Faith and High Office: Do the Religious Beliefs of US Presidents Matter?

PrayingPosted with permission from Baptist Bulletin July/Aug. 2012. All rights reserved.

Do the religious beliefs of U.S. presidents matter? Though the question is not new (Baptists, as well as Protestants and evangelicals in general, wrestled with “the Catholic issue” when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960; Kennedy spoke to allay their fears), American voters appear to be headed toward a 2012 election with unusual religious features. As of this writing, the top-tier choices include a vaguely “Christian” candidate and an indisputably Mormon candidate. The latter appears certain to become the Republican nominee for president. This development has many taking a fresh—and anxiety-tinged—look at what they believe about separation of church and state.

For conservative Christians, the situation is especially uncomfortable. They believe deeply that President Obama’s political philosophy and policies are harming the country and that he must be defeated, yet they find Mitt Romney’s Mormonism disturbing. After all, though the Mormon religion is suffused with old-fashioned American values, it’s a religious newcomer born entirely by reinventing major components of the Christian faith—and that sort of reinventing is a profoundly “unconservative” thing to do to the religion that built Western civilization.

The situation has exposed confusion about the relationship between faith and high office. Left-leaning news outlets frame stories as though “religion in government” were a novel and dangerous idea. (See cbsnews.com.) But many toward the center and right are apparently confused as well. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll, 66 percent of Americans believe “political leaders should not rely on their religious beliefs in making policy decisions,” suggesting that, in the minds of many, faith and governance should have no relationship at all. Among conservatives, while some occasionally parrot the “separation of faith and politics” rhetoric of liberal secularists, more than a few tend to overstate the role of faith in government. (Take for example, the ABC News article “Rick Santorum Regrets Saying JFK’s Religion Speech Made Him Want to ‘Throw Up.’” See also “My Take” by R. Albert Mohler Jr. and “A More Accurate Reading.”)

How, then, should we view the role of religion in the lives of our civic leaders? More specifically, does the religion of a U.S. president matter? Can Christians, in good conscience, vote for a Mormon?

Three ways religion matters in high office

Some political thinkers have argued that a president’s religion is completely irrelevant, but in at least three ways, a public official’s religion is inseparable from how he or she governs.

1. Ultimate questions

First, religions are belief systems that, among other things, aim to answer ultimate questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is the difference between good and evil, right and wrong? Religions also tend to strongly influence our answers to two other questions: What is the nature and purpose of society, and what is the role of government in people’s lives?

If public officials, including presidents, do not have firm answers to these questions, they end up governing randomly. If they do have firm answers, those answers are, by their very nature, features of the leader’s religion—whether it’s some form of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or secular humanism.

As the source of his moral and ethical compass as well as his basic political philosophy, a leader’s religion has enormous importance. A leader’s beliefs in these areas are religious beliefs that he or she cannot (and should not) avoid “relying on.” Media outlets often assume that it is possible to exclude religion from these questions and that they may be answered in some religiously neutral way through science. But secularized science can offer no answers to the foundational questions of human nature, social ethics, and life’s meaning. To the degree any science answers these questions, it is no longer secular.

2. Marriage and family

Second, since a public official’s religion tells him the nature and purpose of society, his faith also shapes his view of society’s most basic institutions: the family and marriage. Conservative Christians believe these institutions have been under attack in American society for at least half a century and that this attack has continually intensified over the last decade. But even many moderates, liberals, and “progressives” agree with conservatives on one point: our society is at a crossroads, and many wish to transform the basic institutions of marriage and family. A president’s religion strongly influences what course he believes our society should take in this conflict.

3. The church-state relationship

Third, a presidential candidate’s religion matters to the degree that it teaches a specific view of the relationship between church and state. If his faith has a strong tradition of blurring the line between the authority of its religious institutions and the authority of government institutions, that blurring constitutes a fundamental incompatibility with high office in our system. On the other hand, if the candidate’s religion has a tradition of institutional separation between church bodies and state, his religion is not only compatible with the presidency but strengthens the independence of the office.

