In an election cycle where the conservative Christian guard is struggling with the impending nomination of John McCain, the Democrats are getting religion as, for only the second time in history, their candidates sat down to discuss issues of faith. You can see the first Compassion Forum on YouTube here.
But it's not just the presidential candidates who are suddenly talking about faith. Nancy Pelosi has been heard quoting Scripture and Al Gore has used biblical stewardship as part of his environmental campaign. Maybe this is the result of Jim Wallis and the folks at Sojourners, or maybe it's just the Left's attempt to pander to Christians, but no matter how you look at it, faith is suddenly an issue of Democrats.
My question is, "Is this a good thing?" And I don't ask it because I'm a Republican who's afraid that the Left is going to get the Christian vote, rather, I had issues with the Right when they worked the Christian circuit to get elected as well. I'm asking if it's a good thing because I'm wondering how much the Church should be involved with the State, and the State, linked to the Church.
Let me flesh this out a bit more. When standing before Pilate, Jesus told the Roman Magistrate that his Kingdom wasn't of this world and, if it were, his followers would be using the weapons of this world to establish his rule. This idea of the State being given a certain set of tools to accomplish its purpose also shows up in Romans 13 where Paul declares that God gives government the sword in order to keep order in society.
This stands in stark contrast to the commission that Jesus gives his Church, where they are to break all governmental lines and boundaries as they proclaim the Gospel of Christ.
So really, my question is rooted in the understanding that God has provided the government to do one thing, and the Church to do another. As a result, it really doesn't matter what the candidates believe, what matters is that they govern well, or, as Martin Luther once said, "The Emperor need not be a Christian as long as he possess reason."
What do you think about the place where faith and politics collide?
Depends....
I think some of this depends on the context of the conversation. If a leader goes to the Christians and says based on what the bible says on governing well this is how I plan to govern well, that's one thing. Governing well seems to be a matter of opinion for many people. This would give it a frame of reference for many people and I think I'm ok with this.
On the other hand, if a candidate is trying to pander to a group to get their vote I don't think I like that. It's not trying to do good or about being a good leader. It reminds me of the crooked used car salesman from so many movies.
A third situation seems to come up, too. When a leader lives their faith and people ask about it. In this case I think it's ok for them to talk about it as long as they don't dwell on it. That is not the point of their campaign and not at the center of it. So, while it can show more of their character it's not what all of this is about.
Maybe it's just me but, I often see elections move to selling points, kissing hands and shaking babies, and telling people what they want to hear rather than dealing with what the job at hand is and how will someone be a benevolent, wise, and good leader at that job.
context
Okay, first, Matt, haven't you heard the TV and radio ads? Don't shake a baby!
I really like the third point, where the believing leader to simply see politics as God's call in their life. By being a good politician, they're serving God and living out their faith.
I think the first point you bring up can be a bit dangerous. I mean, if the leader says, "These are the basic duties that God has given government." then I'm game, but if it carries over to, "This is the kind of government we need to have (Democracy, Monarchy, etc.) then I think we're setting ourselves up for serious issues because different kinds of government work better than others depending on the culture.
Definite Danger
It's a definite danger for a leader to talk about the bible telling what kind of government we should have. But, how they answer questions like these can show us a bit about their character.
Although, I don't think I've ever seen a politician handle things anywhere near like this so this topic is a bit academic. I love my pipe dreams...
Politics is as politics does
Bush (and Reagan before that) proved that if you pretend to be Christian enough, there're enough idiotic Christians out there who will gladly vote for you no matter what and you'll win the election. The Democrats don't want to let that chance slip to the wind so they've picked up on it as well.
Hey Now
Let's try to play nice and be careful not to judge these people. How many of us really know them? It's a real danger to say someone pretends to be Christian enough whether we agree with them or not. Let's leave that assessment up to the big guy.
I'm not saying politicians don't pander to Christians. There is no question that they do. Let's just be wise with our thoughts and words while we talk about it.
But does it matter?
Pastor Joe, (can I call you PJ?), I wonder about the comment you make when you say, "It doesn't really matter what the candidate believes." Given the context of the conversation, I get the point, being a good Christian does not necessarily make one a good president, king, etc.
