Well I did it. I went and posted my flaming review of the DVD George W. Bush : Faith in the White House. Posted on cornerstonemag.com

Here it is:

George W. Bush: Faith in the White House
A Critical Review
By Chris Rice

In 1992 Cornerstone Magazine published a major investigation into the book The Satan Seller by Mike Warnke and David Balsiger.1 It was found that Mike’s story was actually a lie. A very good one, but nonetheless not the truth. In October of 2004 Balsiger released a film: George W. Bush: Faith in the White House, that is—once again—a nonlinear narrative that uses all the right Evangelical phrases and appeals to create a response in its audience. 2

In this review of Balsiger’s film I hope to provide its evident and latent purpose, a thorough summary of the DVD Chapter Summaries, a survey of the propaganda techniques employed, the generalizations and assumptions, the misuse of quotes, and finally the question of his misuse of God’s Name and our shared salvation experience as Evangelicals. Its not that Faith in the White House has not been critically reviewed. Its been criticized in both the New York Times and Christianity Today. But my interest in the film lies in its ongoing impact. If David Balsiger gets away with propaganda and a nod to Christian fascism, and Christians don’t rise to call it that, we deserve to be misunderstood and ostracized by secularists and agnostics. We have brought it on ourselves.

DVD Chapter Summary

From the Introductory disclaimer claiming neither Bush nor his administration or election campaign had anything to do with the film to Chapter One titled “A Man of Faith,” the film claims an unbiased examination of whether Bush has brought Faith to the presidency. He is compared with Washington and Lincoln for his faith during an attack on US soil. His “Jesus is my favorite philosopher” quote during the Iowa debate in 2000 is followed by a negative critique from Jim Wallis, testimony from Doug Wead and another quote from Richard Gere. Its quickly apparent that the quotes and testimony don’t necessarily match or even dialogue with each other but rather serve to move forward the verbage of the film. This use of quotes and testimony is part of the formula. Critical quotes don’t represent the arguments of the figures themselves but only serve as a combined voice of “liberal bias.” Context, larger role, and intent are all unnecessary. What the film needs are strawpersons for an argument. Within the malaise they’re easy to find.

Chapter two entitled “Spiritual Strength” focuses on Bush’s sincerity with testimony from his close friend Rev. James Robison (“he would never lie”) and Robert Woodson, Sr. (“a comfort during my son’s death”). Chapter Three takes us on a journey through Bush’s life up to just prior to his conversion. “The Roots of Faith” contains a reenactment of his baptism and testimony to his devout religious raising, the story of the death of Bush’s sister, and his role as comforter to his mother. Stephen Mansfield uses this story to help us understand Bush’s current role as comforter of the nation. E. Donald Poage, a close friend, testifies to his Midland Texas values, but the chapter finishes by saying “you can take the boy out of Midland but you can’t take Midland out of the boy”, not all of Bush’s influences were good ones.

You might expect that chapter four would be heavy with the description of Bush’s excesses and carousing so that we could experience the glory of his conversion--but you’d be wrong. “Steps to Change” begins with the words “Most church-going Americans think Bush is right man at right time. . .” Reference to Bush’s hard living are only repeated as from his own mouth to emphasize his modesty and honesty. This chapter introduces my favorite person in the film, George’s Uncle Bucky. We the president’s own Evangelical family are so “in” with this President that his own Uncle Bucky will give us the inside track. Its from his testimony that we learn Bush’s daily regiment---or how he spends every disciplined waking moment. But in addition we learn of the sacred trust that is Bush’s Oval Office, and of how he’ll only wear a suit and tie there no matter the circumstances. Of course this devotion bothers critics, in an example we see a flaming criticism from Robert Sheer of the LA Times and then have that bit of indigestion washed down with another affectionate tome from David Aikman.

