Misuse and Misrepresentation of the Teachings of Christ:
A Behavioral Pattern of Christian Leaders
Kyle Matter
June 2, 2004
MS&E 297C – EDGE
Mr. Bruce Lusignan
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Origin and History of Christianity
3
Relevant Doctrine of Christianity
6
Historical Pattern of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christ’s Teachings
8
Recent and Current Instances of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christianity
15
Conclusion: Is there a solution?
19
Works Cited
21
2
Introduction
Conflict and religion go together nearly hand-in-hand. Humans with differing
beliefs have fought each other since the dawn of man. Of the thousands of religions
throughout human history, just one has come to dominate Western culture, while another
has come to dominate Mid-Eastern culture. The very fact that these two religions exist as
separate systems of belief is the result of conflict. Both Christianity and Islam are the
rebellious sons of Judah—both can trace a common origin back to the fertile lands of
Mesopotamia. In fact, the two religions have spent more time together as Judaism than
they have apart as separate entities. Perhaps it is because the ties were so close that the
conflict today is so severe. Today, a look back at the histories of Christianity and Islam
provides numerous instances of conflict. Each religion teaches peace, yet members of
each religion are guilty of war and violent struggle against fellow members and nonmembers alike. Of course, there are many causes for war and violence in this world, and
religion is only one of them. However, in many instances, religious doctrine is used as
justification for the militant actions taken by believers. Why does this dichotomy exist
between belief and action? Why do religions preach pacifism and loving acceptance, yet
the followers of these religions lash out in violent strikes against those with different
beliefs—and justify their actions on religious grounds?
Clearly, if there exists a blatant discrepancy between a religion’s teachings and
the actions these teachings are being used to justify, there is some distortion, misuse, or
misrepresentation of the teachings. What is the source of these problems? There are
many possible answers to this question, but nearly every feasible solution has its roots in
3
the shortcomings of man when attempting to live up to the high standards set by religion.
Most commonly, the source of the trouble is either a failure to understand and apply the
religious teachings correctly—an honest mistake—or an intentional misuse of the
doctrine—a malicious intent. In either instance, damage is done and harm is caused
because of the action taken for religious reasons or purposes. Was this the intent of Jesus
or Mohammed?
Indeed, there is a definite discrepancy between the intent of the founders of each
religion and the actions taken by their followers. This paper will focus on the Christian
side of the issue, and the wrongdoings that have resulted from misuse and
misrepresentation of Christian teaching. This discrepancy between doctrine and action is
often most visible in the actions of government leaders and rulers of men. In this world
there are many forces pulling on those in charge, often pulling in different directions. A
leader’s personal and religious beliefs are one of these forces, yet the others are
frequently more tangible, such as the desire to remain in power or defeat an enemy. As a
result, religion can be misused or misrepresented to help accomplish these other goals
because it is such a powerful motivator of so many people. In looking back through
history, we can recognize a pattern of behavior in which leaders and rulers have misused
the doctrine of Christianity as moral justification for violent and oppressive action. This
behavioral pattern has its roots in Rome almost 1700 years ago, and continues today in
the United States. Whereas yesterday the “enemies” were the barbarians and savages
who did not share Christian beliefs, today it is Muslims who are deemed “enemies” by
misguided leaders. The cast of characters has changed but the plot remains the same.
4
By exposing the wrongs that have occurred, perhaps we can mend our ways and
make peace where there is war. Perhaps we can move closer to the peaceful way
Christianity calls us to live if we recognize that the source of the conflict is not God or
the Bible, but the humans that believe. First, we will examine the origin of Christianity
and how it has spread to gain acceptance worldwide, especially in Western culture. Next,
we will review actual teachings of Christianity, particularly those that are relevant to
these issues of war, peace, love and acceptance. Then we will begin to establish and
describe the pattern of behavior throughout history where Christianity has been misused
and misrepresented as justification for violent actions. After that, we will examine the
current conflict between the United States and the Middle East, where this behavioral
pattern is again rearing its ugly head. Finally we will attempt to develop a solution for
this problem so we can right the wrongs that are occurring.
