I find it difficult to listen to the way they are describing and “analyzing” the faith of George W. Bush, beginning with the quote from Bush himself (a recording of his anwering a question about what his faith means. It went somethng like this: “Christ changed my heart”, which is, of course, fine, as long as you don’t stop there. A questioner asked: “Can you explain that a little more?” Bush replied went something like this: “To those who don’t know what I’m talking about, it will be hard to explain.” That’s where I get extremely uncomfortable with a faith that under these contexts, seems impractical and leaves most of life untouched; if it cannot be identified as to what lifestyle changes it encourages; what “new perspectives” it brings, and how a “life in Christ” affects ALL of life, including the polotical and social, then there is a perception problem. This is precisely why many “secular folks” remain so. If Christianity is perceived to be some private affair (which is precisely what Bush’s response encourages his audience to think —– the continued emphasis on the phrase “Christ changed my heart”. Well, if your “heart’s desires” cannot be expressed in any verbal way; cannot be described in terms of how one’s outlook on life is different and changing; then I question the perception of what “the heart” is. It becomes an abstract, purely pietistic expression, which frankly, I do not blame many in society for rejecting.

I’m still listening (NPR). The thoughts are still coming. It is being observed that Bush has asserted that “Religion does not affect his “policy decisions”…….huh? So why is it that the Religious Right supports him? (one answer is that the Right has completely blurred many platform/faith issues).