Sizing up the options

If a president’s religion matters in these three ways, how do evangelical Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism stack up?

Viewed from a high altitude, evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism share very similar views of human nature, the basic virtues and vices, morality, ethics, and marriage and family. This is especially the case if we filter the ideas we’re considering down to those that are most influential in how a leader conducts himself and makes governing decisions.

Viewed from the same perspective and employing the same filters, how does Mormonism compare? Pretty well, actually. Though Mormonism denies the deity of Christ and proclaims a false gospel—and is, therefore, a false religion—it affirms, along with several other religions, a high ethical and moral code and a high (extremely high) view of marriage and the family (see Article 13 of the Mormon Articles of Faith).

As an influence on how a leader governs, Mormonism’s view of human nature may be slightly more problematic. Since Mormonism holds that human beings and God are fundamentally the same kind of being and that humans are born free of any corruption or limitations of the original sin, it’s fair to characterize the Mormon view of human nature as a bit rosy! In that respect it has more in common with the Protestant, evangelical, and secular left than it does with conservative evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. The latter two share a far humbler and lower view of fallen human nature. Historically that view of human nature has informed how leaders see the restraining influence of law and government.

What about the separation of church and state then? While Roman Catholicism has a famously spotty record in this area, most of that record exists in the distant past. (For more on the Roman Catholic view of church and state, the Catholic Encyclopedia article “State and Church.” The Roman Church’s modern attitude seems to be more of the sort expressed here: “Pope urges Pakistan to repeal anti-blasphemy law.” Earnest Pickering’s 1960 article is dated but also worth reading: “Should America Elect A Roman Catholic President?”) Even in England, where the official Anglican relationship with affairs of state is far more integrated than we would accept in the U.S., basic boundaries are honored—especially over the last century or so. Evangelicalism, on the other hand, has always emphasized strong ideological influence on government while avoiding institutional entanglement.

What is Mormonism’s view of the church-state relationship? Breeches of proper church-state separation almost certainly occurred in the early years in Utah. However, the Mormon faith includes a high regard for government and law in the 12th of its 13 Articles of Faith. Though it does not use “separation of church and state” language, its emphasis is clear: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” In addition, the 11th article affirms the right of all men to “worship how, where, or what they may.” Though it’s true that Mormons believe in a literal restoration of the “10 tribes” of Israel on the American continent, they apparently see this as occurring after Christ returns to reign. (See www.lds.org and mormonbeliefs.org.)

If blogs are any indication, many rank-and-file Mormons do not believe in the separation of church and state (and using the same evidence, many Baptists don’t either!). But mainstream Mormon doctrine favors separate institutional spheres. In the case of Mitt Romney in particular, his record as the governor of Massachusetts reveals no inclination to involve the Mormon Church in the affairs of the state.

Two ways religion does not matter in high office

Though a president’s religion is important in several ways, in at least two ways it is not.

1. Character

Scripture is clear that a leader’s claim to believer status is no guarantee of good character. King Saul claimed to be a worshiper of the God of Israel, and even received “another heart” (1 Samuel 10:9). Nonetheless, Saul proved to be a man of weak character and poor judgment—once even commanding that his own son be executed for violating an impulsive and foolish royal directive (1 Samuel 14:43, 44).

In the New Testament, the Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes declared their devotion to God passionately and publicly—and we know what kind of rulers they were. (Matthew 23 provides a vivid summary).

We might be tempted to think that if a candidate makes a credible claim to Christian faith, he must be a better man than any unbeliever. After all, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). But the “Christian equals better character” view is flawed in two ways. First, it’s easy to falsely profess Christian faith, and even people who seem devout can be frauds (Matthew 7:22, 23). Second, though every true believer is indeed a new creation, the transformation of his character varies widely. Depending on how much exposure someone has had to the gracious influences of Christian parenting and Christian ways of thinking, two people who come to Christ may begin their journey of growth and change at very different starting points. God’s “good work” (Philippians 1:6) also follows unique sequence and rate of change in each life. The consequence is that some unbelievers have more Christian principles influencing their character and values than some believers.

