Evangelicals and endorsements

With the recent endorsement of Rudy Giuliani by Pat Robertson, James Dobson's criticism of the Republican party for supporting candidates with certain views, and Mitt Romney's Mormonism, political pundits and commentators have tried to offer their perspective on the Christian Right/Evangelicals and politics. I want to outline the traps that these commentators should avoid (but usually don't):

1) Religion belongs in political discussions. Not discussing a candidate's religious beliefs is as absurd an idea as not discussing their economic philosophy, or their philosophy of government, or their views on war. Certain theological themes probably don't matter to most voters--but if a candidate believes that God wants them to wage war on all "heathens," convert everyone to their religion, or even that Jesus supports their health care plan should matter greatly.

Discussion of religion goes well beyond saying, "I'm Catholic," "I'm Presbyterian" or "I'm Mormon," but discussing how one's religious beliefs guide their views and decisions. Commentators should feel free to discuss why their beliefs guide their support of a candidate (though taking note of the traps below), and candidates should discuss what they believe and how it guides them.

2) No one is a "spokesman" for evangelicals. One of the central tenets of evangelicism is a personal relationship with Christ, so I do not think evangelicals look to the political insiders claiming to be spokesmen for evangelicals for guidance, but rather their own beliefs, their own reading of the Bible, and their own personal relationship with God.

3) "Jesus wants you to vote for XXX." Almost no one says this outright, but it is often implied by too many commentators and political activists. Again, pointing too why they support a candidate, based on their religious beliefs is desirable. But attempting to act as a spokesman for God or for Christianity is offensive to most Christians.

4) "Candidate X is a better Christian than Candidate Y." This type of argument comes up far more often than #3 - but I would caution Christians from claiming a candidate isn't a good Christian, based on past sins, or that they don't praise God enough in speeches.

5) Most political differences are policy differences, not theological. The Bible contains no quotes from Jesus calling on the Roman Empire to provide health care, to ban abortion, to ban same-sex marriage, or to lower taxes. Using the Bible to justify public policy views, is going to be ineffective.

Take for instance, Governor Rendell's attempt to use the Bible to justify his health care policy, arguing that the Bible calls for "healing the sick" and "helping the poor". But as I contend, free-market reforms will better heal the sick and help the poor. The difference in our views is not based on different translations of the Bible, different theological differences, or belief that Christ is the Son of God (Governor Rendell is Jewish), but largely on economics.

Certainly religious beliefs help form stances my stances on both social and fiscal policy - the notion of equal rights endowed by our creator, the belief in individual freedom and personal responsibility, the notion of a "protestant work ethic" as the catalyst for wealth and prosperity, and the idea that personal charity (not government programs) are the appropriate measure of a civil society. But I cannot claim someone is not a good Christian for disagreeing with me, but I won't hesitate to use economics and history to persuade them that I am right.

6) Being a hypocrite. The most common example are commentators calling out a "religious" political activist for being too political for endorsing a candidate or taking a stance on issues; then taking a counter position or endorsing a different candidate, citing "religious grounds".