 |
| Photo: Zach Rudisin |
When faith enters a political discussion, the wringing of the hands begins, and lamentations are offered for those who do not believe, but are forced to live in a Christian society. This pattern has emerged in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primaries, as faith leaders endorse various candidates, some opting for candidates who are outspoken about their faith, and others endorsing candidates whose lives run counter to Biblical teaching.
The great debate ensues. Should a candidate's faith be important in your decision to vote for him? Or should you disregard faith, as America is not electing a "Pastor in chief?" At some point, the separation of church and state will be pointed out, and someone will note that we need to keep faith and politics separate to protect the rights of non-Christians and non-believers. Such a notion is born out of an unfounded fear that America could one day drift toward theocracy, where religion becomes law and the people are subject to the spiritual whims of whoever is in power.
This fear is unfounded because it is not grounded in reality. If one were to observe the Spiritual and religious habits of Americans over the past 40 years, one would notice a drift away from religion and faith, not toward. However, truth is not revealed in polling data and the daily habits of the people. The fact is that theocracy will never come to America, because America is structured to protect the rights of the individual. America was founded to escape the theocracy of Britain, thus a system of separation of church and state was implemented to prevent religion from being integrated into American government. Still, the founding fathers understood the role of faith among the nation's leadership, and our nation's early philosophers understood the need of faith in making the American democracy work.
In exploring the threat (or lack thereof) of theocracy to America, we must understand that the American system was designed to keep theocratic rule out of government. This was done, as America escaped theocracy during the American revolution. When the church of England split from the Catholic church, the King Henry VIII declared himself as the head of the church of England. (This was done to allow King Henry to have another divorce.) Since then, every monarch of England has served as the head of the church of England. During that time, all other religion in England, Catholic or Protestant, or independent, was outlawed, and severe persecution ensued. Conversion was required, and worship was nearly compulsory.
That same system was in existence when the American colonies were established, and when the colonies rebelled. At that time the same king who oppressed the colonies economically and civilly, also oppressed the colonies Spiritually. The severity rose to the point that the colonists, under divine leadership and under the leadership of intellectual giants, drafted the Declaration of Independence, which declared that God gave man his unalienable rights, and no king could take those rights away. In addition to casting off the king's authority over legal matters in the colonies, the Declaration of Independence cast off his religious authority as well. Each man has the right to connect with God without having to go through a mere mortal, let alone a king.
The American Revolution ensued, and the United States ultimately won their independence. Following the war, the Constitution was drafted to structure the new government, and to protect the rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Upon ratification, 10 amendments were offered to guarantee the freedoms listed in the Declaration of Independence. The first of which guaranteed the right to free speech, free press, the right to assemble, and the free exercise of religion. By the wording of the First Amendment, government (particularly Congress) was prevented from making laws regarding the establishment of religion, meaning Congress could neither create, adopt, nor regulate religion. (This is one reason why churches are automatically tax-exempt. To subject churches to tax policy would be to regulate them, which would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.)
While the First Amendment implied a separation of church and state, subsequent Supreme Court decisions (which exists to interpret and define law) affirmed it. The separation of church and state was also supported by early religious leaders, particularly the Baptists, who, under the leadership of Rev. John Leland, lobbied Thomas Jefferson for religious freedom during the founding days of the country.
Today, hostility continues to be directed toward the merger of church and state. References to God and the 10 Commandments are being removed from the public square, prayer is being removed from local government proceedings and school sporting events. There's even hostility toward high school cheerleaders putting Bible verses (taken out of context to support an athletic theme) on run-through banners.
This continued hostility, coupled with the general drift away from the Christian religion in America, demonstrates that the Constitutional concept of separation of church and state is alive and well, and that there is no effort to legislate religion. No one is proposing mandatory conversion, mandatory worship, mandatory church membership, mandatory tithing, mandatory praise, mandatory prayer or mandatory Bible reading.
The battle over America's heart and soul today does not center around which religion America will adopt, if any. The battle over America's heart and soul centers around the definition of morality. While one's definition of morality is often drawn from one's faith or religious beliefs, one's viewpoints should no less be discounted. In reality, everyone's moral compass is formed from a belief in something other than one's self, whether it be God, the universe, or natural law. We believe things are right because they are, and we believe things are wrong because they are. And this is why we quarrel. We argue over whether something meets or breaks this invisible law of morality. For more on that, read the first three chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.
Christians who insert their view of morality into this national discussion are no more forcing their religion onto others than the atheist who inserts his view on morality forces others into his non-belief. The question is, which standard will the public ultimately accept? Given recent trends in our society, I don't believe that I, as a Baptist minister, will like the answer.
Theocracy is not coming to America. We're not drifting toward it, we're not advocating for it, and if it even looked like we were headed that direction, the American people would stand against it.
Which brings us back to the question which started this whole discussion. Should a candidate's faith be considered when electing a President. I contend that it should be.
First, it should be noted that our founding fathers were men of faith. Some discount the role of Christianity in the founding of the country, referring to our founding fathers as "deists," rather than Christians. None-the-less, they had a belief in God, which propelled them to write the Declaration of Independence, fight for independence, and then draft the Constitution in such a way that freedom was defended, and the country didn't just replace one king with another.
It was the faith of the Christians in the early days of our nation that saw the need for the separation of church and state, recognizing that once government involved itself in religion, all religious freedom would be lost.
One cannot read the writings of the founding fathers without seeing references to God, whether it be the Declaration, or the newspaper columns of Benjamin Franklin. Even Franklin, who himself had moral failures, saw the need for faith and morality in the free American republic. Had these men not faith, they would have had no incentive to protect the freedoms of all Americans. They would have seen no need to protect the freedom to worship, and they would have seen no need to establish what has become the greatest nation on Earth.
With that backdrop, let me make the following points. (1) Presidents need to be men (or women) of faith because the job of the President is bigger than any one individual. The President's decisions are heavy, will impact millions around the world, and the results are not guaranteed. Thus, the President needs to lean on the Lord for guidance, and be willing to trust God with the results.
(2) Like the founding fathers, the President needs the moral fortitude to put the country first. The President needs to look past his personal interests, and the interests of his political party, and make decisions that will benefit all Americans for years down the road. If I may be honest, I feel this moral fortitude has been missing from the White House for at least 16 years. While both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have made decisions for the good of the country, many, if not most, of their actions have been for no other purpose than to advance their party's leverage.
(3) The President is an example to the people. John F. and Jackie Kennedy were huge influences on American culture. Their ability to live life as a couple, deeply engaged in the latest fashions and raising young children, helped Americans return to a normal life in the height of the bomb scares of the Cold War. Furthermore, the President is a Counselor in chief to the American people. Who can remember Ronald Reagan's words in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, George W. Bush's words following 9/11, Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech to Congress following Pearl Harbor, or Abraham Lincolns words following Gettysburg?
Given the complexities of the office, the need for the defense of freedom, and the need for the American people to have a strong leader, faith is an absolute essential for any competent Presidential candidate. But never fear, theocracy still is not coming to America.
