Religion in the Presidential Campaign

To one extent or another religion is a topic of discussion in the campaigns of most of the contenders for the U.S. presidency.  This column provides a brief run-down of the religious views, insofar as they can be determined from public statements and analyses, of the remaining candidates for the two major parties’ nominations.  I list them in alphabetical order by last name.

Having attended mass with his Catholic wife for many years, Jeb Bush formally converted to Catholicism in 1995.  From all reports he is sincere and devout in his faith, which clearly influenced many of his actions as governor of Florida.  In his presentation to a 2009 conference, he stated, “As a public leader, one’s faith should guide you,” and that attitude was in evidence when, for example, as governor he established the nation’s first faith-based prison and attempted unsuccessfully to compel a hospital to keep Terri Schaivo on life-support.  He differs from Catholic doctrine on the matter of capital punishment, however, having presided over 21 executions during his time as governor.  Since the publication of Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change, Bush has acknowledged that earth’s climate is changing due, at least in part, to human activity, but he has not articulated any clear program to address the problem.

Who Speaks for Christianity?

It is common today to read or hear someone claim to be representing “the Christian view” on any, frequently controversial, topic.  A recent example is the statement that Richard Land, newly appointed president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, made in an interview published July 25^th in The Charlotte Observer: “I’m an apologist in the culture for the Christian world view.”  Notice that he speaks of the Christian world view, not a Christian world view.  The clear implication is that there exists only a single Christian world view, and that Land, a Southern Baptist who lost his previous position last year when he was exposed as a plagiarist, represents it completely and accurately.

There are estimated to be 41,000 Christian denominations worldwide.  The 2006 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches lists 217 denominations in our two countries.  Pew Forum studies completed since 2006 indicate that, in addition to denominations, there are in excess of 35,000 independent or non-denominational churches, representing more than 12 million adherents.  Given such a multiplicity of Christian groups, with their wide variety of creeds, doctrines, and belief systems, the idea that there is but a single Christian world view becomes an easy one to challenge.

The question then becomes, Who speaks for Christianity?  I would argue that the only logical answer is that no one person or group can make such a claim.  Despite that logic, however, many try to do so.  How well do those claims hold up to scrutiny?

Democracy or Dominion?

In the first creation story found in Genesis, God is recorded as having given humankind “dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”  (Genesis 1:28b)  Exactly what that means for the relationship between humans and other creatures has been and continues to be a matter of intense debate.  Some read it to mean that God intends the creatures of earth to be merely of use to humankind, with no value beyond the utilitarian.  Others understand the passage to indicate a more mutual relationship, one in which humanity is held responsible for good stewardship and protection of the lives and well-being of the creatures with which we share life on this planet.  The Rev. John Bell, speaking at a workshop which he recently led at Kirkridge Retreat and Conference Center, took this latter position, making a distinction between “dominion,” which he viewed as responsible exercise of authority, and “domination,” described as unjust and oppressive relationship.

In recent decades the term “dominion” has been adopted by a particular strand of independent, charismatic Christians to describe their intention to control most aspects of our civil life together.  In this reading “dominion” includes not just other creatures but humanity as well. This Dominionist theology is the hallmark of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), about which I wrote in my November column.  And it incorporates an understanding of the End Times and Christ’s Second Coming which is substantially at odds with the Millenarian teaching which I described in February. 

First Amendment Challenge

During the months leading up to this year’s general elections, one of the races that I followed with particular interest was the one for governor of Hawaii.  The Republican nominee, Lieutenant Governor James “Duke” Aiona, is closely identified with the International Transformation Network (ITN), an extremely conservative Charismatic Evangelical Christian organization which is aligned with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement.  A win for Aiona could have set the stage for a serious challenge to the First Amendment rights of the citizens of our western-most state, fewer than half of whom are Christian.

The ITN and NAR advocate a brand of Christianity which falls under the general term “Dominionist.”  That is, they seek to place their adherents in positions of power in all areas of society, including business, education, culture, and government.  The ultimate goal is to transform a multi-cultural, democratic society where minorities enjoy constitutional protection and religious freedom into a theocracy in which divergent beliefs are marginalized or eliminated.