"A loss of faith"

Oh gosh, there was soooo much goo in this article. The poor guy wants to bring more gentleness to the world, etc. I can only quote from this month's Touchstone, an editorial titled: Dwelling in Tentatives: The Gift of Christian Uncertainy by David Mills. Discussing a school's decision to abolish Mother's Day cards because five perent of the students have been separated from their birth mothers (thereby ignoring the 95 percent that do), Mills says: "Political liberals tend to think such 'sensitivity' obviously good, and those who oppose it brutes, while political conservatives tend to think it obviously bad, and those who support it fools." Later, he discusses the views of those who believe that all will come right in the end, and those who do not, saying, "Those who do not believe that all comes right in the end--a group that includes many Christians caught up in the political passions of the age--must assume that they can make things work well here and now." He goes further to talk about the decent secularist, who because he does not believe in eternity, will attempt to make heaven on earth. "Man must have a gospel he knows will be realized, and if he does not believe it will be realized in heaven, he will believe that it can be realized on earth--if only everyone would just get things right. Hence the polarities and the desperate anger with which both sides argue." I think this is what we are talking about with the NY Times article. Matthew Dowd was following a man, President Bush, who just would not get things right. He has become, therefore, 'distressed' enough to spill his subjective guts all over the place, even to the point of getting upset that Bush would not meet with Cindy Sheehan! My goodness, Bush DID meet with her once and was under no obligation to meet with her again, particularly after she became radicalized and politicized her grief in what many feel an inappropriate way. From the tone of the article, it seems that Mr. Dowd's liberal foundation has reasserted itself. This is not a sin in itself, but it certainly explains the tone of the article, the issues Mr. Dowd felt obligated to discuss, and his overweening disappointment with Bush.

Paul, I think you are make an assumption and secondly a relatively harsh judgment. The assumption is that David nor Mr. Dowd, for that matter, have taken their criticisms to the person privately. Just because someone may write a book in the honest desire to inform those who do not see what is going on in US politics, does not mean that they may not have followed the scriptural principles laid out by Jesus himself. I, for one, have been truly blessed by David and his book. I am still in the middle of the book, (I know I am a late starter) but I have been very impressed with Davids desire not to bash but to bring clarity to why Christians seem to always have a "Christian" in the White House but never seem to see a true change in the policies or direction of our country. I have struggled with this for many years being a born and bred right wing conservatist and Bible believing Fundamentalist. I remember cheering on the fact that Bush got elected and thinking to myself we have a republican President, a republican Congress and even a fairly balanced judicial branch. Now we can really see what a nation who is led by a godly man can do. While I believe President Bush is a believer, and desires to uphold his faith. I do believe that he has made some crucial errors in his administration, and has not always upheld the values that seemed most important to Jesus. Just my thoughts.

Paul,
I have a thought that may make it more understandable. Can YOU have a face to face with President Bush to tell him whats bothering you? David and Mr Dowd are out of the loop now. They dont have significantly better access than you do.