Origin and History of Christianity
It is impossible to discuss the origins of Christianity without first discussing the
origins of Judaism, the religion from which Christianity was born. Judaism is the
monotheistic religion of the followers of Abraham, a migrant people who entered the
hilly area to the west and north-west of the Dead Sea around the latter part of the second
millennium BC. The god they served was called Yahweh, and was a god of creation who
kept the universe functioning and had supreme powers over the forces of nature (Partner
3). The story of the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham, is recounted in the
Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament of the Bible in Christianity. The
Jewish people lived under a set of laws, which were written out in the Bible. The other
5
works in this book were the prophecies of many Jewish prophets. Over the course of
about 2000 BC to the 6th century BC, the common thread of the message of these
prophets was that a Messiah, or savior, would come to establish God’s kingdom on Earth
(Judaism, Britannica Online). This hope and expectation for the coming king is precisely
what caused the rift that divided the Christians from the Jews.
Jesus of Nazareth was born in 4 BC in the small town of Bethlehem of Judea,
roughly 6 miles outside of Jerusalem. Most of what we know of Jesus’ life is from the
Gospels written about him by his followers. Christian doctrine states that he was a
descendant of the line of David, the great King of Israel, just as prophecy in the Old
Testament said he would be. Also according to Christian doctrine, Jesus was the son of
God, having been conceived in the Virgin Mary. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and studied
the Jewish teachings, becoming extremely well-versed in all of the Scriptures. At
roughly age 30, Jesus began his public career of teaching and ministry. He selected 12
disciples that would be his closest friends, and began to speak and teach about God. He
also performed many miracles and healings. He attracted large crowds of followers who
regarded him as a wise teacher and miraculous healer. Many regarded him as the Christ,
or the savior the Jews had been waiting and hoping for. However, the Jewish leaders did
not share this belief. They viewed Jesus as a threat to their power and authority, and did
not believe he was the Son of God, as he claimed to be. Because of this, they plotted
against him, and had him arrested, tried, and crucified (Jesus Christ, Britannica Online).
For the Jewish people, the story ends there. However, that is simply the beginning for
Christians.
6
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was indeed executed, but also that he was
resurrected and rose from the dead 3 days afterward. He then appeared to hundreds of
people before finally ascending into heaven. The followers of Jesus Christ came to be
known as Christians. They were a persecuted minority sect of the Jewish religion that
could not be completely snuffed out despite the best efforts of the Jewish leaders. The
Gospels, biographies of the life of Jesus, were written and became the basis for the New
Testament of the Bible. Because of these books and the efforts of the early Christians,
the religion spread quickly throughout the Middle East and into Africa and parts of
Southern Europe. However, Christians were deemed a rebellious threat by the Roman
Empire, which controlled the entire region, and as such were persecuted harshly. Nearly
all of the early leaders of the Christian church, called apostles, were martyred for their
faith. The major turning point that transformed Christianity from a minority belief to a
widely accepted religion came at the very hands of the empire that sought to eliminate it.
In 312 AD, Constantine was the Western Emperor of the Roman Empire. He was
preparing to fight a battle with rival Maxentius when he and his soldiers saw what
appeared to be the sign of the cross in the sun. Constantine decided to paint this symbol
on the shields of his soldiers in the hopes that it would bring a military victory. The
battle that day was an overwhelming victory for Constantine, and as a result, his policy
became increasingly pro-Christian. As time went on, Christianity came to be the
officially recognized religion of the Roman Empire (Partner 59-61). As such, it was
spread throughout the entirety of its territory, and millions of people became new
believers in this young religion. Even as the Roman Empire declined and eventually fell,
Christianity grew stronger and was accepted more widely. Because of its acceptance in
7
Europe, it was spread throughout the rest of the world as the European powers
established their far-reaching empires. From its humble beginnings in the Middle East,
Christianity had survived and flourished as it spread westward. Today, Christianity is the
world’s largest religion, with over 1 billion followers worldwide.
Relevant Doctrine of Christianity
As the history and origin of the Christian religion is based in Judaism, so too are
its beliefs and convictions. Christians believe that man was created in God’s image,
perfect and righteous. Adam and Even were the first man and woman, and they lived in
harmony with God and Earth in Eden until their rebellion against God caused sin to enter
mankind. From that point on, all men would live with the consequences of sin. Man
could no longer live up to the holy standard of perfect righteousness set by God, but
instead would fall victim to the temptation of evil fleshly desires. In Romans, the apostle
Paul writes, “For all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious standard” (Rom 3:23).