Weren’t we talking about Bush’s alcoholism? Well, not quite but let’s get back to somewhere near there. Chapter Five “Foundations of Faith” begins with Tom Frieling on how Bush inspires Christians in the Culture War before a critical quote from Al Franken on Bush’s secrecy and his suspicion of Bush’s religiosity. Stephen Mansfield helps us understand Bush as a man without direction. E. Donald Poage describes Bush’s meeting and prayer with Arthur Blessitt, all of which leads us to the most important event of the film (next to 9/11 of course) Bush’s time spent with Billy Graham. A reenactment of Bush sitting with Billy Graham in his living room help us capture that moment in time in the summer of 1985. The look-alike portraying Bush is a dead ringer in the face.

Chapter six, “Testing the Faith” demonstrates that, indeed, Bush’s faith held up against the temptations of the modern world, even the political world of Washington. Doug Wead testifies of the advances of a female intern and the shady offerings of a Washington bureaucrat. After Bush’s return from dad’s campaign things start going his way. He invests well in the Texas Rangers and runs for Governor, an office that Michael Minor assures us he could have never won apart from the rededication of his life to Christ. Unlike his opponent we learn he ran a positive campaign. This breeze of sunny history is punctuated by James Robison’s remark: “He became a man under control not out of control…guided by convictions of principles” edited directly to pan out wide shot of GWB in front of a giant water color Jesus mural. A well executed religious propaganda device to be sure.

Now that we’re assured of Bush’s sincerity and spiritual fitness for public service the film works to establish the need. Chapter seven, “America’s History of Faith” takes us back to the introductory question of faith-based administration. A critical quote from Susan Jacoby about there being no precedent for Bush’s “highly specific set of religious values” is answered by William Federer author of A Treasury of Presidential Quotations. We arrive now at the larger purpose behind the man of faith this movie profiles. “The Big question is have we reached that point in our history where faith and the Bible cease to be practically universal or is it possible that George W. Bush by his faith based example is leading the nation in a reawakening of those principles upon which it was founded?” The culmination of American history is realized with “Our” President because of his Evangelical faith.

We hear the testimony again of Robert Woodson, Sr. on how Governor Bush saved Teen Challenge from attack and set a precedent for faith-based funding. A quote from Ralph Nader on the lack of separation of church and state under Bush sets the stage for the vehemence of opposition from secularists. Since 1963 when the Supreme Court ruled against school prayer our children of faith have been under attack from cruel school administrations and humanists who will stop at nothing to brow-beat these poor kids for their faith. This is all illustrated with black and white photos of reenacted situations involving angry faced teachers and principles staring down at poor little confused children. Well at least Senator Zell Miller and Chief Justice Renquist come to Bush’s defense. One more critical quote, this time from Robin Lovin of Southern Methodist University questioning “Bush’s sense of calling related to his policies” and the film becomes a full on Love Fest for the president. James Robison, in a Classic Everyman Appeal remembers riding around the ranch with the president, Bush pointing out his secret places of prayer. Stephen Mansfield further clarifies Bush’s “promptings from God” and then Uncle Buckey chimes in about how Bush couldn’t do his job without Laura Bush. In a comment that would please even the most patriarchal of Southern Baptists we hear from Ted Haggard that Laura is a “colaborer with the President who would never dominate or upstage him.” Next come two quotes presented like caviats from the press to laud the Bush administration’s reliance on God from Newsweek’s Howard Fineman and BBC Correspondent Justin Webb. You’d think these quotes were simple first hand observations from the way they’re presented here. Not true, but more on that in the review. The chapter wraps up with an interview with Meagan Gillan of the Presidential Prayer Team. The Prayer Team has been in existence long before Bush came to power, but their existence seems especially appropriate for this film’s purpose.

Chapters eight “Witness for Faith” and nine “Faith in Action” are much the same as one and two, offering stories of Bush’s pastoral concern and saintly disposition. There’s the story of Sam Haynam, and thirteen year old with Cystic Fibrosis whom Bush gave special attention right before the war on Iraq. David Aikman shares a story of the special interaction between Bush and Putin that established a bond trust that later allowed US bombers to cross over Russia to bomb Afghanistan. He assures us this could never have happened with any other President.

Then its back to another critical quote from Barry Lynn of Americans United and a debate over what the Founders intended. This time though we learn over a photo montage of the presidents that every president turned to God for guidance, but that no other president in history has faced a “general uprising” against their faith except President George W. Bush. Now comes the 9/11 card. Photos of the grieving around ground zero. We need faith now more than ever.

Chapter nine, “Into the Fray” is the final chapter of “George W. Bush: Faith in the White House.” It deserves its own line by line critical analysis. In fact it makes the film top heavy with its weight of emotion and grandiosity. The Iraq war has barely been treated up to this point. And now in the last twenty-seven minutes of the film three years of history will be recounted and interpreted in light of what we already know. It begins with Ted Haggard and James Robison recounting Bush’s premonition that “the nation is going to need me at this time.” Which leads us to. . .

“On Sept. 11, 2001 that premonition came true. The world changed perhaps forever.” The next several minutes are of video footage of the devastation of the World Trade Center. Janet Parshall’s voice recounts an idea from “misguided critics” suggesting that Bush’s faith is no different than the terrorists religious zeal. But then the film takes the critic’s line of reasoning to the next level by suggesting that maybe Bush hugging a fourteen year old girl at ground zero was the same as a terrorist strapping his son with explosives. A photo of Bush hugging this fourteen year old girl whose parents were killed in the bombing is slowly brought to the front of the screen. Amazing how a subtle idea can serve the purpose of demonization without the need for an actual critical quote! Next we see Bush with his arm around a fireman and the infamous interaction “I hear you and the world hears you!” followed by a Tour De Force through history from 9/11 to present. All of Bush’s intentions are made clear. He rebuilds Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq is actually a much better place despite what we hear.

Most shocking are Dr. Ted Haggard’s remarks on how Bush will be perceived in the Islamic world. "President Bush will be known as the man who stood up to Islamic Fundamentalism being used to tyrannize their own people. So in another hundred years, in the Islamic world he'll be viewed as a great liberator and the one who began the process to set them free from those who use Islam to enslave Islamic people politically." In the position of president of the National Association of Evangelicals Haggard is not speaking only for himself, especially when he speaks on the writing of future history. He has a responsibility to the many members in the NAE. These remarks are terribly irresponsible and presumptive. One would think his training brought him above such a grandiose declaration for people of another culture, another religion, and certainly of another political persuasion than his own.

Instead of there being any prophetic witness to the White House in this film, Bush himself is placed in the role of prophet to the world, the example being in his speech to the UN on slave traffic. But there’s a price to be paid for this faith, and it comes in the form of persecution from Michael Moore. Michael the propagandist, we are told, prepared an all out assassination on the president’s character. But in this case we finally have critical quotes on the screen in defense of the president. Fahrenheit 9/11 is only propaganda and not to be taken seriously.

A few more stories from David Aikman of Bush’s saintly affection toward soldiers wounded in battle and the film is finally at its closing comments.
Janet Parshall looks us in the eye and speaks in the first person:

"President George W. Bush has set the example for maintaining faith in the face of unrelenting criticism. In my book Tough Faith I presented a road map for the dangerous deception that lies ahead. As the president has so ably demonstrated it is vitally important for Christians to be fully engaged in the religious and cultural conflicts of the twenty-first century. Will the faith of George Bush be sufficient to keep us in God's hands today? Perhaps if we all join our faith to his."

If in my darkest dreams I never thought Evangelicals capable of Fascism, with these words she has finally made me a believer. I confess that my walkthrough of this film is not thorough enough. I heartily suggest, even implore David Balsiger and Grizzly Adams Productions to do as Michael Moore has done for his film and offer the equivalent of The Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader. Moore has stuck his neck out by offering the complete screenplay and source material for every allegation made in his film. I wonder if Balsiger’s film could hold up to such scrutiny. Actually I don’t. I know it wouldn’t!

The purpose of Faith in the White House is not a secret. The cover packaging says it all: “This film will inspire you.” It also claims to be an alternative to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and non-political in nature. In this way its stated purpose is to profile the faith of George W. Bush against the critics of faith and Traditional Values. These are the claims the films makes of itself. But the latent purpose of the film is very political. Its purpose is to profile the man George W. Bush and his office as providentially given in a way that Evangelicals in particular will identify with and act upon. Obviously the action intended was votes for the president.

Propaganda Techniques Used

Faith in the White House to my knowledge is perhaps one of the most blatant forms of propaganda used by an Evangelical organization for political leverage and electoral victory in recent history. Propaganda is a word with obviously very negative connotations. So I want to clarify why I believe this film falls into this category. Propaganda by definition is an attempt to persuade a group of people to agree with the sponsor using arguments that mislead, dodge, and or are manipulative. This film was given syndication on major Christian television stations across the country, used at the Republican National Convention, shown in churches, and sold in bookstores. But in what is a clear deception, it is marketed as a non-political, inspirational product. Is that just a silly misnomer? Or is the director claiming it is non-political for specific reasons? One reason would be that Christian TV stations and churches could use this film without compromising their ethics by giving time to only one political candidate.

Propagandacritic.com lists ten common techniques used by propagandists to persuade an audience. I see Balsiger blatantly using seven of these in this film and they include Glittering Generalities, Euphemisms, Plain Folks, Bandwagon, Unwarranted Extrapolation, Bad Logic, Transfer, and Testimonial.3 By avoiding the uglier face of propaganda, the name calling and fear appeal, the film has a very nice “Christiany” appeal to it. It draws on assumptions that already exist within society, namely that George W. Bush is a man of faith, and it solidifies that assumption into an argument using mainly Testimonial from close friends, former aides, family members (like Uncle Buckey), and noted ministers such as James Robinson and Ted Haggard. Billy Graham and Arthur Blessitt, the two key figures in the anatomy of GWB’s conversion, are not interviewed personally, but serve as testimony by virtue of their status as noted Evangelists. This film is all about Transfer, "a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.”4

In addition to these devices it appeals to something unique to its audience--a personal salvation experience and a belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of an individual’s life. Reference to the Presidential Prayer Team in this context suggests prayers for the President translate into votes for the president. This use of our faith as a device for coercion marks a new low in religious dialogue, and compromises the very nature of our faith itself. Stephen L. Carter, in his book God’s Name in Vain: The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics5 writes:

“And there lies the difficulty when God-talk mixes with the partisan side of politics: More than likely for too many people with causes to push and desires to fulfill, the name of God will collapse into a mere rhetorical device. Instead of maintaining the sacred character guaranteed by the Third Commandment, God’s name becomes a tool, a trope, a ticket to get us where we want to go.”

Carter writes on religious dialogue in politics and the importance of its role as prophetic witness. He says that religious dialogue is at its worst when employed as an electoral device. He gives examples from the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and CS Lewis, the resistance of Fannie Lou Hamer, and the compromise of the Christian Coalition in its Contract with the American Family. In addition to this book, much can be gained from Jaques Ellul’s writings on the Church’s activity in the political realm in his works The Presence of the Kingdom and False Presence of the Kingdom, and on a different but related topic, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes.
.
Generalizations and Assumptions

The film employs many sweeping generalizations and assumptions about President Bush, Evangelical Christians, the founding fathers, and the nature of the culture war itself. It seems to insist that Bush is “our” president---one of us--- against the onslaught of the culture war. President Bush is portrayed as much further to the right than his own record has proven. Evangelicals are portrayed as a monolithic voting block who without question embrace the concerns of the filmmakers. The founding fathers are spoken of and honored in a manner befitting the interests of the Constitution Party, not Republicans, and every quote critical of the president falls into a stereotyped opposition to the president as part of the culture war. These generalizations easily resonate with the gut feelings of many Americans, regardless of real statistics, and serve the purposes of the film. But this level of discourse is not beneficial toward either side and serves only to polarize Americans. For a discussion of Bush’s faith that achieves greater objectivity and seeks a truer portrait of Bush and Evangelicals see Frontline’s special and the transcripts of interviews on its website.6

Misuse of Quotes
And what of the misuse of quotes in the film? In the case of Justin Webb, BBC Correspondent, his quote was used in a way that is of the exact opposite of it’s original intent. On September 4 Justin wrote:
“A year or so ago on this programme I said: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W Bush". It was intended as a faintly ironic comment on the president's religiosity. Imagine my surprise when I came across a copy of the DVD, George Bush: Faith in the White House. On the back among the glowing endorsements: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W Bush says BBC Washington correspondent, Justin Webb." I have endorsed the president without even intending to.”7
The actual article Webb wrote from which the film quotes is still online and starts out with the sentence, “My wife and I do not believe in God.”8 In reading the article itself it becomes clear that Webb is satirizing and mocking the Bush administration for its’ religiosity, not offering a glowing accolade from firsthand observation. When a film turns around mockery and manages to make it sound like genuine praise, shouldn’t someone cry foul?
On March 10, 2003 the article “Bush and God A higher calling: It is his defining journey--from reveler to revelation. A biography of his faith, and how he wields it as he leads a nation on the brink of war”9 by Howard Fineman and others appeared in Newsweek magazine. The quote used in the film “this president—this presidency--is the most resolutely "faith-based" in modern times, an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God” is not meant as a glowing endorsement, but only a description for effect. In May of 2004 Fineman wrote a piece on Bush’s involvement with Tim Lahaye, not to endorse Lahaye or Bush but no doubt to pair the two to arouse suspicion about Bush’s intentions in foreign policy.10 The film’s misuse of quotes from Fineman and Webb further illustrate the lengths to which director David Balsiger is willing to go to elect a president.

Misuse of God’s Name

Clearly a film that uses Christian ministers, the Christian experience, and the concept of Faith as its keystone, has taken on itself a great responsibility. A Christian audience expects that the Name of their God will not be taken in vain. But this is exactly what this film does. It calls into question God’s Calling of men throughout history by anointing Bush as God’s man for these times. If Bush slips up and proves himself less Christian, the blame falls on God. Finally it makes a mockery of God by asking whether our president’s faith would be enough to keep us in God’s hands, and suggesting that by joining our faith to the president’s this might be so. This makes God into a somewhat powerful deity who can only preserve a nation’s safety and posterity through the righteousness of its leadership. We the nation’s people, then need a vicarious faith together with that leader’s to enable God to act. For the filmmakers the problems America is facing, namely the culture wars and terrorism, are too great for either God or the American people to overcome, so we need the man of God’s choosing--George W. Bush.

Misuse of the Conversion Experience

As Evangelicals we believe in a personal experience with God through faith that enables our day to day existence. That is the initial conversion experience. It’s a rather existential moment in which God touches us deeply with the awareness of his love and forgiveness and that changes us. Throughout our lives we form and sustain relationships regularly but none of these is more valuable than our relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s a very personal thing, not something to be packaged and used to win votes. And neither should it be used to prove the validity of someone’s character. A Christian employer would be quite foolhardy to consistently hire on the basis of his employee’s conversion story. Wouldn’t their job performance matter? And would it make any difference for the employer to call in a tardy employee and say “I thought you said Jesus really changed your life? I trusted you!” What if we called in a bunch of the employee’s friends and asked them all “Is this person really saved?” “Tell me about their conversion experience.” Would these things really get to the bottom of either the person’s faith or performance? No. So to use one’s conversion experience to justify performance is to misuse the experience altogether. In the Bible we have a record of God calling into question man’s actions on a regular basis, not to overlook or justify them, but to set them right. If God has done this in covenant relationship with man for thousands of years, how does the film maintain that George W. Bush somehow achieves only justification and exemption?

