What does the White House have to do with the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque?
Mitt Romney, is wrestling with a question that is part of the national conversation since its inception. More recently with John F. Kennedy's speech in the 1960s. What role should faith play in the public sphere? I do not think that this is a question just for Governor Romney but all candidates.
As an Evangelical leader and educator I often get this question from friends who know I'm a pastor. Certainly, a candidate's faith and worldview (be it religious or not) informs his/her moral compass and frames many decisions he/she takes. In this way faith, worldview, and politics are intrinsically intertwined. Still, I do not think I should vote for someone to be President simply because they belong to my faith tradition. (Interestingly, both President Bush and Senator Clinton belong to the same religious affiliation). I certainly do not want a president who makes policies based only on his/her church's doctrine (even though I expect him/her to be in conversation with the public ethical proclamations of faith groups). In short, your religious affiliation is not the lithmus test for presidency.
This country is not the United States of any religious tradition, it is the United States of America. (I certainly don't want the government telling me I can't be a Christian anymore than anyone wants to be forced into being one).Our unity is not based on uniformity but on respectful and honest dialogue concerning our common public life. One of the genius points of the Constitution is that it does not require the President to be any specific faith as a criteria for office. I think it is a fair question for any candidate to ask about how his/her faith or worldview will inform their presidency. What is not appropriate is trying to establish a religious monopoly that confuses the White House with the church.
Recently, I re-read the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This statement has been interpreted and argued in the nation's courts, churches, synagogues, mosques, and universities thousands of times. The fundamental query is how do we balance the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment. In short, we don't want the government to dictate nor restrict our choice of religion (or non-religion). We must be cautious of any collapsing of religion into politics (they are in conversation but not synonymous).
So what does the White House have to do with the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.? First, the White House (Senate,Congress, and SupremeCourt) should not try to establish the faiths of the people of this country. Second, government should never confuse their voice with the voice of God or of moral absolutism. Government should remember they are necessary but their judgments are in the dimension of the penultimate. Claims of theocracy are usually masked idolatries of one's personal ideologies. Humility with conviction is no small paradox.
This is what I expect from my Presidential candidates and their faith in the public realm: Honesty about their faith and worldviews. A clear articulation of their public policies and moral commitments so I can make an informed decision. Their respect for my confession of Jesus Christ as Savior and my neighbors confessions of faith or disbelief in the existence of God. Commitment to respect all of of the country's citizens, religious or non-religious.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
