The media probes things taught in Governor Palin’s former church, Wasilla Assembly of God, her present church, Wasilla Bible Church, and Obama’s former membership in Trinity United Church of Christ and the Reverend Wright. This probing begs for an answer to the question, “Is a candidate’s church membership or lack thereof relevant?” The answer is, of course it is, and the media should probe in these areas because faith as well as non-faith matters.
However, one must be careful to remember that not all tenets of one’s faith have equal or even mentionable political relevance.For example, while Palin’s beliefs concerning Israel’s place in God’s plan may very well have direct political consequences, or Wright’s beliefs that “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” or that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack was “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” clearly have political relevance, one’s beliefs concerning such things as whether he/she has the spiritual gift of giving, or whether Christians are to be baptized by immersion or pouring, etc., do not.
Concerning Governor Palin, while I may disagree with her charismatic associations, those disagreements are categorically different and politically innocuous in comparison with the disagreements that I have with Reverend Wright’s statements and his liberation theology. To treat them as politically equivalent is to betray either a profound theological and political obtuseness or procrustean partisanship.
In addition, just because a candidate’s Christian faith impacts his/her position on an issue, does not ipso facto preclude such positions from public policy debate; for example, Palin’s understanding of Israel being a part of God’s overall plan and therefore America should be her ally–a view to which I also subscribe–cannot be summarily dismissed simply because it is a part of her trust in the Scripture any more than a secularist belief should be dismissed merely because it is a part of his materialism.
Therefore, for an item of faith to be relevant to a candidate’s political viability, it must have political consequences. Conversely, for an item of faith to be deemed unworthy of policy debate, it must be a perspective that is based solely upon one’s faith. The only requirement for an opinion that is a part of one’s Christian faith to be worthy of policy debate is that other reasons, which are accessible to those who are not adherents to the Christian faith, can be presented, e.g. Israel is a democracy. In other words, if one believes that God desires Israel to be a state, that will influence the candidate’s political decisions, and that influence is quite appropriate as long as there are additional reasons provided that are accessible to all.
As a pastor, I see another problem that basically goes unmentioned. A candidate’s church or faith is far less significant if he does not present himself as an “authentic and sincere” Christian. However, since both Obama and Palin claim sincerity and authenticity, one should assume that they in fact agree with the major teachings and emphases of their local churches, and this simply because if they do not, sincerity and authenticity would beckon them elsewhere, for to stay would be duplicitous.
If a candidate claims to be an authentic Christian while simultaneously denying belief in the major emphases of the church he/she faithfully attends, authenticity is tarnished, which gives pause to casting a vote for him/her since a vote is an expression of trust.
As for Palin, more consideration should be given to the church that she joined six years ago and is a member of now, than the one she belonged to years ago since apparently her present church more closely approximates her beliefs.