But, perhaps it goes a bit too far to say that it really doesn't matter what the candidate believes, because I think it absolutely does matter what the candidate believes. Whether that belief is "Christian" or not may be another conversation, but that belief will guide and direct the decisions and action of the leader.
This line of thinking, where the church's business and the state's business have nothing to do with each other is true in that the church and the state do not have the same job. One is to maintain the society, the other is to give Jesus. But this line of thinking has been abused on a great level. We have politicians who say that they can be Catholic and pro-abortion because the church and the state have different jobs. The church has a great deal to say to the state about the taking of innocent life on its own terms.
So here are my questions, though I agree that the job of the state and the job of the church are fundamentally different, should they not interact with one another? Shouldn't President Bush's faith have some influence on how he governs? Shouldn't a candidate's religious view matter on some level?
govern well
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, I think you are starting to get into the question of what does it mean to "govern well". Can someone govern well who isn't a Christian? Can someone govern well in the eyes of a bible believing Christian without being a Christian themselves? I think so. This may be a tough thing for some to swallow and the only thing I ask is that anyone who disagrees take a step back and try to justify that side before arguing it.
Does a religious view matter for a political candidate? Sure, just like any other factor that influences their "govern well" decision making. It's not about their religious belief. It's about their ability to govern well and I think there are some non-Christians who have an incredible ability to govern well.
more on govern well
I think Matt nails it when he points this to the issues of, "What does it mean to govern well." Obviously abortion is a faith issue because of God's Law, but it is also an issue when it comes to our reason.
One example would be health issues for women, not as a result of the abortion itself, but some research which links having an abortion with increased rates of breast cancer.
A second would be the effect that aborting 25% of a generation (that would be us Gen-Xer types) has had on the American workforce and the gross national product. From this point we could also ponder links into the social security crisis and the need for migrant and illegal workers.
Personally, I'd much rather have a president who worked according to reason in this case, if nothing else, because I'd have to assume that the same reason used on the abortion issue, would be used when dealing with other issues where the Bible isn't quite as clear.
By the way, I'd prefer to avoid the whole PJ thing ... brings up some odd memories for me.
Govern Well
Thanks for the responses! Very helpful, indeed!
My point, however, is not to say that a non-Christian cannot govern well. Of course they can, one would be foolish to think otherwise. History certainly says otherwise.
My concern is with the comment "it doesn't matter what they believe." Now, perhaps I am saying the same thing, but in a different way, but can we not say that some religious belief's are more conducive to governing well than others? Because faith and politics must collide, and the religious position of a government official will have some influence on that official. Would we not prefer a good leader who bows to a higher authority (as in the case of a Christian, Jew, or Mormon) over a good leader who does not (in the case of an atheist).
I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that it is fair to say that you can have someone who governs well, but makes really sinful decisions. I suppose we have to ask (and sorry if I am pushing this too far) what is meant by "govern well." Who gets to set the standard for what good and bad governing looks like?
the purpose of government
For me, I'm not sure if an atheist would necessarily be worse than somebody who had a higher authority for the simple reason that, some of the atheists I know, are some of the most moral and ethical people I know. You contrast this with many people who use faith as an excuse to slack because, "I'm forgiven anyway." and, well, you get the point. For a bit more on this, I wrote on atheists and purpose on my personal blog a while back: http://joeburnham.com/2007/04/27/atheists_and_purpose
However, I think by the end of your post here, you raise a really interesting question, namely, "What establishes the purpose of government?" To add a second to this, "What determines how government officials should view themselves in relationship to the people they govern?"
Obviously, at this point, my argument begins with Scripture, after all, on what basis did I argue the government's role being one of bearing the sword? Having others come to agree that this is the governments purpose, or that our leaders hold positions where they are to be servants of the people is a whole other discussion.
Wow
That blog is fantastic. As I read my posts in light of that, it forces me to realize that, as much as I try not to, I have a lot of misconceptions about people that I don't spend nearly enough time with in my every day life. I apologize to any atheist who read my post and has felt mischaracterized. I am sorry and I hope to have more conversations about such things with atheists (as well as Christians) in the future, . Thanks.