Some of my more recent blogs may leave some of my readers scratching their heads. You may be asking, “How is the pro-life movement related to the purpose of this blog?” And you may ask today, “How are politics related to the purpose of this blog?”

Changeless Truth for Changing Times

The purpose for the blog “Changeless Truth for Changing Times” is to ponder how the ancient paths of biblical wisdom, and the wisdom gleaned from church history, can make a relevant difference in our lives today.

To date, many of my blogs have focused on applying ancient truth specifically to relational life—counseling, spiritual growth, multicultural relationships. I intend to keep this focus.

I also intend to expand my focus. The Bible and church history have relevance for how we view slavery, racism, abortion, and protecting the unborn. And, the Bible has relevance for how we view politics—which is people—how people are governed by other people.

Now, before you wonder if my blogs are going to veer off into political-speak or become focused on recommending a candidate—there’s no need to fear, balance is here!

My Purpose and Plan

This article will not be recommending a candidate for president or even a party for the presidency. Rather, I want to do three things:

1. I want to summarize quite briefly a few statements by Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, and Barack Obama about their view of religion and the political process.

2. Then I want to summarize how the media has covered their statements.

3. Finally, I want to critique the media for failing to be fair and balanced in their coverage and statements about these three candidates.

This is really the heartbeat of all my blog posts: presenting the best I can one biblical perspective (not the right perspective, but my current best attempt) that is as fair and balanced to the biblical, historical, and current realities as possible.

A Very Brief Summary of Some of Mike Huckabee’s Statements about Religion and Politics

Likely you have read political columnists and heard arm-chair pundits excoriate and rip to shreds Mike Huckabee for a statement that he made ten years ago at the National Pastors’ Conference explaining why he entered into politics.

“I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. . . . I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

Governor Huckabee was not making a political speech. He was not at a political event. He was making a religious speech at a Christian event—a pastor’s conference. And, he was not running for president in 1998. In fact, he was not running for anything when he spoke. He made a statement that most Evangelicals would identify with—final answers to life issues are not found in human political solutions but in the life of the Spirit brought by a personal relationship to Christ. Admittedly, the intent of this statement was to indicate that his views of politics and political answers were shaped by his Christian faith (more on this in a moment).

But . . . to read his critics, you would think that Huckabee wanted to be Pope Huckabee now instead of President Huckabee.

Yet, his critics refuse to hear his follow-up and refuse to examine his record.

Huckabee said on NBC’s Meet the Press in December, 2007,

“It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptist.”

Asked further about his comments, he stated in a December 30, 2007 issue of Time,

“The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict anyone,” Huckabee said. Those skeptical of the role of faith in his presidency, he said, should look at his record in Arkansas. “I didn’t ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn’t do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol.”

Have you noticed that when people write and speak about Huckabee, they always introduce their words with, “Mike Huckabee, former Baptist Pastor . . .”

Mike Huckabee served as Lt. Governor and then as Governor (ten years) longer than Bill Clinton served as Governor of Arkansas, and longer than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton served in the Senate. So why don’t the pundits introduce him as, “Mike Huckabee, long-serving Governor of Arkansas . . .”?

My point is not to support Huckabee’s statements or to endorse his candidacy. My point is to examine how the secular elite media respond to his views of politics and religion compared to how they respond to similar such statements made by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A Very Brief Summary of Some of Hillary Clinton’s Statements about Religion and Politics

Biographer Paul Kengor has written a well-research spiritual biography of Hillary Clinton: God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. In his book, Kengor quotes Hillary’s own words and the words of her spiritual mentors to demonstrate that her liberal United Methodist religious views thoroughly shape her political views.

Here’s one example. Note that it took place in a political arena, not in a religious arena as a religious speech. Mrs. Clinton gave a major address in April 6, 1993 (while Bill was President and while she was charged with the political role of developing a national health care plan), at the University of Texas at Austin, as part of the college’s annual Liz Carpenter Lecture Series.

It was at this speech that Hillary introduced the phrase to the public: “the politics of meaning.” Where did she learn this concept? From her liberal Christian spiritual mentor Don Jones who in turn learned it from liberal theologians like Tillich.

