As a Mormon, I can offer that Romney doesn't need to have a mentor. We are a lay church, where we actively support each other, are expected to know our doctrine, and worthy fathers can perform life-cycle ceremonies for their family members. Also, as a lay church, we each take turns holding different postions (from organist to Sunday School teacher to ecclesiastical leader). Romney was a missionary and served in various church positions, including Stake President (similar to a Catholic Bishop in that he would be responsible for a number of congregations in a geographic area). Really, no mentor is required.

I believe in God, according to the Christian faith. And I am also politically conservative. But there is something I find, well, icky about politicians trumpeting their faith in God. I guess part of that is that, un-American as it may sound, I find all (well, most) politicians guilty until proven innocent.

Kudos on the idea of a Constitutional mentor. The problem, however, is there are precious few politicians who trust citizens with all of the freedoms the Constitution protects. Think about it, the Constitution limits government's power. Therefore, it limits the politician's power. No wonder so few of them *really* believe in defending and upholding it.

How about a "Constitutional Mentor" instead? Someone who will advise candidates to remember the First Amendment - especially that "no establishment of state religion" bit! I have said this many times already - we are electing a President, not a Pope! I don't want a candidate to have a "spiritual mentor" of any faith whispering in their ears. Because that will only lead to discrimination against people of other faiths.

We're already heading towards a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy in this country. We don't need our next President to continue down this path.

Many evangelical questions about Obama's faith testimony will spring from the fact that it seems more that Obama's embrace of the UCC sprang more from its political and professional utility to him, rather than from any real conversion experience on his part.

If in fact Obama moves to make his UCC pastor his "faith mentor"--to date Obama's campaign has gone out of its way to downplay him--it is not clear that the minister will do much to allay this concern.

I wonder whether you are confusing cause and effect with your recommendation. People with genuine testimonites of faith will naturally have good spiritual mentors. Since most presidential candidates have written autobiographies, their self-narratives should be sufficient in indicating what, if anything, their faith means to them. The public presence of a mentor, then, is at best a short-cut for people who haven't read the books or a substitute for candidates haven't shared personally from their lives.

Barack Obama is a good example of one whose testimony is sufficient. In his "Audacity of Hope," he states, "This is not to say that I'm unanchored in my faith. There are some things that I'm absolutely sure about--the Golden Rule, the need to battle cruelty in all its forms, the value of love and charity, humility and grace." An evangelical Christian in Kansas might wonder why hope in the resurrection of Christ is not explicitly listed (although it could be subsumed under "grace"). If I recall correctly, Obama speaks elsewhere in the same chapter of people who consider the "divinity of Christ" extremely important, almost as though it were one of the less important aspects of Christianity.

I hasten to add that (1) I am not claiming that Obama is not a good Christian, and that (2) I am not claiming that evangelicals should only vote for him if they decide he is a good Christian. I am suggesting, though, that, contrary to your praises last week, Obama has not come anywhere close to mastering the use of faith-infused language in politics.

Stating that what our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values" doesn't work for evangelicals who believe that true values are not universal but unique to their faith. For many, this statement contradicts with his call not "to discount the role that values and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems." There's a clear tension evident in his personal writing that I'm not convinced he has resolved. While not a "glaring negative," this is a significant challenge Obama will have to overcome and the one I was expecting you to mention today.

Obama may have a better chance of gaining evangelical votes than any other Democratic candidate, but I'm not sure it's that high. To reconnect to today's passage, I contend that conclusions like these can be offered on the basis of life testimonies alone, without the endorsement of spiritual mentors.