I’m sure by now you know that Bush has selected Harriet Miers for appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. And I’m sure you’ve heard the disquiet that Harriet Miers has never served as a Judge. My understanding is that this is not that unusual, since Rehnquist also had never served as a Judge before being appointed to the SCOTUS. But that the consternation comes from not knowing hardly anything about her. William Dyer at [Beldar’s Blog](http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/) has some [good arguments](http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2005/10/the_miers_nomin.html) for why we can still be reasonably confident Bush knows what he’s doing.
Nevertheless, to the rest of us, Miers is a bit of an enigma. So I was pleased to look over Valerie’s shoulder this morning and read that [Miers is an Evangelical](http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8727). For hyperpoliticals, “Evangelical” means one thing: pro-life. To me, however, it means a whole host of things, all of which make me feel generally good about her appointment. In fact, I felt so nice about this information, that I made the mistake of reading the rest of the article. The guy who wrote this – he’s goofy. Check this stuff:
> Evangelicals are definitely pro-life. They are Christians who believe the Bible to be the divine revelation. They testify to having a personal experience with Jesus Christ as Savior. They worship faithfully. They have daily devotions, that is, prayer time and Bible reading.
> They believe in heaven and hell. Their faith concludes that Jesus Christ is the way to personal salvation, that is, knowing divine forgiveness for confessed sins. They hold to a biblical morality that cannot permit abortion. Having studied the Bible continually, evangelicals know the scriptural passages underlining God’s abhorrence for killing babies in women’s wombs.
Nice, nice. Though, I would say these descriptions apply better to our ideals than to how it works in the real world. But still, it’s nice to hear an accurate (if focused) description of Evangelialism. But then the next paragraph:
> Therefore, since Harriet Miers is an evangelical, she believes as an evangelical, she breathes as an evangelical, she lives out the evangelical ethic that is the biblical ethic. There are no ifs, ands, or buts with an evangelical. It is all laid out there in the Word of God; therefore, there is no adding to or subtracting from the Lord’s Word. It is perfect. It is pure. It is eternal.
Now this is silly. Has this guy ever read the Word of God? I’m a hard-nosed Evangelical myself, and I’m in *seminary*, and I can’t pull that kind of theological confidence out of my hat.
But it gets worse:
> When Harriet Miers spends time speaking about spiritual matters with the Chief Executive, as reported today in [the] media, one can be sure that they hone in on their daily devotional readings, their insights derived from the Bible, and their commitment to God as a daily walk.
Is this guy serious? Is this satire in disguise? GW gets together with his lawyer and the first thing they do is have a little devotional together? Nothing against devotionals, but that’s goofy. I know what *my* wife would say if I was having daily devotionals with my female lawyer.
Anyway, it goes on. Nice to hear that I have so much in common with a potential Supreme Court Justice, but now I’m not so sure about my source!
neumatikos 
Since I’ve known many evangelical who hadn’t a clue as pertaining to abortion, I agree the writer is goofy.
On the other hand — I think it very likely that George W Bush has been misunderestimated again.
On one thing I am convinced and that is he has been continually used to “confound the wise”
LikeLike