a by contrast is followed by all Muslims, whatever their branch, sect, movement, or whatever, but they may disagree on exactly what's in it and certainly how to interpret it.

Posted by  Al-Muhajabah on October 30, 2004 - 6:29pm.