The Jewish religion was based on a set of laws that were given to man by God in order to
reveal this sin, or shortcoming. A large part of this law is the Ten Commandments, given
to Moses by God. Christians believe in these laws as well. As a result of this condition
of sin, man is separated from God and condemned to death. However, Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, lived a righteous life free of sin, and died as a perfect sacrifice to atone for
the problem of sin. Also in Romans, Paul writes, “For the wages of sin is death, but the
free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). As a result of
this sacrifice, those who believe in and have a relationship with God and his Son Jesus
Christ can be forgiven of their sins and attain salvation and eternal life in heaven.
8
So the life goal of Christians is to become as close as they can to God by living
like Jesus did, free of sin. In other words, Christians are supposed to do the right thing,
live a good life, and treat others fairly and with love. How is this accomplished, and how
does it apply to the way Christians should treat others? In the book of Exodus in the Old
Testament, the Ten Commandments give examples of behavior and actions that are and
are not permitted. The most pertinent commandments that apply to dealing with others
are, “You shall not murder” (20:13), “You shall not steal” (20:15), and “You shall not
give false testimony against your neighbor” (20:16). Jesus took these basic laws a step
further and taught his followers to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27).
Further, when asked who the term “neighbor” applied to, he explained that a neighbor is
not merely the product of location, but any man. Jesus was also known for the loving
acceptance of people of all different backgrounds, creeds, and beliefs. He commonly
spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes and lepers, considered by society to be the
lowest of the low.
Jesus was also an adamant pacifist. In response to the Old Testament verse in the
book of Exodus that states, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (21:24), Jesus taught “Do not
resist an Evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also” (Matt 5:39). Jesus also told his followers, “Love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). These verses further support Jesus’ attitude of love and
peace toward all mankind. At no point during his life or teaching does Jesus promote
violence as a solution to a problem. Because the goal of Christianity as a religion is for
Christians to follow the example that Jesus set, these virtues of peace and love should be
carried out by Christians.
9
There is one more command of Jesus to his followers that is very pertinent to the
treatment of others. After he was resurrected, Jesus appeared to his disciples and said to
them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt
28:18-20a). This statement is commonly known as the Great Commission. Jesus and his
followers believe that knowing and believing in Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation
and eternal life. Thus, the Great Commission is an attempt to spread this good news to
all the people of the world. As combined with the teaching of love, peace and acceptance
of differences, Christians should be accepting of all others throughout the world while
gently attempting to share with them the good news they believe about Jesus Christ.
Historical Pattern of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christ’s Teachings
Ever since there has been both war and god in a society, the two inevitably seem
to be linked. In each society, the people feel that their cause is good, and so their god is
on their side. “If people worship gods and fight wars, they expect the former to take an
interest in the latter” (Partner 1). This pattern can be recognized throughout ancient
history, as all great civilizations had their own war gods that they called upon in military
efforts. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were no exception to this trend. However,
one distinction that can be made is that the Greeks, for instance, believed in their own
gods. The Egyptian gods were for the Egyptian people, and would protect them against
their enemies. The same is true in the ancient times of the people of Israel, the chosen
people of Yahweh. Yahweh intervened on behalf of the Jewish people on numerous
10
occasions throughout their history (Partner 6). Many of these stories are recounted
throughout the Old Testament, and they include great military victories against seemingly
impossible odds where Yahweh protected his chosen people and routed their enemies.
However, once Jesus Christ came, Christianity became much more than a religion
for the people of Israel. On the contrary, it became a religion for “people of all nations”
(Matt 28:19), Jew and Gentile. The chosen people of Yahweh were now all the people on
Earth. This began to cloud the issue of God’s side when it came to battle. If God’s
ultimate goal was to see the salvation of all men, would he still take sides in war? The
New Testament states that Christians should “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39) and
makes no mention of the Old Testament practice of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus
21:24). Further, Christians are instructed to “pursue faith and love and peace” (2 Tim
2:22). In light of this scripture, is there even a place for war within Christianity as a
religion?
The issue would not be nearly as complicated if Christianity were simply a
religion that remained a completely separate entity from all other aspects of life.
However, that is impossible and has not been the case ever since Constantine adopted
Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Empires do not generally
survive and flourish without fighting battles and wars, and while Constantine was
undoubtedly sincere in his faith, he was also sincere in his desire to maintain his empire.
