English
Korean
Spanish
Bill Keller, the editor of the New York Times, wants a president who “respects serious science.” This came from a column in which he pledged to ask tough questions about the faith of presidential candidates, particularly the weird ones. His column is part of a larger debate regarding the evangelical beliefs of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, both announced candidates for the 2012 presidential race, and their “exotic” or fringe doctrines.
Most all of you would not consider the more troubling of Bachmann or Perry’s beliefs that controversial. In fact, the big one, the teaching that Jesus is Lord of all aspects of a Christian’s life is pretty standard in churches that read the Bible.
Mrs. Bachmann set off alarms early in her campaign when she credited Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer with showing her that the various roles and aspects of her life were all part of her devotion to the God who made her. I consider that to be Schaeffer’s core message and Candidate Bachmann got it. Of course the difficulty that follows is that she decided that this biblical insight would affect the way she went about her profession, raised her family, related to her husband, and engaged in politics. I’ll admit it is a radical way to live but the idea is merely Christian.
Francis Schaeffer is an alarming influence because he helped so many influential evangelicals understand that their citizenship is part of their stewardship. He also opened the eyes of many of us to the most extreme expression of our nation’s spiritual corruption—abortion on demand. The engagement of non-Catholics, including Southern Baptists, in the pro-life struggle is based more on Schaeffer’s teaching than on any other single person’s influence. He went further, though. Abortion is the inflamed symptom of a culture increasingly opposed to the truth of God revealed in creation, in his word, and in his Son. The two worldviews are contradictory at their roots; people base their lives on God’s truth or on one of several lies. Thus the fierce battle over the origins of mankind, thus the desperate fight over the value of human life at all stages, thus the guerilla warfare over the indoctrination of our young. It matters very much to the combatants because their convictions flow out of their essential perspectives.
Some few have gone beyond Schaeffer’s message to say that Christians must establish the kingdom of God by means of American politics. A few would advocate a dominion of God’s people that sounds like establishment of a state church. Others use terms and doctrine sloppily so that it’s not clear what they are talking about. The differences between these more extreme people and a mainstream evangelical like Francis Schaeffer are too subtle for some reporters to discern.
Another obstacle to clarity has to do with the several degrees of separation between a candidate’s views and those of his endorsers. Texas is a very lively place for religious dialog between conservative evangelicals. Our state has several types of Baptists, neo-Charismatics, larger and small denominations of many stripes, and thriving para-church Christian ministries. Given the right circumstances, we could argue with each other all day long. There is no way that one person, even a presidential candidate could agree in detail with everyone in this spectrum who might endorse him for president. This diversity was all in one place during the August 6 prayer meeting in Houston. The Response was called by Gov. Perry and scheduled just a few days before he announced his candidacy for president. More than 30,000 people showed up to pray, not campaign. As some of these diverse religious leaders support Mr. Perry’s run for Washington, I expect the secular left to try to force him to disavow in detail every kooky thing that any of these supporters have said or implied, aloud or in print, during the campaign season. Michelle Bachmann is already being pilloried for the viewpoints of those she has never met or even cited as influential.
I think the concerns cited in publications such as the New Yorker and the New York Times are sincere concerns from those who think observant evangelical Christians rare, ignorant, and dangerous. Maybe the level of hysteria they will doubtless engender over the next year is more agenda-driven than sincere but regardless, the presidential ideas of any earnest evangelical Christian will get too little play compared with the real and imagined tenets of their faith. A candidate like John Huntsman who describes himself as a not very religious Mormon is OK. So is a candidate who says he is a Christian but plays golf on Sunday morning. The ones that go to church will be seen as too overtly committed to their religion. That’s nothing but bigotry, and it is, more importantly, not true.
Every president, every governor, every soldier or airman or sailor or marine who’s ever taken an oath to support or uphold our laws or a constitution, is more committed to his religion than he is to those laws or that constitution. It’s true of theists and atheists. Carnal Baptists and observant Jews alike will live out their oaths according to the number one conviction of their lives—that is, their religion. Editor Keller is wrong when he supposes a unique threat from a president who might place “fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon … or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country.” Every president and editor ever born has done that very thing. Keller is comfortable with his own belief system and intolerant of others.
If we can start with that understanding, I think we can have an interesting debate. What a fun time we’d have if a presidential candidate would just come right out and say, “I’m a Mennonite, though functionally atheist, who is ruled by my own appetites,” or “I’m a lapsed Catholic, but generally think that mankind is a valueless, random collection of electro-chemical impulses.” Of course that won’t happen but it’s a dream that we could know the true core beliefs of those who would deal with a thousand situations that none of us can foresee. The American people seem to want political leaders who are far more religious and moral than the celebrities they idolize, and at least a little more religious and moral than themselves. That’s why most sane candidates would never open their souls to the public. Those who have, like Perry and Bachmann, provide a warning to those who are tempted.
I actually agree with those who, perhaps with ill intent, would dig deeply into the religious convictions of candidates. But let’s not give a pass to those who apparently aren’t very committed to any church tradition. All they’ve done is tell us what’s not important to them. Bachmann and Perry have opened themselves up for special scrutiny merely because they’ve claimed to actually practice Christianity. That’s fine, but they aren’t the only ones who live by faith. I think a debate moderator could actually ask a candidate questions about apparent differences between his professed view of ultimate things and his conduct. Why is that less important than other kinds of integrity? Questions of policy are simply outgrowths of a leader’s view of what’s true.
Our culture’s affection for harmless religion, particularly tame Christians, should be a warning to us. Our current age is trying to teach us the acceptable boundaries of our religious devotion. No one minds if we handle snakes (gently), swing from the rafters, or burn incense to a live oak tree on Sunday, so long as we don’t live differently than our neighbors the rest of the week. In fact, we can even practice some faiths during the week, but not evangelical Christianity. That faith is too radical for the opinion makers of our culture to get their heads around. Done right, it is counter cultural and unusual. They are right to suspect that it is a threat to their own view of the world.
But the several false worldviews of our culture are really no threat to God’s truth. So long as we tell the story and are not cowed by the ridicule and misunderstanding of our message, God’s message, we can be at peace that truth is more powerful than the imaginings of a man. We don’t need to shout down the opinions of the lost because we are more confident in our message than they are in theirs.
I don’t know what will happen to the Bachmann and Perry campaigns. I know both of them will not, perhaps neither will, be elected president; this is not an endorsement of either candidate. In fact, I have not voted for and will not ever vote for someone merely because he or she has a credible testimony of faith in Christ. I’ve known many genuine believers that I would not let repair my car or keep my kids. But mark me down as someone who considers it positive when an aspiring leader appears to live according to his professed beliefs. I trust people who don’t consider their religions of record to be incidental details in their resumes. And I suspect that most Americans, God-fearing and not so much, are comfortable with a credible confession of faith in the God that even New York City editors suspect just might be real.