Should we conclude that a leader’s faith has no bearing at all on his character? Surely not. What we may conclude is that Christian influence on character is independent of official religious identity. A leader may claim the faith but be influenced little by it. He may not claim the faith and yet be influenced a great deal by it.

In addition, many of the basic principles and values that comprise Christian character and attitudes are also promoted by other religions. Just about every major faith claims the Golden Rule. Nearly all of them teach honesty, diligence, and some idea of justice. And who doesn’t believe in compassion? God’s common grace (Matthew 5:45) is such that He not only rains water on the just and the unjust, He sprinkles the qualities of good character in some unlikely places as well.

2. Competence

Most people don’t rank Christian faith at the top of the list of qualifications for a good heart surgeon. They intuitively understand that if you have a choice between an atheist with a hundred successful surgeries and a high school sophomore who loves the Lord, but has only dissected a frog, the atheist is the hands-down winner.

But when faced with a choice for high office, many seem to lack that intuitive grasp of the situation. They assume that a Christian candidate is better than a non-Christian one regardless of actual skill level. The confusion on this point is probably due partly to a failure of the imagination. Because most voters have never held any kind of office—or served in a leadership role of any kind—it’s easy for them to think that no special skills are involved. You just have to want to do it. With that error as a starting point, many naively favor any candidate who shares their beliefs, even preferring novices and outsiders over leaders who have demonstrated the skills of statecraft.

In most cases a candidate’s religion has little relationship to his competence in performing the duties of office.

Conclusion

Does a public official’s religion matter? Yes and no. On one hand, a political leader’s actual religious beliefs are far more important than the religion he officially claims—and these beliefs do directly influence the goals he pursues in office as well as the way he conducts that pursuit. On the other hand, we cannot confidently rely on a leader’s religious identity as an indicator of his character and competence.

We should vote with the understanding that every candidate is religious (even if he styles himself an atheist or an agnostic) and with the understanding that his religious convictions do not necessarily match those of the religious identity he claims. For these reasons and others, we should evaluate candidates by looking for evidence of good character, a high level of leadership competence, and understanding of human nature, morality, society, and government that harmonize well with our Christian convictions.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

….then you have the whole electability question.

It’s theoretically possible that someone could join the race as 3rd party candidate who has manifestly better character than either of the leading two, and a more credible claim to being a Christian.

I would argue that even if Mystery Candidate gives every evidence of being a believer and of having character equal or better than that of the front runners, the next questions would be:

a. Are his ideas and competence superior?

b. Will voting for him really only help elect the worst of the frontrunners?

The “b” question confuses many because they feel that voting for the best electable guy (when a 3rd party person is better) is “pragmatism,” and that voting for the unelectable guy is “voting your conscience.” So the choices are framed as pragmatism vs. principle. But, as I’ve argued at length elsewhere, “actual results of my behavior” is​ a principle. So the choice is between the idealism principle and the actual outcome principle.

I’d go further and argue that in that situation, it’s a choice between sentimentality and principle. “Sentimentality,” because when we do that, we want our good intentions to count (“conscience” becomes “what I feel good about doing”) even though the actual results are harmful.

Am I truly acting on my conscience if I ignore the actual, foreseeable results of my choices?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron,

I completely disagree on point B. I think you have your sentiment and your principle backwards. God never calls us to make decisions based on what others will do. Given the mystery candidate who is of “manifestly better character than either of the leading two, and a more credible claim to being a Christian” and assuming he meets the criteria of point A, point B is biblically irrelevant. I don’t think voting for another candidate in that situation is defensible. In the end, we will only give account for our personal vote. You cannot argue that your vote was harmful, only that too few people agreed with it. Only when you bypass your mystery candidate in favor of a lesser candidate can you say your vote was harmful; you were part of the nation-wide problem then.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Where does Scripture make a distinction between non-personal results of our actions and personal results of our actions? What I mean is that the fact that we’re talking about a vote in which millions will cast a ballot doesn’t really put it in a different ethical category.

For example, what’s the right thing to do in the following scenario?