So making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire made the church “a
consenting party to war, even if it persisted in its formal rejection of bloodshed” (Partner
59). This causes a great dilemma for the church, and also marks the establishment of a
pattern of behavior by government leaders and rulers of men of misusing and
11
misrepresenting the teachings of Christianity. Constantine called upon Christianity to
help ensure victory in battle, not just to achieve salvation for himself and his people. “An
Important element in Constantine’s move toward Christianity had been its supposed
promise of victory in battle” (Partner 59). This is a blatant misuse of Christianity, and the
pattern established then by Constantine continued to live on throughout the history of the
Roman Empire, and ultimately still exists today.
After Christianity had been adopted by Constantine, the Roman Empire continued
to fight wars with barbarians in Europe. These were wars that had been waged for
centuries. However, now the Romans had a new motivation for fighting. The barbarians
were also unbelievers, or non-Christians, and thus, in their opinion, the enemies of God
(Partner 62). The Roman leaders convinced their soldiers that they were serving God by
going to war against these people, another blatant example of misrepresentation of
Christianity. Nowhere in the Christian scripture are Christians commanded to fight
against non-believers. Rather, Christians are instructed to love their neighbors and
enemies alike.
Even as the western part of the Roman Empire gave way to barbarian kingdoms,
this pattern of behavior continued. “The barbarian kings, inevitably, became warriors for
Christ.” This very notion of a warrior for Christ in the violent, literal meaning of warrior
is not backed by Christian scripture and is wrong. At times, the objective of the wars of
the barbarian kings, especially of King Charlemagne, was the conversion of pagans
(Partner 63-4). Again, the very practice of fighting a war against non-believers for their
conversion to Christianity is not backed by the Christian notion of making disciples of all
nations, and is consequently wrong. However, though they felt uneasy about it, the Pope
12
and the Catholic Church were powerless to reject this misrepresentation and misuse of
their religion because they relied on the emperor for their protection. Charlemagne,
Western Emperor 800-814, stated that one of the main duties of the Pope was to pray for
the success of his armies. Further, when a pope crowned an emperor, he handed him a
sword. This ceremony is full of symbolism, as the monarch is designated the defender of
the church, and uses the sword on its behalf (Partner 64). As a result, the church became
undeniably attached to the wars of the empire.
Though the Pope could not reject outright the wars and battles fought by the
Emperor, he did not at first accept the violence either. Pope John VIII protested against
the use of bishops of the church to organize the defense of the empire from attack by
Arabs. As evidenced, the emperors met their own needs by misusing Christianity, and as
a result were not always in accordance with the leaders of the church. As time went on,
there were more examples of uneasiness and disagreement between church and state.
This marriage of clerical and royal military power was later to be
challenged by churchmen whose consciences were offended by it. The
dynasty of popes . . . was denied power in 1046, and replaced by a series
of so-called ‘Reform’ popes whose mission it was restore ancient church
discipline and to take away from the impure, self-interested lay hands the
holy things that belonged to the church (Partner 66).
The church had recognized how far separated the empire’s use of the religion had strayed
from the original intentions of Jesus Christ, and attempted to fix this serious problem.
Although an effort was made, this pattern of behavior was too deeply rooted and
entrenched to be eradicated.
This was not the only instance of an attempt to reform the Christian church. In
another attempt to return to a purer form of the religion, Martin Luther led the Protestant
Reformation of the church in the 16th century. Luther broke away from the Roman
13
Catholic Church and the Pope because he believed that the Catholic Church had, again,
strayed too far from the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Thus his movement
created a new denomination of Christianity, called Protestantism, which would come to
be accepted widely (Martin Luther, Britannica Online). In another breakaway movement,
King Henry VIII of England separated himself from the Catholic Church after the Pope
refused to grant him a divorce. This action represents another deliberate misuse of the
Christian religion by a ruler. Very transparently, King Henry VIII decided what he
wanted to do, and when the church would not allow him to do so, he created his own
church. After King Henry VIII, the Christian movement in England was realigned with
Luther’s Protestant Reformation and the Church of England was established (Church of
England, Britannica Online).
Both the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church were to have far-reaching
effects on the rest of the world due to the global empire building of the European powers
that would occur. As the European nations raced to capture territories in the New World,
they continued to misuse religion as a justification for their actions. There were certainly
many sincere missionaries in these nations who desired to follow the Great Commission
and share the Christian Gospel with the indigenous people of the New World. On the
other hand, the rulers of these nations were filled with greed and sought new land,
resources, and wealth from the newly discovered lands by any means necessary. So
because of this, spreading Christianity served as cover for enslaving and murdering the
native people of the Americas. Explorers like Columbus and the later Conquistadors
were representatives not only of the nation that sent them, but also of the Catholic
Church. Nevertheless, their ruthlessness against the indigenous people was unparalleled.
