Home

Webster defines blasphemy as "profane or contemptuous speech, writing,
or action concerning God or anything held as divine." To commit
blasphemy is to trivialize holy things for unholy purpose. It is, for
instance, to violate the second commandment which states "You shall not
make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
not acquit anyone who misuses his name." (Exodus 20:7-NRSV). I write
this column not as a political partisan, although as a citizen I have a
political point of view, but as a bishop of the church who is compelled
by my consecration to caution against blasphemy, in defense of the Bible
and biblical faith. Blasphemy is running rampant in our country as this
election campaign proceeds, trivializing holy things as it moves on.

The latest instance of blasphemy was the distribution by the Republican
National Committee, in West Virginia and Arkansas, of a brochure with a
picture of a Bible with the word "banned" across it, and another with
the hands of two men with a wedding ring with the word "allowed" across
it. The implication is that the election of Senator Kerry would lead to
the banning of the Bible and the approval of same-sex marriage. Those
who distributed the brochure know that the claim is not true and not
possible. The first amendment to the United States Constitution would
not allow it, and Senator Kerry's election would not lead to it. The
brochure not only insults the intelligence of West Virginians, targeted
to the stereotype of Appalachians as "dumb hillbillies," it is
blasphemous; it is " profane and contemptuous writing concerning God and
the Bible."

Clergy usually do not take public, partisan positions in an election. I
have never before done so in more than fifty years of ministry as a
pastor and a bishop. But in this election, the use of false teaching
concerning scripture and the Christian faith by a political campaign
demands response from religious leaders. Bishops in our church are
charged to " guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim . . . the apostolic
faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition." My goal in this
column is to "guard the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture"
against those who are distorting and manipulating its teachings for
political gain. It is now widely believed that, of course, nearly all
persons of religious faith will vote for President Bush. That
"conventional wisdom" has originated in the Republican party and been
advanced by an uncritical media. The claim is not correct, and the
statistics supporting it have been distorted and oversimplified. The "
religious right" is not the only voice of religious faith in this
country! The issues on which the religious right has focused in this
campaign are almost solely "abortion" and "
same- sex marriage." While those are important issues which need and
deserve discussion, they are not the only, or even the primary, issues
to which the Bible is relevant. On the other issues in the campaign,
the President's policies are not in accord with biblical teaching, or
with the teaching of his own church. The media has made much of the
fact that Senator Kerry' s position on abortion contradicts the teaching
of the Roman Catholic Church and, as a result, some bishops may deny him
the Eucharist.

Why does the media not investigate whether or not President Bush's
policies are consistent with the teachings of his church, the United
Methodist Church? Such an investigation would reveal that the
President's policies are contrary to the " Social Principles" of his
church (official church teaching), and to the broad consensus of
ecumenical church teaching on many significant issues. I will name only
three.

1. War and Peace. The "Social Principles of the United Methodist
Church," and the dominant position among the churches of the world is
that war is always a last resort. Last resort is the first of seven
criteria of "Just War" doctrine, which is the official teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church. Pre- emptive war, now a part of official US
government policy, can never be justified by church doctrine.

2. Care of the Environment, or, to use biblical /theological language,
"stewardship of creation." According to Genesis 2: 15, the human was
made responsible for the creation "to till it and to keep it." The
Social Principles of the President's church declares "All creation is
the Lord's and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse
it. Water, air, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life are to
be valued and conserved because they are God's creation, and not solely
because they are useful to human beings." In violation of this
teaching, the policies of the administration have rolled back
legislation protecting the environment that has been in force for many
years under presidents of both parties, and our government has refused
to sign international treaties on global warming and other threats to
the environment.

3. Concern for the Poor. According to Luke 4:16 Jesus, quoting the
prophet Isaiah, said "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has
sent me to bring good news to the poor." The teaching of the
President's church seeks fulfillment of that promise to "bring good news
to the poor." However, these last years have seen a dramatic increase
in the number of persons living in poverty in the United States and
millions have been added to the number without health care. The gap
between the wealthy on the one hand, and the middle class and the poor
on the other, has increased each year, under the policies of the
government which has brought good news only to the wealthy.

Not only are the policies of the Bush administration in conflict with
scripture and the teachings of the President's church, but President
Bush has been unwilling to listen to the counsel of religious leaders
unless he knows in advance that they agree with him. Being open to
other points of view within the Christian community is one of the marks
of mature Christian life. The bishops of the President's church have
repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought a meeting with the President. He
is only the second President since George Washington who has refused to
have a discussion with Methodist bishops. In the run-up to the invasion
of Iraq, the National Council of Churches sent small delegations of
Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant leaders to meet with the leaders of
Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the Vatican, and the United
States of America. In nearly all of those visits, the delegation met
with the head of state. Of those governments, only the President of the
United States and his administration refused to receive a delegation.
Tony Blair, despite his support of the war, spent over an hour with the
delegation, listening to its point of view.

I do not question President Bush's personal faith. But he has not
studied the scriptures in relation to issues of justice and peace, or
else he has ignored those teachings. The result, in my judgment, is
that he has allowed his religious beliefs, dominated by his political
ideology, to make him absolutely certain that he is right, and unwilling
to listen to other voices. He is slow to admit a mistake on any issue
of substance, because he believes his decisions are just and righteous.
The dogged determination and "staying on message," that some so admire,
is self-righteous and very dangerous. It casts the current struggle
against terrorism in "holy war" terms as a conflict between absolute
good on one side and absolute evil on the other, the same perspective
held by the terrorists. The issues are between good and evil. The
methods of the terrorists are evil. But it is very dangerous for us to
see ourselves as totally righteous. A mature understanding of scripture
could help the President to avoid the arrogance and hubris that have so
offended the rest of the world. And in such a situation, to exploit,
distort, and manipulate religion for political advantage is blasphemous.
It is to trivialize the holy for self serving purpose.

Religious talk can be very cheap. Jesus said "Not everyone who says to
me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who
does the will of my father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). What is the will
of "my father in heaven?" That is a huge question. The President and
his campaign would do well to reflect on that question, and to avoid the
tendency to believe that they already know the answers. They might also
consult with others who have studied the question who might have a
different point of view. And meanwhile, they should be careful to avoid
the sin of blasphemy.






						Religion and the Election

							"A Caution Against Blasphemy" by William Boyd Grove (retired bishop of the United Methodist Church living in Charleston, West Virginia.) Op-Ed submitted to the Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette