Christians in the US election

18) is deeply insulting to the many thousands of sincere and devout

American Christians who live sacrificially and prayerfully.

For several years, Banchory has been blessed by a succession of just

such people who have given up everything to study under a renowned

professor in Aberdeen. They have brought a breath of fresh air into the

stale Christian Church, challenging people by the integrity of their

lifestyles and commitment.

John Macleod castigates American Christians for their ''profound

ignorance'', but perhaps his partial ignorance is even more appalling.

His sweeping pronouncements that drop all American Christians into a

''swirling religious soup'' seasoned with ''self-indulgence,

complacency, and even bigotry'' are not only insulting but not even

true.

Certainly there are some Americans of the ''name it and claim it''

persuasion whose warped understanding of the Scripture leads them to

embrace a prosperity gospel. They are not representative of most

American Christians, however, who see through the greedy sham of such a

self-indulgent lifestyle.

John Macleod is disgusted by the fringe, fanatical excesses arising in

some American denominations (aren't we all?), preferring the ''hard,

liberal and apostate'' national church (if one can call such a body a

church at all) in Scotland as it maintains order and dignity.

Must it be either one or the other, And if Jesus were alive now, would

he choose to bob spiritually on the Dead Sea (C of S) or would he shoot

the rapids of spiritual life, risking being swamped but also tasting the

wind and spray that exhilarate and attest to ''life in all its

fullness''? He didn't care much for the safe, steadying influence of the

established church in his day.

''To be a Christian in America is a glib and easy thing. It is

fashionable.'' Yes, it is fashionable to go to church in America, and

that is both glib and easy. In Scotland there is still status attached

to being a Kirk elder. That, too, is both glib and easy. But to be a

Christian, anywhere, is neither, and never has nor will be.

A Christian, by definition, is someone who denies himself to follow

Jesus, wherever he leads, and naturally he will lead into similar

situations that he encountered himself. He will be there with

undesirables, with ''citizens in cardboard shacks'' with the generation

caught in illegitimacy and crack. And so are many American and Scottish

Christians.

So back to the election and George Bush. American voters are not

offered a choice between a truly Christian, moral candidate and one who

is immorality incarnate. The political process itself has degenerated

into a farce and sham, a media circus, and the financial and personal

pressures inversely weed out many able potential leaders. (It is

arguably, the weeds which are left once the flowers have all wilted and

died.)

The great American public is left choosing between the lesser of two

evils: one whose attention to morality centres on personal issues, e.g.,

abortion, and one whose party has traditionally focused on social

morality. Which is the more Christian?

John Macleod asserts there will be a block vote of Christians marching

behind Bush. Perhaps. There will also be a block vote of Christians

behind Clinton. There are many other factors and lobbies which will

combine to put the next imperfect leader into the White House.

George Bush is indeed inconsistent and morally flawed. His profession

is politics and his goal is to stay in office. Hardly inspiring. Jimmy

Carter was a practising Christian (and a Democrat). He didn't mould his

faith to fit the politically expedient, and he was ousted by Reagan's

slick promises.

John Macleod presents an eloquent, thought-provoking argument, but it

is flawed by his failure to qualify his subject rather than relying on

sweeping naive stereotypes and generalisations.

Michele D. Morrison,

Barehillock

Drumoak,

Banchory.