14
They showed no mercy in their dealings with these people, much less any of the ideals or
teachings of Christ in which they were supposed to believe (Armour 123). But it was
easier for a monarch to justify these missions to himself and to others when it was
deemed to be a missionary as well as an exploratory effort. Although the monarchs’
“stated purpose was to spread Christianity,” the actual intentions had little or nothing to
do with Jesus Christ (Armour 125). Yet again, Christianity was misused by leaders and
misrepresented to their people. Though their intentions were less than genuine, the
effects they had in spreading Christianity were great. As a result, Christianity became
established and accepted throughout the New World. After the American Revolution, the
United States was founded on the principles of religious tolerance and the separation of
church and state. Yet Christianity was (and still is) the dominant religion in the United
States, and has great effects on policy.
Another aspect of European imperialism that called upon Christian motivations
was a competition of sorts with Islam, as both religions were attempting to spread
throughout the world and gain more converts. Like the aforementioned events, this
competition was yet another example of this pattern of behavior where rulers and leaders
misused the teachings of Christianity for violence. This competition was played out
through a series of Crusades, and these Crusades also marked some of the first explicit
and outright battle between Muslims and Christians. This too, unfortunately, is a
historical event that was bound to repeat itself.
Islam shared a common heritage with Christianity. Both believed in the same
god, the God of Abraham, because both were descendant of the people of Israel. After its
beginnings in the 7th century AD, Islam was not only a religion but a growing empire as
15
well. The Muslims began to expand their territory throughout the Middle East, into
Africa, and also in parts of Asia (Haleem et al 6). This growth of Islam created a reaction
amongst Christians in Europe. Rulers in Europe felt their power threatened by the
expanding Muslim Empire, and the counteroffensive assembled was the Crusades. Those
who coordinated the Crusades in the 11th century provided many motivations for the
Crusaders, and many fell into the behavioral pattern aforementioned. There was
misrepresentation of Christianity, telling Crusaders that God wanted them to go to war
against the Muslims and take back the Holy Lands. Many participants were convinced to
go by the “air of apocalyptic expectation” (Goddard 84). Leaders told them that they
could “secure eternal salvation” by going to fight for the Christian cause (Goddard 84).
Nowhere in the Bible is this line of reasoning supported. The Christian Bible teaches that
the only path to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ, not through any good deeds or
actions (Eph 2:8).
The Crusades continued for over two hundred years, and were characterized by
great violence and many deaths. After the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in
1204, the scene was described as follows: “Wounded women and children lay dying in
the streets. For three days the bloodshed continued” (Goddard 89). This scene is clearly
not the expected result of the teachings of Christianity of peace and love. Nevertheless,
the rulers organizing these Crusades continued to use religious motivations to recruit
more fighters (Armour 66). In an example characteristic of many others, one ruler
“requested papal influence in recruiting fighting men from Western Europe,” and Pope
Urban complied, calling the Crusades “a righteous war” and promising “absolution and
remission of sins to those who died in battle” (Haleem et al 7). This, again, is a blatant
16
misuse and misrepresentation of Christian teachings. The Bible teaches that only God
has the authority to forgive sins, and they are forgiven through confession and belief in
Jesus’ death on the cross (Mark 2:7, Acts 10:43).
The Crusades were perhaps the most obvious and blatant misuse of Christianity
by rulers and leaders that has ever occurred. Christian scripture teaches loving
acceptance of all other people, and of course this includes Muslims. However, after
being asked to help motivate more fighters against the Muslims by Emperor Alexius,
Pope Urban II called the Muslims “a race absolutely alien to God” (Armour 63). As time
went on, the Christian Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular languages of
Europe. With the advent of the printing press, more and more believers were able to read
the Bible for themselves. Before these two events, the clergy were the only ones with
real access to the actual scriptures. In more modern times, since more people know the
Bible for themselves, such blatant misrepresentation is not feasible and would be called
out. “Only a tiny number of Christians think of the people of God as subject to the duty
of waging holy war” (Partner 298). However, the behavioral pattern of misrepresentation
by leaders is still occurring. Many parallels can be drawn between the current foreign
policies of the United States in the Middle East and the Crusades in the Holy Land
hundreds of years ago.
