Culture Wars
Religion in the ‘08 Race
by Clay Staggs
I’ve been blogging a lot lately about the ‘08 race, especially on the Republican side. Since my last entry, though, two really interesting developments have taken place that involve religion’s role in politics.
The first is Mitt Romney’s speech on the role of religious freedoms in the American political tradition. It was almost universally well received. I read positive reviews from everyone from Chris Matthews (notorious leftie), to Pat Buchannan (notorious rightie), to Dr. Dobson, to Peggy Noonan. You can find the text here and the video is probably on YouTube if you go looking.
Romney made two interesting points that might be considered contradictory. First:
If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States. There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
Then:
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
Now, I think that there’s an element here of having your cake and eating it too. I agree that no candidate should be required to be an apologist for his religion. But that really isn’t reality, is it? Obviously, as a religion that most folks aren’t familiar with, Romney’s mormonism rightly raises questions about what he believes and how it will affect his conduct as president. I’m not sure that’s the same thing as having a religious test, something Romney implies is the case.
The second event of the last week was the revelation about Huckabee’s speech to the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998. The article describing the speech is here. He’s quoted as saying “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” This implies that, at one time, the nation was Christ’s. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I’m thinking this means Huckabee subscribes to the notion that the US has been blessed for its faithfulness, as a special province of God, a view I do not share.
Here’s another interesting quote from the article:
“I [Huckabee] didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.” He compared his entry into politics to “getting inside the dragon’s belly,” adding, “There’s not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what’s done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner.”
I’m not sure I understand, then, why he’s in government instead of ministry.
So, for better or worse, religion seems to be figuring prominently on the Republican side this year (almost as prominent as the dueling proxy star power of Bill Clinton v. Oprah on the Democrat side). So I’ll pose two questions for consideration and comment:
- Which candidate is benefiting from this and why?
- Is the cause of the Church being helped or hurt?
I’m not sure I can intelligently comment on the questions you asked, Clay, but I was reading Philippians recently and some verses came to mind while I was reading the end of your post. From Philippians 1, and I’m including as much as possible so I don’t take it out of context:
12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice 19 for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.
I guess I am wondering how this applies (or IF applies) to the current concerns with the evangelical right. Just wanted to ask your thoughts…and answer a question with another question.
Wow, Prathima, that’s really a great passage to think about. I don’t know that I’ve even completely disgested it in the context of Gov. Huckabee’s campaign, but, at least at first blush, I’d say it depends on whether one can fairly characterize Huckabee’s political career as “preach[ing] Christ.” Being somewhat cynical about politicians who wear their Christianity on their sleeve, my first inclination is to suspect that it’s merely a calling card to get votes in a primary dominated by evangelical Christian voters.
I know that God works in mysterious ways, and can (and does) use things that I would never expect to call those he chooses. However, modern American politics, especially presidential politics, seems to me an unwise place to try to preach the gospel to the unconverted. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t like for our leaders to be Christians - I would. But I don’t really see the presidency as a place for a preacher.
And, I suspect that this is where I part company with most evangelical conservatives. They conflate the church and government in a way that disturbs me. I get the vibe that evangelicals are flocking toward Huckabee because he’s a Christian. People voted for Carter for the same reason and his presidency was an unmitigated disaster.
The scriptures teach submission to the civil authorities, not the takeover of civil authorities by the church. I think there’s a tension - maybe even a contradiction - with using the presidency as an institution for evangelism.
I’d be interested to hear anyone else’s take on the Phillipians passage Prathima has cited.
I can think of at least one application of the Phillipians passage that might be relevant. That is, in whatever arena, and represented by true or false men, God uses all these things to confront men with Himself. Should I say, he uses all this “press” so that when faced with the ultimate question, “what are you going to do with Jesus?,” no one, at least in America, can say, “Do with who?” God will not be ignored. He really uses so many inexplicable means as the “hound of heaven,” and I do love that. Debates about saying Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays….Target allowing or not allowing Salvation Army bell ringers….political debates…whatever, He is always cropping up. I am reminded of a time when I was blissfully posting announcements at U of A about meetings for Transcendental Meditation. I was in one of the science departments and had to ask permission to post on their bulletin board. A rather crabby, unattractive woman who served as a secretary or something said, “Well, this is a public institution so I can’t stop you…but take this and read it.” She was armed for the battle because it was a tract comparing the claims of Christ with the claims of eastern mysticism. That really aggravated me and was a composite sketch of many of the things I loathed about evangelical Christianity. I mean, she wasn’t even “nice”…and tracts…arghhhh! But anyway, here I am in the camp thirty-something odd years later. I did read the tract and I hated it…it really got under my skin….so much so that I started reading the Bible for ammunition. Then…well…you get my point. I’ll have to thank that crabby old bag when I see her in heaven one day! (But then she’ll appear as she really is, clothed in glory and beauty, so much so that, as C.S. Lewis once said, you’d be tempted to fall down and worship her.)
‘