Related articles and links |  1 of 2

This sad truth is nowhere more apparent than in our politics, especially as we look back, through Christian eyes, at the difficult and divisive battle that followed the November 7 presidential election.

During the course of the campaign, both major party candidates told voters they were Christians serious about their faith. George W. Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus. Al Gore informed us that at difficult moments he asks, "What would Jesus do?"

Presumably, neither man was pandering; each was sincere. But what were we voters expected to make of their statements? Were the candidates telling us something important about their character—that they exemplified the Christian virtues? Were they telling us something about how they would govern—that Holy Scripture would be an important source of moral knowledge for the next presidency? Or were they delivering merely demographic information—letting us know which box they would check on a census form?

The answer matters, not only for the sake of politics but also for the sake of Christianity. It matters for politics because, when a candidate implies that his beliefs are relevant, he has a responsibility to tell us how they are relevant. It matters for Christianity because of the Third Commandment, which warns us against misusing the name of God.

Candidates for public office in recent decades have often been cagey on the religion issue. On the one hand, they rush to assure us that they do indeed believe in God. On the other, they grow remarkably coy when it comes to linking their professions of faith to anything they would actually do in office. Highly partisan voter guides distributed in many churches before Election Day sometimes imply that one candidate is a better Christian than the other because of his position on the issues. But if we truly wish to assess a candidate's faith, we should look to what he does, not what he says.

The depressing month-long postelection legal battle allowed us to watch the deeds—rather than the words—of both candidates and their supporters. It quickly became clear that neither side was prepared to approach the controversy in a sacrificial spirit. Some argue that a candidate, even a Christian candidate, should follow every legally available avenue that might lead to victory. But the 2000 election actually provides a counter-example. Missouri senator John Ashcroft, a Christian, lost his bid for reelection when a majority of voters cast their ballots for Governor Mel Carnahan, who had died not long before Election Day. Carnahan's widow had agreed to serve in her husband's stead if he won, and, indeed, she is now a Senator.

Ashcroft had legal grounds to challenge the results. It is not at all clear under Missouri law that votes for a dead candidate may legally be counted. Moreover, the polls in heavily Democratic St. Louis remained open late, in defiance of a judge's order. But Re publican Ashcroft (now Bush's nominee for Attorney General) refused to challenge the result. Instead, he gracefully conceded defeat, providing a model for the presidential candidates—and for all of us.

next page... |  1 of 2

February 5 2001, Vol. 45, No. 2