  • I’m in a burning building and trying to exit.
  • As I’m leaving, I discover three people in need of help.
  • Two can’t walk without my assistance, one is pinned under a fallen beam.
  • I stop to see if I can free the one from the beam, but I can only very slowly move it. He’s crying and pleading with me “Don’t leave me here!” But if I do leave him, I can save two other people who are quickly running out of time.

For most of us, I think the ethically right choice is pretty clear. Go save the other two and maybe come back to the beam guy if there’s time.

But If we is​olate the beam-victim decision, the ethics gets oversimplified: it’s wrong to walk away from someone you might be able to save. If we put that choice in the context of actual results, the ethical choice is obvious: if I stay there tugging at the beam, the other two are going to perish.

We could contrive simpler examples, I’m sure. Suppose I’m a courier ordered to deliver medicine to a hospital and, on the way, I see an elderly lady stumble in the street and there’s a semi bearing down on her. If I isolate my choice from it’s consequences, I can reason “It’s wrong for me not to follow my instructions and deliver my product as quickly as possible.” But if I look at the consequences I have to consider “If I don’t stop, this poor lady is going to be injured or killed.”

Consequences matter.

So, if the consequences are predicated on what other people will do, do they matter less? Am I less responsible? In the semi scenario, my decision to stop and help is predicated on the idea that the driver is not likely to see her and stop in time. If it was a giant rolling stone instead of a human-operated vehicle, does that really change the ethics of the situation? What if we change the fire in the first scenario to a rioting mob that is assaulting or trampling everyone in its path? Am I right to tug at the beam and let the other two die because the rioters are making their own choices and they’re not my responsibility?

So the trouble here, whether we call it sentimentalism or something else, amounts to a problem of isolating a choice from its real consequences. “If I vote for 3rd party guy who has zero chance of getting elected but is a ‘better’ man, I’m doing the right thing” is only possible if we disconnect that from what our vote actually does. But the disconnect is a fantasy. It does what it does whether we pay attention to it or not.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

In the burning building, all of the decisions are yours and yours alone. In the voting issue, you are only responsible for your one vote, no one else’s decision. The aggregate of decisions is out of your control in the vote, so you will only be accountable for the one decision you controlled.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Who owns the decision is not really a point of disagreement. I agree that we’re only responsible for the decision we ourselves made. We are also responsible for the actual results of that decision. Separating the decision from its consequences isn’t really workable as an approach to weighing the ethics of choices.

I expected someone to raise the objection that we don’t really know what people are going to do, don’t really know what the “rioters” in my 2nd scenario are going to do. This is true, and a factor that often muddies the waters of the “ethics of voting.” I’ve referred a couple of times to a 3rd party candidate who has “zero” chance of winning. I chose a high level of certainty in order to emphasis that consequences do matter in weighing the rightness of choices.

But in reality the degree of certainty about consequences is often far murkier, and that’s what makes decision-making so difficult. It would be easy if we knew every time that leaving the guy under the beam will allow us to successfully rescue the other two or that pulling him out will result in the deaths of the other two. But life tends to present us with much messier sets of options.

It would also be easy, in my opinion, if it was always obvious that candidate X cannot possibly win. It isn’t always that obvious. Fortunately, in Presidential politics it usually is. The time for using votes on long shot candidates is usually in the primaries and caucuses. After that, because a vote is a zero-sum game, every vote I give to one candidate I effectively subtract from the remaining candidates. So if I give that vote to one who cannot win, the actual outcome is that I have taken a vote from the best man who can win.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Sorry for the long delay in response.

I do agree with you that we should never “not vote at all”. I do agree though that we are not limited to just two candidates and all should be on the table. I do not buy the idea that as soon as primaries are over that what we have left of the two is the best we got. I also agree that we may never find the 100% candidate, but I am leaning towards refusing to vote for the one that is just 51% when there are others that are much closer they just don’t have a D or R behind their name.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

I do think that God does lay out a great amount of criteria for us and we may be able to use His examples. If Clinton was repentive, then trust will ensue, it is our obligation to do so.