Recent and Current Instances of Misuse and Misrepresentation of Christianity
As aforementioned, the United States was founded on the principles of separation
of church and state and freedom of religion. Because of these facts, Christianity or any
other religion is not the official religion of the United States, although it is the majority
17
religion. Because many people in the country are Christian, an appeal to Christianity can
be a very powerful thing for a politician. However, these appeals must also be relatively
subtle in order to not rouse the wrath of those sensitive to separation of church and state
issues. Though the playing field is much different than it was centuries ago, the pattern
of leaders’ misusing and misrepresenting the teachings of Christianity to promote
violence continues.
Some of the leaders that are misusing Christianity are outside the government.
There is a certain theocracy that exists today in the United States especially amongst
fundamental Christians, the so-called Moral Majority or right-wing Christians. One of
the leaders of this movement is the Reverend Pat Robertson, who makes regular religious
broadcasts to millions of Americans. This gives him a position of great influence and
power. Recently he has become discontented with the direction of the Supreme Court in
some of their decisions. In citing the wrongdoings of the Supreme Court in a letter to
Americans on his website, he stated that the Supreme Court “ruled prayer out of the
public schools . . . ruled the Bible out of public schools . . . ruled the Ten Commandments
were illegal in schools . . . and declared a constitutional right to consensual sodomy”
(Robertson 1). In the United States, Robertson has every right to express his discontent
and even to persuade others of his position. However, Robertson does not stop there with
simple persuasion. He tells his readers and listeners that “the Supreme Court is bringing
upon this nation the wrath of God” (Robertson 1). Robertson threatens that “no culture
has ever endured which has turned openly to homosexuality” and asks Americans to “join
with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court” (Robertson 1).
Further, he goes on to describe the physical ailments of 3 of the justices, and pleads with
18
Americans to appeal to God for change. By telling Americans in no uncertain terms that
God wants them to pray for change in the Supreme Court, Robertson is misusing the
teachings of Christianity.
The other recent major instance of this behavioral pattern is in the foreign policy
of the United States in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. It seems that the conflict
between Christianity and Islam has come full circle since the Crusades nearly 800 years
ago. Muslims are again perceived as a dangerous enemy by misguided leaders, now
more for their perceived terrorist threat than for an expanding empire. Because of this
religious conflict, Presidents of the United States with strong Christian convictions have
the opportunity to appeal to this conflict as another reason for war. The roots of this
sentiment date back to the Gulf War in 1990-1991, when Saddam Hussein claimed that
“we are taking the right path for peace and jihad, not only for all Muslims but for all
nations” as he invaded Kuwait (Haleem et al 145). One of the major motivations for U.S.
intervention in Kuwait was the need to protect our oil supply. However, the protecting
oil is not the most acceptable reason for going to war for the American public. Since the
religious context had already been placed in the conflict, U.S. leaders were free to appeal
to the fact that “the war over Kuwait was ‘just’ according to criteria long established in
the Christian tradition” (Haleem et al 157). Religious reasons were not explicitly used as
motivation for going to war, but this was just the beginning.
There has been a lot of discussion and debate about whether George W. Bush
feels as though he has a “divine mandate” as President of the United States. This position
can be supported by the fact that Bush is an outspoken Christian. Through some of his
comments, it can be inferred that “he believes God is involved in world events and that
19
he and America have a divinely guided mission” (Caldwell 1). What worries many
people is not that Bush is talking about God, but that
He's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's
theology--from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal
transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a
sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to
affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency (Caldwell 1).
Bush has transformed what he believes to be his personal calling into a calling for the
nation. This calling has included making war with Iraq for the stated purposes of finding
and eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction and protecting America against terrorism.
However, he has said that, "We defend the security of our country, but our cause is
broader." Bush has stated that another reason for war with Iraq is “what he characterized
as America's moral obligation to the rest of the world” (Merzer, et al 1). Systems of
morality are directly linked to religion, and in this case, to Bush’s Christianity. Bush is
making appeals to Christianity as a cause for war with Iraq in both subtle and obvious
ways. In doing such, he is misusing the teachings of Christianity.
Many others feel that Bush has overstepped his bounds as a Christian in office.
