CULTURALLY COMPARTMENTILIZED

I Was Just Thinking About - - -

There is an ongoing tension existing between people of principle and those whose scruples (a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions) are marginal. The tension is exacerbated by those in Media who believe the general public has more interest in the “gotcha” type question than they are about the beliefs and convictions of an individual. This becomes more pronounced when political aspirants announce their candidacy for a political office. Almost immediately, there is the desire of those with a muckraker orientation to delve into a person’s entire life with the brightest spotlight possible to disclose and exaggerate every foible (weakness or failing of character; slight flaw or defect). By doing so, they determine a person’s narrative and endeavor to define the person today on the basis of some comment or action from the distant past. It fails to recognize or allow for personal transformation and growth.

Recently, this became an issue when one candidate for the Presidency was asked whether or not a Muslim could hold the elective office of President of the United States. World Magazine has an Editorial under the heading of Campaign 2016 where D.C. Innes has written the following: “Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson had this in mind when he answered NBC’s Chuck Todd, who asked him on Meet the Press, ‘Should a president’s faith matter?’ Carson responded knowledgeably: ‘It depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.’ The retired neurosurgeon was assuming that one’s faith governs one’s entire life, that it’s not compartmentalized and privatized." When addressing the abortion question, Mario Cuomo assured us in 1984 that his Roman Catholic faith was safely isolated from his service as governor of New York. In 1960, people were deeply concerned about Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic allegiances. Would the Pope be directing American public policy? Given the papacy’s political involvement over the last thousand years or so, it was a reasonable concern. Liberal Democrats today are concerned in the same way that if we elect a Bible-believing Christian, we will be electing Jesus.  But John F. Kennedy settled the matter with this famous assurance: ‘I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.’ This is the assurance Carson says he would want from a Muslim presidential candidate.”

It’s regrettable that the sentiment and personal conviction of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. does not govern the dialogue currently. He embellished a statement used by many others over the years when he stated: “I may not be the man I want to be; I may not be the man I ought to be; I may not be the man I could be; I may not be the man I truly can be; but praise God, I’m not the man I once was.” It was just a statement intended to resonate with his audience but one that was borne out of the reality that a person is something more than a body seeking an office. The totality of the individual recognizes that one is more than that because all are body, soul and spirit. We glean this totality of our being from a blessing given by the Apostle Paul in I Thessalonians 5:23-24, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your entire spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The One who calls you is faithful, and He will do it.”

In politics there is a delicate balance between civil government and personal convictions. The Old Testament reminds us of both Moses and Joseph rising up to positions of political governing while never compromising their spiritual relationship or convictions regarding the Lord. This was also true of Daniel when he was carried off to Babylon. However, the line that must be drawn when the name of Jesus being uttered becomes one’s Rubicon. Peter made this abundantly clear in Acts 5:28-29 when the ruler’s demanded: “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name…Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us responsible for this man’s (Jesus’) blood.” But Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God rather than men.” May God give those seeking political office (and we the electorate) the spiritual courage and wisdom to be clear and precise regarding what we believe and why we believe it. Consider these things with me!