From the "Are you serious?" department

President Bush, it is reported, is mulling over a possible conversion to Roman Catholicism. I don't know how true that is. According to the report, Mr. Bush may be following in the footsteps of his brother, Jeb, and former prime minister Tony Blair - both of whom are Catholic converts. But what struck me was the muted, theological jab from a friend, also a Roman Catholic, who suggested that the president “is not unaware of how evangelicalism, by comparison with Catholicism, may seem more limited both theologically and historically.”

Evangelicalism. How did that creep into the conversation? Did I detect a bit of jealoousy? As far as I know, Mr. Bush is a Methodist in good standing currently attending an Episcopalian church. And while historic Methodism and Episcopalianism are not in the evangelical camp, per se, this man's comments betray a twinge of resentment.

Of course, as a student of both theology and history, I could take umbrage at a statement that suggests that theology and history began and ended with Rome or that evangelicalism - that American/Yankee innovation - is comparatively limited in theological depth and scope.

But I won't.

Last I checked, the euangelion was the whole show. The Good News. The raison d'etre.