White House God 4

Scot, is it Balmer or you that is calling it "the faith card?" Wording it that way makes it suspect from the get-go, and I'm not sure that's necessarily fair to Carter, Reagan or Bush.

What also puzzled me was the conclusion that Jimmy Carter was "more born again" believer at one point than he is now. Could you explain what you mean by that? It doesn't sound like you to quantitatively, or even qualitatively, judge someone else's faith, so I must be missing something??

I wondered about that statement re: Carter's faith as well, and wondered if you were using it more as a descriptive term about a type of Christianity, eg. he holds less to the "born again" model of faith, which tends to have certain theological baggage that goes with it. Or were you saying he is less "Christian" now than he was then. Not all Christians would describe themselves as "born again" simply because it implies a series of evangelical beliefs that they do not hold. To some extent this is because "born again" Christians exclude those who do hold certain theological tenets, that are not necessarily central Christian creeds.

It's pretty easy to be cynical about statements of faith among candidates, because nearly everything they say is designed to market themselves to whatever demographic they think they need to capture.

I tend to respect and admire those who quietly affirm their faith when asked, and yet don't go out of their way to be photographed with big leather Bibles that don't look like they get any use.

I think it must be pretty challenging to be committed to serving Christ while trying to run for high profile elected office where the stakes are high, the tricks are dirty, and the behind the scenes deals, deceptions and carnage are legendary. It's a dirty business with a lot at stake. People fight for those positions of power.

Most of us would like to see a person of strong character in high office for obvious reasons, but a mere statement of faith doesn't carry much weight for me anymore. I'm much more concerned about the individual's actual track record in their votes, their personal relationships, and their reputation with who work under them.

I think he was then more born-again than he is now.

Impossible. Your prejudices, upbringing, and/or theological training are showing. I would suggest that Carter doesn't have to use that kind of language any more when the whole world knows he regularly teaches Sunday School in the Maranatha Baptist Church of Plains, Georgia, and is practically the face of Habitat for Humanity.

Actually, I like the term "faith card". I don't have a problem with it. Now more to the point and to attempt to answer your question ("How genuine do you think the faith card is for our political candidates?).

Simply, I greet it with skepticism. Politicians of various flavors and grit, have invoked the faith card. Even Bill Clinton tried to do it. But it's been real vogue since Reagan and Falwell. The Republicans have tried to co-opt the evangelical vote because they know it's a force to be faced. even the Democrats know it but I think they clench their teeth any time they have to mention it.

Courting the evangel-vote I see as being a political stunt to get elected and that's all. Once in office the evangelicals are marginalized and/or demonized. Huckabee is a great example of this. Watch the press toady up to him. Why? Because his policies embrace big-government, nanny-government (government is your momma), some socialist policy and ideology. The press can absolve him. But Huckabee plays the faith card and wants us to look the other way.

Oh my gosh! How could I forget? Remember Alan Keyes? Did Keyes play the faith card? I think not. Hardly any of the evangel-voters gave him the time of day.

The problem is that these are people we don't get to be in true community with when it comes to judging the fruit of their faith. All we have to go on are reported faith practices (such as worship attendance) and reported political work (such as voting records) and, if the politician has written publicly, their books.

I believe that it's only speculation on our part if we say that so-and-so is a strong Christian (or any other faith). The tricky thing is that in the case of Christians, IF a politician has professed faith in Jesus Christ, do we have legitimate reason and/or credible evidence that they're NOT Christians? Should we make public (or private) statements that denigrate a brother or sister in Christ? Do we deny that they're fellow Christians?

Will we ever really know, short of eternity, if they've "practiced justice, loved kindness, and walked humbly with their God"? I submit that since we have to largely rely on the media's reporting to inform our opinions, we're not going to get especially reliable "evidence" pro or con.

Scot and others,

To the idea that Carter is heard speaking of his faith less now than he used to... I'm not sure what venues anyone hears him speak in at all these days, much less which of those would be places we'd expect to hear him talk of his faith, yet he doesn't. But for those who have the time, I'd recommend listening to his interview on Krista Tippett's Speaking of Faith (which, as it's name implies, is certainly a venue where we would expect such talk, so I'm trying to get at the content of what he says more than the fact he's saying it).

wrt Carter, the term "born-again Christian" was in widespread use in the 70's and meant a particular thing: one had recognized one's sin, through scripture reading or hearing preaching, come to believe that Jesus' atonement was necessary and enough to free one from sin, and made a decision to accept that atonement and enter into a relationship with God, most often done by praying a certain kind of prayer. Even non-"born-again Christians" knew that.

I think Carter was trying to identify with a certain segment of the population (young, "religious", not wealthy). He may have thought such a declaration would give him credibility with a wider spectrum of people. From what I have observed of Carter, he is a very smart man, but I don't think he was trying to "play a card". Carter told us several pointed and truthful things that we didn't want to hear... I remember some people, including a lot of Christians, being irked that he would make his religious views that public, especially after Kennedy and the "Catholic question". (I remember my parents being concerned that all the kerfluffle around Kennedy's religion would result in some sort of persecution of Catholics.)

I agree with Drew#2 and Psalmist#11.

Dana

#16,

What in the world is a "faith consultant"? I propose this: the person is a political consultant and strategist. Someone who can spin the "faith" language and image the right way for whoever is contracting him/her.

It's making up for lost time in my opinion. It is also a less than noble try to play the "faith card." But as the game goes, it has to be in any politicians play book especially when running for state and national office.

So where do our Islamic voters fall? Aren't they part of the "faith" vote? Or is "faith" a euphemism for "evangelical Christian"?

Isn't Jim Wallis of Sojourners a faith consultant?

Josenmiami--good points...

i think that deconstructing culturally delimited use of the very biblical term 'born again' is quite necessary.

We must be born again, born anew, born from above.
And the marks of truly born again Christians are mostly the opposite of the culturally closed-doors circled wagons postures of the religious right. So we do need to challenge each other when we slip into culturally delimited usage. it only encourages the slip-slide into meaningless language.

Maybe we need to reconstruct the new testament language of maturation in Christ... that's supposed to follow with born-again experience. Like insist on some evidence of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5) and the beatitudes in praxis... whenever we hear the term born-again... ?

blessings,