The more Richard Nixon talked about his faith the more his enemies complained about it.<\/p>\n\n
Critics of the troubled president accused him of hiding behind a smokescreen of \u201cWhite House religion,\u201d which an Associate Press report described as \u201cpersonalized piety detached from its social demands.\u201d Liberal church leaders said Nixon was using Christianity as a shield. Critics said he needed to get some new religious advisers, instead of surrounding himself with clergy who would only tell him what he wanted to hear.<\/p>\n\n
Sound familiar? A quarter of a century later, it was the Religious Right\u2019s turn to complain while a president kept talking and talking and talking about forgiveness, sin and grace, rather than facing tough issues of repentance, justice and integrity.<\/p>\n\n
That\u2019s the problem with White House religion. What you see is rarely what you get.<\/p>\n\n
It\u2019s so much easier to offer positive talk about personal feelings and faith, rather than to answer divisive religious questions about the public square. That was true in Watergate, Fornigate and, now, the Y2K White House race.<\/p>\n\n
\u201cIt\u2019s all very ironic,\u201d said Gabriel Fackre, a theologian in the highly progressive United Church of Christ. \u201cOne of the lessons we were supposed to have learned from the Clinton crisis was that a leader\u2019s private affairs are not supposed to be very relevant, when it comes to judging him as a public leader. We were not supposed to confuse the personal and the public.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
But there\u2019s a problem and it\u2019s one that haunts Republicans and Democrats. In reality, it\u2019s impossible to separate these two spheres of life. \u201cThey are distinguishable, but inseparable,\u201d said Fackre, a Democrat who edited a controversial volume about the Clinton scandals entitled \u201cJudgment Day at the White House\u201d and recently wrote a sequel called \u201cThe Day After.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
The \u201ccharacter issue\u201d looms over America\u2019s political landscape, even if the candidates are afraid to discuss it with any degree of candor. Instead, the major players are offering variations on the classic \u201cWhite House religion\u201d formula \u2014 talking warmly about their private faith, while batting away pesky questions about religious issues in public life.<\/p>\n\n
Thus, Gov. George W. Bush keeps giving his testimony, but seems gun-shy when asked to describe how his personal faith is linked to his public convictions. Sen. John McCain preaches about character and the faith of his fathers, but won\u2019t discuss his moral and cultural views. Vice President Al Gore keeps showing up in pulpits, talking about his lively faith, but loathes questions about his days as a Southern Baptist-friendly Tennessee politician. Former Fellowship of Christian Athletes leader Bill Bradley insists that his faith is strong, yet totally private.<\/p>\n\n
Everyone would rather discuss or how they were born again, rather than discuss the details of partial-birth abortion. It\u2019s safer to talk about spirituality and renewal than to make a case for or against private-school vouchers in the tense age after Columbine High School.<\/p>\n\n
Right now, American politicians keep saying that faith is good, but it\u2019s clear that talking about the details is deadly. The subject is just too hot. So candidates keep shouting their testimonies, rather than answering detailed questions about policies.<\/p>\n\n
What goes around, comes around. Back in the 1970s, noted Fackre, progressives used to attack conservatives whenever they failed to link their evangelistic words with efforts to change society. Thus, they said conservatives like Nixon were guilty of separating \u201ctheir words and their deeds.\u201d Then, during the Clinton crisis, the political and theological left turned around and chanted: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you take him at his word? He said he\u2019s sorry. What more do you want?\u201d<\/p>\n\n
At the moment, everyone seems to have a plan for talking about their religious convictions, but no one wants to discuss how their faith will affect their actions, said Fackre.<\/p>\n\n
\u201cThe common theme in all of this is the need to link word and deed,\u201d he said. \u201cIt matters what our leaders say they believe. But it\u2019s even more important to see who will answer questions about what they want to do, as president. We have to be able to make a decision about whether they will walk the walk, not just talk the talk.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The more Richard Nixon talked about his faith the more his enemies complained about it. Critics of the troubled president accused him of hiding behind a smokescreen of \u201cWhite House religion,\u201d which an Associate Press report described as \u201cpersonalized piety detached from its social demands.\u201d Liberal church leaders said Nixon was using Christianity as a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":610,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n