Conclusion

The place of faith in politics is an important discussion, especially now. Which is why it matters when faith is misused. We need a discussion of faith in public life and how it speaks to issues such as war and poverty, terrorism and foreign policy and the good and bad in American history. Maybe something on how faith informs US/Saudi relations, our involvement in the Middle East, or Medicare and tax cuts. Instead what we got in this film was a rosy picture of Bush’s faith, acts of love, and conversion and how he fulfilled God’s destiny---while a world of hostile hateful evildoers continue to rage against him. Chief speechwriter to the president, Michael Gerson, recently held a press conference to clarify the President’s intentions in speaking of his faith. He said, "The important theological principle here, I believe, is to avoid identifying the purposes of an individual or a nation with the purposes of God." "That seems a presumption to me, and we've done our best to avoid the temptation."11 Let’s hope that as Bush begins a second term this is indeed true. In his inaugural address there will no doubt be more talk of God and faith. While we don’t want to confuse the man George W. Bush with the film’s depiction, what we really need to see in the next four years is a sense of honesty, humility, and contrition. These befit any president, but in order to unite the nation after a very divided election they would definitely be a ray of hope. After a year of both demonization and deification in the press, it may be impossible for Bush to live up to expectations in a second term. It should be no small comfort to us that our president is only human and in need of our prayers—whether or not we voted for him.


1 The Satan Seller article link and book info
http://cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?389
http://cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?390
http://cornerstonepress.com/titles/warnke/index.html
2 More reading on David Balsiger
This article lists some of Balsiger’s projects and includes Balsiger’s comments on the objectivity of his film contra Fahrenheit 9/11 http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/afa/272004f.asp
“Update on the Ark Hoax” by Jim Lippard
http://www.skeptic.com/02.4.lippard-ark-hoax.html
Press Release on the Ark Hoax
http://www.skeptic.com/balsiger-release.html
3 http://www.propagandacritic.com
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
4 http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.fc.transfer.html
5Carter, Stephen, God’s Name in Vain: The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics, Basic Books, 2000.pgs. 16-17.
6Frontline links
Extended interviews:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/
Front page: The Jesus factor
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/
Evangelicals
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/bushand.html
Read Steve Waldman’s (of Beliefnet) understanding of George Bush and see how it differs from Balsiger’s depiction:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html
7Justin Webb comment on film
'I accidentally endorsed the President'
By Justin Webb
BBC Washington correspondent
Saturday, 4 September, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3624610.stm
8 Justin Webb from the article itself
Friday, 14 March, 2003,
“America's deep Christian faith”
By Justin Webb
BBC correspondent in Washington
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2850485.stm
9 Newsweek, March 10, 2003,
“Bush and God, A higher calling: It is his defining journey--from reveler to revelation. A biography of his faith, and
how he wields it as he leads a nation on the brink of war.”
Author: Howard Fineman
With Tamara Lipper, Martha Brant, Suzanne Smalley and Richard Wolffe
Found at http://www.cla.sc.edu/POLI/faculty/rosati/fineman.god.newsweek.303.htm
10 Newsweek May 24, 2004
“Religion: Apocalyptic Politics
Ties That Bind: Bush and LaHaye have a history, and share a sense of mission”
By Howard Fineman
Found at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4988491/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
11Bush's References to God Defended by
Speechwriter
President Does Not Claim Divinity Is on His Side, Gerson
Contends
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 12, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57915-2004Dec11.html
See also: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi

Other Reviews
New York Times, 10/03/04
"Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush" by Frank Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/arts/03rich.html?8hpib
Christianity Today Review
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/georgewbush.html

On Point radio interview with David Balsiger and others discussing the film, religion, and politics. Insightful discussion.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/10/20041005_a_main.asp

Recommended Reading
Stephen L. Carter, God's Name in Vain: The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics, Basic, 2000.
Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, 2nd Ed., Helmers & Howard, 1989.
False Presence of the Kingdom, The Seabury Press, 1972.
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books, 1965.