What did she mean by the “politics of meaning”? In her speech she noted that America was trapped between two great political forces: Republican market economics and Democratic governmental policies. She noted that missing in these equations was an adequate explanation for the challenges facing the nation.

What then, would provide adequate political answers? She was asked that question in an article written by Michael Kelly in the New York Times Magazine that ran on May 23, 1993. She eventually acknowledged to Kelly that her source for a “politics of meaning” arose out of her Christian Methodist heritage.

“The very core of what I believe (about the politics of meaning) is this concept of individual worth, which I think flows from all of us being creatures of God and being imbued with a spirit. Some years ago, I gave a series of talks about the underlying principles of Methodism. I talked a lot about how timeless a lot of scriptural lessons were because they tied in with what we now know about human beings. If you break down the Golden Rule or if you take Christ’s commandment—love your neighbor as yourself—there is an underlying assumption that you will value yourself, that you will be a responsible being who will live by certain behaviors that enable you to have self-respect, because out of that self-respect comes the capacity for you to respect and care for other people.”

At this point, Hillary then offered Kelly specific political examples and applications. These political solutions based upon Methodist biblical convictions included policies such as increasing the minimum wage, governmental run and paid for day care, and tax code changes. While Hillary, in a political forum, did not say, “Let’s take the nation back for Christ,” she surely was saying in this political forum, “My liberal Christian Methodist convictions lead me to suggest that we govern the nation according to my view of Christ’s Golden Rule.” How is that so different from what Mike Huckabee is crucified for by the media?

Again, this is not to criticize or to praise Hillary Clinton and her views. This is to raise a question. How is it okay for Hillary to base her political philosophy on liberal Christian Methodist positions presented in a political forum at a political speech, but it is wrong of Mike Huckabee to say in a religious forum in a pastoral sermon that his life views have been shaped by conservative Christian Baptist thinking?

Does anyone else see the unfairness here in the media’s responses to these two candidates and comments they made in the 90s?

And why is Hillary not introduced as, “The United Methodist Sunday School teacher who was mentored by the liberal Christian Don Jones . . .”?

A Very Brief Summary of Some of Barack Obama’s Statements about Religion and Politics

On January 21, 2008, the Associated Press reported on a political speech given by Barack Obama at a rally kicking off a weeklong campaign for the South Carolina primary. He tried to set the record straight from reports circulating on the Internet that he is a Muslim.

Here’s how the AP reported it.

“I’ve been to the same church—the same Christian church—for almost 20 years,” Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I’m in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America . . .

His aides, according to the AP story, “decried an incorrect news report that Obama was educated in a Muslim madrassa.” Additionally, his “campaign representatives blanketed South Carolina churches Sunday with literature that touted Obama’s Christian faith.”

According to the AP, “One piece features photos of Obama praying with the words ‘COMMITTED CHRISTIAN’ in large letters across the middle. It says Obama will be a president ‘guided by his Christian faith’ and includes a quote from him saying, ‘I believe in the power of prayer.’”

A second campaign piece includes photos of Obama with his family and a caption that says they are active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It explains how as a young man Obama “felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life.”

Need I say it again? My point is neither to praise nor to criticize these statements by Barack Obama. Instead, my point is to contrast how his statements are reported compared to how those of Mike Huckabee are reported.

When Huckabee ran a commercial in Iowa that ran on Christmas day wishing everyone a “Merry Christmas” the media went nuts. You would have thought that he had just said, “If I am elected then every person must bow down and worship Jesus.”

And yet, in a political piece, Obama can say in all caps, “COMMITTED CHRISTIAN” and not once did the AP report this as a bad thing.

Obama’s campaign literature even touts that fact that if elected president he would be “guided by his Christian faith.” Imagine if Mike Huckabee said the same thing tomorrow!

The Point

Somehow in our society it is now all right for liberal Democrats to blatantly say in the political arena that their liberal Christian faith will guide their presidency and be the foundation for their governmental policy making. Yet, somehow in our society is it now all wrong for conservative Republicans to say in a religious arena that their conservative Christian faith will impact their thinking on answering the problems people face today.

Does anyone else think that there is something wrong with this picture?