/CONT/   #

It's a campaign which right now is being characterized as a 
crusade against "terrorism," but which is gradually being 
"morphed" (transformed) into a broader campaign against all 
those forces that oppose globalization. And this is EXACTLY 
what Bush was engaged in doing at the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation (APEC) conference in Shanghai on Saturday, October 
19, 2001 - i.e., helping to "morph" the war against terrorism 
into a crusade against those who oppose globalization - when 
he called the attack against the World Trade Center in New York 
an attack against "world trade."  

He said that he believed the World Trade Center was specifically 
chosen as a target because it was a symbol of "economic progress." 
He urged the leaders of APEC to "... show the world - enemies and 
friends alike - that economic progress (i.e., the integration of 
the nations of the world into the American "New World Order System") 
will continue despite efforts by terrorists to spread fear."  

The effort here to turn globalization into a crusade against terrorism 
has been callously designed to "STUPEFY" the American people 
with a surfeit of patriotic flag waving, and then to benumb them in 
a toxic swirl of jingoism - all calculated to wean them away from 
those populist forces that oppose globalization and to move them 
towards a "One-World," "counter revolutionary,"
"anti-socialist" 
(which means support for unrestricted, unbridled corporate 
capitalism), mass movement that favors the globalist goals of 
the American elites.  

CENTRAL TO THIS ENORMOUS EFFORT IS THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CHRISTIAN 
COMMUNITY (ESPECIALLY THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY) TO JETTISON 
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY IN FAVOR OF 
A KIND OF MESSIANIC LEADERSHIP THAT CLOAKS ITSELF IN THE FLAG.  

And in this connection, it goes without saying that the willingness 
of the Christian community to accept messianic leadership is 
conditional on their perceiving this leadership as CHRISTIAN 
leadership, AND THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THE ABILITY OF BUSH TO PASS 
HIMSELF OFF AS A CHRISTIAN - i.e., to get evangelical Christians 
to believe that he is one of them.  

CHAPTER VI

TRYING TO PASS BUSH OFF AS A CHRISTIAN
THE BUSH TESTIMONY

This, of course, brings us to the matter of Bush's so-called 
Christianity. The public effort to pass Bush off as a Christian 
has revolved to a great extent around forging for Bush a believable 
"CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY." The fruit of this effort surfaced for the 
first time on a NATIONAL basis in the "CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY" 
the Bush campaign distributed in the 2000 presidential election. 
[And it should be noted in this connection that never before in 
the entire history of presidential elections has a presidential 
campaign made it its business to distribute as an actual part of 
the campaign the "Christian Testimony" of the candidate himself. 
This gives a person some idea of the importance Bush's campaign 
staff attached to his "Christian credentials."] The "Testimony" 
read in part:  

"... the seeds of my decision (for Christ) were ... planted by the 
Reverend Billy Graham. (Several yeas ago) ... he visited my family 
for a summer weekend in Maine (i.e., in the late 1980s). I saw him 
preach at the small summer church, St. Ann's by the Sea. We all 
had lunch on the patio overlooking the ocean. One evening my dad 
asked Billy to answer questions from a big group of family gathered 
for the weekend.  

"He sat by the fire and talked. And what he said sparked a change 
in my heart. I don't remember the exact words. It was more the 
power of his example. The Lord was so clearly reflected in his 
gentle and loving demeanor. The next day we walked and talked at 
Walker's Point, and I knew I was in the presence of a great man. 
He was like a magnet; I felt drawn to seek something different. 
He didn't lecture or admonish; he shared warmth and concern. Billy 
Graham didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved. Over 
the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a mustard 
seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led me to 
the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in 
my life. I had always been a "religious" person, had regularly 
attended church, even taught Sunday School and served as an 
altar boy. But that weekend my faith took on a new meaning. It 
was the beginning of a new walk where I would commit my heart to 
Jesus Christ."  

The problem with this "testimony" from a "conversion
standpoint" is 
that there isn't the slightest hint in it of any kind of an actual 
"born-again" experience. True, there is a lot of talk about "warmth 
and concern," about "being made to feel that you're loved," and 
about a "commitment" to a kind of warm and fuzzy Jesus, a "teddy 
bear" kind of "Christ" that one would feel comfortable nuzzling 
up with - that's it!  

WHERE IS THE GOSPEL IN BUSH'S "TESTIMONY?"

