This thesis uses the discourse analysis methods developed by T. Van Dijk and J. P. Gee to examine public debate over the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001 as it arose in testimony before the U. S. House of Representatives and related news articles published in the New York Times and Washington Post. In analyzing the language used in the congressional hearings and news articles printed between January 2001 and December 2004, Van Dijk‘s categories and related questions were methodologically combined with Gee‘s approach to provide a framework and method for analyzing the underlying discourse. While debate participants expressed strong beliefs in complex social ideals, many see America‘s social problems as intractable in nature, where key decisions about distributions of funds are based on political considerations, as opposed to merit or need.

American presidents have maintained an equilibrium between the role of church and state in government affairs via the nation’s civil religion and a “rhetorical contract” between those secular and sacred interests. While other presidents have incorporated religion in their rhetorical execution of office, George W. Bush has done so in a manner different from his predecessors, emphasizing the role of faith in his administration’s beliefs, actions, and policies. Such rhetoric upsets the tenuous relationship between sectarian and secular affairs. Bush’s breach of the rhetorical contract can be explained by Foucault’s notion of pastoral power. Using practices once associated with the church, the savvy government leader may better control his public. I argue that President Bush has shifted the balance of power between organized religion and government, specifically by means of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, thereby corrupting traditional notions of civil religion in the process of implementing his unique form of new pastoral power.