God and Government  part 1

by Tyler Young

  Should one’s religious convictions affect his decision making? With a presidential election considered by all observers to be of enormous significance to the direction and wellbeing of the nation drawing nigh, this question has become one of concern in the midst of the fierce campaigning by supporters of both of the leading candidates. One’s faith—or lack of it—and the role that faith or faithlessness plays in his life is being viewed as a matter which may disqualify one for a position of trust in governing the American public.

While we do not endorse all of President Bush’s religious views, we acknowledge that he is a man of faith. President Bush’s identification with what people commonly characterize as “Christianity” is both well known and highly controversial. Even the normally anti-Christian (and publicly funded) PBS recently aired a documentary highlighting, in a generally positive way, the faith of our current Commander In Chief. But for many opponents, Bush’s Christian-based worldview, and his moral convictions based upon it, is cause for concern. This apprehension over Bush is not new, but it has intensified to the point of frenzy as Americans prepare to head for the voting booths. Early last year, the cover of the March 10 issue of Newsweek advertised the feature article, “Bush & God.” The President is shown praying, with the accompanying words: “How Faith Changed His Life and Shapes His Presidency” and “Why His ‘God Talk’ Worries Friends and Foes.” His belief in the Bible and the fact that those beliefs may actually shape his thinking on public policy were portrayed—as they frequently are—as a potential danger to the nation. Voices from every quarter have expressed again and again that Bush’s talk of God and morality are divisive and dangerous.

In fact, behind much of the intense hatred of Bush seething from numerous fronts is an inherent suspicion of and fanatical hostility toward Christianity itself. Bush is considered a puppet of the “Christian right,” and therefore is thought by many to be a menace. This is because fundamental Christian principles—such as moral absolutes stemming from a Higher Authority—are considered intolerant and oppressive—a threat to our freedoms and progress. Typical of the irrational hysteria characterizing his far left-wing opponents was one pundit y” and “Why His ‘God Talk’ who recently alleged that Bush will turn American into a theocracy and replace the Constitution with the Pentateuch. And he wasn’t joking.

It’s not just that Bush claims to be a believer, but that he does not hide the fact that his beliefs are formative in his policy-making. Actress Whoopi Goldberg voiced her concern by saying, “Wait a minute. Is this man leading this country as an American or is he leading the country as a Christian?” To those of Goldberg’s ilk, it must be one or the other, but never both.

On the other hand, John Kerry boasts a disconnect between his religious conviction and public decision making. He stated plainly, “I don’t make decisions in public life based on religious belief.” This would explain how Senator Kerry can claim he “personally believes” that life begins at conception, and yet be a staunch supporter of abortion on demand—the killing of what is, according to his “personal” conviction, human life—which his Senate record clearly shows him to be. He claims to hold Roman Catholic beliefs, but supports legal abortion and the homosexual agenda, both of which clearly contradict Catholic—and genuine biblical—theology. (Catholic Bishops have vowed to refuse to administer communion to Kerry because of his support of abortion.) He has opposed all legislation designed to protect the lives of innocent, unborn babies from the abortionist’s knife, and is opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment legally defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Kerry can do this while professing to be a man of traditional values and faith because he conveniently separates his own personal convictions from public policy.

Bear in mind that when a politician is asked where he stands on a divisive moral issue and he answers, “Well, I personally believe…,” what he generally means is, “Here is my own belief, but that belief will not necessarily influence my political position.” This allows him to satisfy concerns by saying, “Don’t worry, I’m against so-and-so,” and yet still vote for it, or vice versa.

A Kerry spokesman, David Wade, said of the candidate, “His faith has played an important role in his life but he also believes in the separation of church and state.” Kerry himself said,

My fellow Americans, you haven’t heard me talk as much about faith and religion as my opponent because I believe faith is a matter for our homes and communities, not the political arena….The Founding Fathers…in their wisdom…advised us, their heirs, to not allow religious power and political power to occupy the same office…. As President I will listen to the counsel of our religious leaders, from every denomination, but I will never allow my own beliefs to dictate our laws or our policies.

Perhaps this is why Kerry appointed as his religious advisor “Reverend” Brenda Bartella Peterson, who filed an amicus brief in support of atheist Michael Newdow’s lawsuit to remove the words “under God” from the pledge.

Surely we would all object to our public officials infringing on our religious freedoms and attempting to impose their own peculiar sectarian beliefs upon the nation. We would not want Congress to require everyone to attend church or outlaw the use of instrumental music in worship, any more than we would want them to enforce reading of the Koran or worship of Buddha. This was the point of the Separation Clause of the First Amendment. But, whether we agree with their particular beliefs or not, we should expect the moral and spiritual convictions of our leaders to influence their decision making even in the public arena.

  Again, the question before us is whether our beliefs should affect only certain aspects of our lives. For faithful Christians, there can only be one answer. Genuine conviction for biblical truth and commitment to Jesus Christ is not something we may hold only “personally”—tucked away in some private recess of our heart only to surface in the confines of the home or church house. Being a disciple of Christ is not something we turn on at home, but turn off in the community or at work. “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). That’s as comprehensive a command as can be given, and it means that the authority of Christ as expressed in the word of God must influence every area of our lives and shape every moral decision we make. The concern over “separation of church and state” (an expression not found in the Constitution) does not mean one can separate genuine, biblical faith from any area of his life. If we are not Christians all of the time in every area of life, we are not really Christians at all.