Ahhhhhh, it's political season in full force here in South Carolina. New Hampshire is in the rear view mirror and my home state is now in the crosshairs of the remaining candidates in the race for President. Our roads will be littered with signs, our airwaves overrun with ads on radio and TV, our Facebook feeds full of venom from those heinous Super PAC's, and so it is for the next few weeks.
South Carolina is an interesting animal politically. Conservative yet independent, known for underhanded and bare knuckled political brawls. Over 60% of the voters are self declared Evangelicals, as we are still most definitely a religious state. Yet when it comes to politics, it seems we are often far to willing to ignore dirty, cheap and frankly dishonest tactics, overlook them in spite of their un-Christian tenor, under the mantra, "well, that's politics." But, should this be the mindset for the Christian voter or the candidate running under the banner of faith?
That's a question that has really bothered me this election cycle. As we watch a hotly contested Republican primary, we've seen the typical politics of our generation. Anything goes. Of the candidates remaining, only one is not really running with his faith as a centerpiece of his campaign, and that is Donald Trump. Yes, Trump has appealed to the evangelical vote, what Republican candidate doesn't? He's received the endorsement of some religious leaders like Dr. Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell, Jr. But he most certainly is not out there trumpeting his faith. When he has spoken of it he's been visibly hesitant and awkward. I do not consider him a religious candidate in the least. The rest however are running with a bible in hand and their faith prominent as part of their appeal to voters. And that will especially be on display here in South Carolina.
Ben Carson speaks of his Seventh Day Adventist faith eloquently and sincerely. By all accounts he seems to be as honorable a man as their is in the contest. He's simply not a good politician. By that I mean, he's way to nice and has not resorted to an anything goes approach, which means he has no prayer of being elected. It doesn't help he appears to be napping most of the time. Still, I respect his candidacy and his integrity.
Former Florida Governor Jeb! Bush does not speak of his Catholic faith as often as his brother George did of his Episcopal beliefs. Still, when he does, he does so comfortably and seemingly sincerely. Bush is in a desperate position as he enters South Carolina and it will be interesting to watch how his campaign proceeds here. How low will he be willing to go? Brother George went pretty low here in 2000 in his match-up with John McCain, even so far that rumors of McCain having an illegitimate black child, was a traitor, was crazy, his wife was a drug addict, were widely circulated via flyers and push polls. Bush went on to win the nomination and Presidency, did the "end justify the means" for an avowed born again Christian?
Ohio Governor John Kasich is an avowed conservative Anglican. He also is comfortable when speaking of his faith, though it's not a centerpiece of his candidacy. Kasich has so far run a very positive campaign and avoided the trap of the anything goes politics that are so prevalent today. With little to no organization in South Carolina, he's not a factor. I really don't even expect him to compete here, so if he does resort to politics as usual, it won't be here.
That brings us to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the two most prominent faith based candidates.
Rubio is Roman Catholic and has a riveting testimony in regards to his faith in Jesus Christ. Over the course of his life, Rubio has been Catholic, then Mormon as a teen, later an Evangelical who attended an SBC megachurch, and now has returned to his Catholic roots of which he says says he fully embraces all Roman Catholic doctrine. Rubio's political journey is as muddled as his journey in faith. He was elected Senator in Florida as a Tea Party Constitutionalist running on a strict anti-immigration amnesty platform, but almost immediately reversed course when elected when he emerged as a co-sponsor of the doomed "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill. Now, he says he no longer backs the bill he was a primary proponent of. He also is on the record as first saying in hindsight he would not have gone to war in Iraq, but later saying it was not a mistake, and has changed his positions on defense spending several times. He's had to revise the story of his parents flight from Cuba due to inaccuracies. Now, everyone is entitled to change their minds. But for one running on their faith as visibly as Rubio is, it seems the words of the bible "let your yay mean yay and your nay mean nay" should have some bearing. He comes off as one who will say what he believes will get him elected. For Rubio, will the "end justify the means?"
No candidate is running as strongly on his faith as Southern Baptist Ted Cruz. Cruz, Senator from Texas and son of Pentecostal Pastor Rafael Cruz, has garnered the backing of such conservative Christian stalwarts as James Dobson and Tony Perkins along with some questionable characters like Kenneth Copeland, Mike Bickle and David Barton. In South Carolina nearly 150 pastors have endorsed Cruz, including former President of the SCBC Tommy Kelly of FBC Varnville. Cruz has cultivated networks of pastors to organize Christian voters is several states, including here, and is counting on as he so boldly claims in stump speeches for "the body of Christ to rise up and restore this nation!"
This type language obviously plays well with religious conservatives. Cruz has also publically shown a willingness to stand up to the powers that be, the "Washington Cartel," as he has labeled them, further endearing him to those with conservative political views who see D.C. and the political elites as corrupt. With Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum now gone, Cruz is by far the most openly religious candidate left. Has his campaign reflected the bold statement of faith he so openly is running on?
In Iowa, Cruz was responsible for a clearly deceptive mailer that "shamed" voters by comparing their voting records to their neighbors. Now understand, this is not a tactic foreign to elections in Iowa. Barack Obama used the same tactic in 2008 and the Iowa Republican Party has used the tactic as well. It is accepted politics as usual. But is deception a tactic a candidate running on a faith centered platform should be using? The Ben Carson episode on Caucus night clearly was mishandled by the Cruz campaign, infuriating the ever docile and honorable Carson. Ben clearly felt wronged. Now, in politics, one looks for every advantage, and clearly in Iowa, a state also with a large Evangelical voting block, any vote that could be won from Carson, who was appealing to the same voter block, was an advantage. And their is no doubt some were swayed. There was nothing illegal here, it was indeed politics as usual. But was it ethical, and do ethics matter for the candidate running as "the" conservative Christian candidate?
Cruz also has his flip flops. The campaign commercials have already begun here and the tenor of some are highly questionable to me, including an on-line ad from a Super PAC supporting Cruz, playing to the Confederate flag issue here against Donald Trump. This issue is clearly divisive, and more importantly, of no bearing on this election. It's a play to the lowest common denominator of some of the voting public. Is it politically effective? Maybe it will be. Is it the way "the" conservative Christian candidate should be campaigning? For Cruz, will the "end justify the means?"
Now, I'm not leaving the Donald out of this. He's flip-flopped on more things than an Olympic gymnast, uses language that would shame a sailor, and also appeals to the "baser" instincts of many. But as I stated, he's not running with his faith front and center of his campaign. Except when asked about it, he rarely mentions it. My question surrounding all of this is should the candidate clearly running with faith as a central part of their campaign be held to a higher standard by the Christian voter?
Men like Huckabee and Santorum certainly had their faith front and center, ran honorable campaigns, and were out of the race after the first contest getting less than 3% of the vote between them. Many say someone running this type of campaign, Carson being another example, cannot win. I'm actually convinced of that. Politics is a cutthroat proposition. But what type of testimony is it for the Christian to adopt the ways of the world simply to get elected? The Christian is supposed to be about Christ first and foremost, and abstain from the ways of the world. We are to be "salt" and "light" to influence the corrupted culture we live in, but as Jesus says, when salt "loses it's flavor," it becomes useless.
It's clearly a difficult thing to process. I firmly believe we need more Christian influence in our government. More faithful, committed people of integrity whose "yay means yay." But we live in a world where the game apparently has to be played the "game's" way. Does that match up with our faith? For me, it doesn't. For the Christian, you see, the "means" are every bit as important as the "end." If they are not, we may be elected, but we lose credibility in the thing that should matter most, our testimony of Jesus Christ.