But where is the Gospel here? Where is the acknowledgment of 
sin - i.e., that one is a sinner in need of a savior? - the 
admission that "... all have sinned, and come short of the 
glory of God ..." (Rom. 3:23)?  

And more than just that, how is it possible to even get to that 
point - i.e., the acknowledgment that one is a sinner in need of 
a savior - if there is at first no admission of guilt? - which 
Bush obviously eschews in his testimony when he says, "Billy Graham 
didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved." The fact is, 
the Bible says that without the acknowledgment of sin (i.e., guilt), 
we cannot be saved; that our salvation is predicated on that accession:  

"IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our 
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)  

That's a statement with an "IF" attached to it! There is a condition 
here! We MUST "CONFESS" (i.e., acknowledge) our sins.  

But there is nowhere in the so-called "public record" or in any 
of the personal ruminations of his friends and colleagues of any 
"acknowledgment of sin," or that he (Bush) was a sinner in need 
of a savior? Sheehy says:  

"His conversion certainly didn't come about as a result of 
contemplating past sins. He proudly rejects introspection and 
has no interest in looking back over the 'youthful indiscretions' 
that characterized his first 44 years. In interviews Bush repeatedly 
says: 'I'm not one of those people who say, Gosh, if I'd have done 
it differently, I'd have ...' He pauses for a few seconds to contemplate 
his life, then confidently concludes: 'I can't think of anything I'd do 
differently'."  

"I'm not one of those people who say, 'Gosh, if I'd have done it 
differently ... I can't think of anything I'd do differently" ? My 
heavens! - that's not something you would imagine a new Christian 
would say; at least not someone who felt genuine remorse for his 
sins - and in Bush's case, there certainly were a lot of them, from 
arranging an abortion for a girl friend in Alaska [as alleged by 
Larry Flynt on CNN's Crossfire (Flynt said he had statements to 
that effect from Bush's former girlfriend, the doctor who performed 
the abortion, and the many friends of Bush in Alaska at the time)], 
to alleged cocaine use, to alleged marijuana use, to alleged orgies 
of every sort, etc.] We must remember what Christ is to us. He is 
called THE SAVIOR! The savior from what? - our sins! It's for this 
reason that He came; that's what the angel of God told Joseph, the 
husband of Mary - the mother of Jesus - when he (i.e., the angel) 
said:  

"And she (i.e., Mary) shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt 
call his name Jesus: for HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR 
SINS." (Matt. 1:21)  

In other words, He is called the "SAVIOR" because He saves us 
from our sins. And it is PRECISELY this fact that John the 
Baptist acknowledged when, in addressing Christ, he said:  

"... Behold the Lamb of God, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF 
THE WORLD." (John 1:29)  

If we fail to see this, if we fail to acknowledge this fact - i.e., 
that we are sinners - then the Gospel is of no effect insofar as we 
are concerned. This is what the Bible says:  

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and THE 
TRUTH IS NOT IN US.  

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and HIS 
WORD IS NOT IN US." (1 John 1:8, 10)  

LIES AND MORE LIES

The Bible says that those who fail to acknowledge their guilt - i.e., 
that they are sinners - THE TRUTH IS NOT IN THEM; in other words, they 
are liars in the most profound sense of that word. And, as a result, 
they are of their -  

"... father the devil ... FOR HE IS A LIAR, and the father of it." 
(John 8:44)  

What's that say, then, about those who embrace this kind of "non-
judgmental" Gospel? It says that such people are "not of Christ" - 
that they are LYING when they say that they belong to Christ; that 
they are of their father the devil! Pretty harsh! But this is 
EXACTLY the kind of Gospel that is in vogue in today's Christianity.  

And one needs to be clear here: Without question, the "Christ" that 
Bush is acknowledging in his so-called "testimony" is the "non-
judgmental," "non-doctrinal" kind of "Christ."
It's a Gospel where 
there is "no conflict" and which suggests that "all roads eventually 
lead to God;" the kind of "Christ" that Catholic leaders
like Cardinal 
Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Mormon leaders like 
Chip Rawlings, the Mormon stake president in Southern California, 
can mutually accept. But this is the kind of "false Christ" the 
Bible warns about in Matthew 24:  

"For there shall arise FALSE CHRISTS, and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall 
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, 
they shall deceive the very elect." (Matt. 24:24)  

/CONT/

---