The General Secretary of the National Council of Churches said, “President Bush
converted to a kind of Christianity that believes God is a warrior.” Other reasons for war
with Iraq like Weapons of Mass Destruction have not panned out, and the U.S. is quick to
downplay the role of oil. Bush is accused of “looking for an explanation that has the
greatest resonance with the American public” (Monkerud 1). In a nation where 60
percent of the people are members of a church and 95 percent believe in God, calling on
God as a reason for war is very resonant indeed (Demerath 220). Some feel that Bush’s
underlying message is a “holy war against the axis of evil” and that “other conservative
20
presidents . . . never used religion to justify their actions the way President George W.
Bush does” (Monkerud 1). In doing these things, President Bush has misrepresented the
teachings of Christianity. Even if these actions are honest mistakes, and he is simply
misled in his faith, damage is still being done. Violent actions are being taken against
people, and these actions are being justified by Christianity, in which there is no basis for
violence. This unfortunate pattern continues even today. Perhaps it can be best summed
up in this statement by Gregg Carter, a sociologist at Bryant College:
What a paradox. Christ's central messages on how we should come to
terms with our enemies-through love and charity-are ignored, overlooked,
and disregarded by a nation and a majority of its people who claim to be
the heirs of these messages and of their author (Monkerud 1).
Conclusion: Is there a solution?
So many wrongs have been committed over such a long period of time, and yet
still this behavioral pattern continues. Should we, then, be pessimistic as to finding a
solution to this problem? Is there something that can be done to change this behavior and
restore the true teachings of Christianity? The short answer to these questions is that
there is hope for the future because actions are already being taken to help ameliorate
these problems.
Firstly, there are many Christian churches in the United States who recognize this
problem and are taking action. Many Christians in the United States and the entire world
do not take lightly the misuse of their religion. There has been great opposition by many
Christian organizations to the war in Iraq, and especially to the reasons given for fighting
it. These Christians in the country are weary of their God being misrepresented, be it by
George Bush or anyone else. Also, many Christian churches are teaching Biblically-
21
based Christianity, which relies on the words and intent of Jesus Christ for direction.
These churches instruct members directly in what Jesus taught, and by doing such are
helping to sustain a body of believers that will be well-trained in the true teachings of
Christianity. The members of these churches will be less likely to be taken in by
misguided appeals to God or Christian morals.
Also, there are organizations and alliances working between faiths to help foster
understanding and cooperation between Christian and Muslim. These organizations seek
to educate people that the similarities between all believers in god are greater than the
differences. By recognizing this, and taking the attitude of loving acceptance of others
taught by Jesus himself, we can promote peace and lessen the existing conflict. The
largest interfaith organization in the United States is The Interfaith Alliance. This group
promotes the idea of “one nation, many faiths,” and calls for separation of religion from
politics and government. Members of the Alliance are against the war in Iraq, and are
working to promote peace in the United States and worldwide. With more and more
groups working toward these goals of acceptance and peace, this problem can and will be
made better in the future.
Even as individuals, we can help to fix this problem. We must realize that the
purpose of Christianity or any religion is not to make conflict and war, but to make peace
and acceptance. Christians in the United States and the entire world must embrace the
teachings of Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers:
for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9). Christians are called to be
peacemakers, and that is precisely what they need to be.
22
Works Cited
Armour, Sr., Rollin. Islam, Christianity, and the West. New York: Orbis Books, 2002.
Caldwell, Deborah. “George Bush’s Theology: Does President Believe He Has Divine
Mandate?” Feb. 12, 2003. Free Republic.
< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/842063/posts?page=3 >
“Christianity.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.
“Church of England.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.
Demerath III, N.J. Crossing the Gods. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001.
Goddard, Hugh. A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2000.
Haleem, Harfiyah Abdel, et al. The Crescent and the Cross. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, Inc., 1998.
< http://www.interfaithalliance.org >
“Jesus Christ.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.
“Judaism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.
“Martin Luther.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Online Edition.
Merzer, Martin, et al. “Bush expands reasons for war.” Feb. 20, 2003. San Jose
Mercury News.
< http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5217593.htm?1c >
Monkerud, Don. “Love Your Enemy or Kill Him?” May 7, 2003. Green Left.
< http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/536/536p20b.htm >
Partner, Peter. God of Battles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
The Student Bible, New International Version. Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
23