Theological Beliefs of Politicians

In the May 1 Briefing Dr. Mohler took up the odd case of British politician Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, who identifies as an evangelical but is in general a (no doubt conflicted) defender of LGBTQ and abortion rights, who got into a pickle over his original failure to answer a direct question by a television interviewer as to whether, as a Christian, he considered homosexual sex to be a sin. After a media hullabaloo he eventually answered in the negative. Dr. Mohler observed correctly of the word "sin" that "We’re talking here about a word that seems to be very awkward in the context." Yet there it was, awkwardly, at the center of this controversy. What are we to make of all this? Should politicians be asked such questions? Should we expect an answer? And does it violate any principle to count a theological view against a politician?

On Mohler's Facebook entry for the day, he included this quote from his Briefing:

"The other thing we need to recognize in the midst of this controversy is that even as there have been so many on both sides of the Atlantic who have tried to talk about a clear separation between church and state, between religious conviction and public policy, you will note here that we have a government and political parties that are now stating what is and is not allowable in terms of the doctrine of sin and in interpretation of the holy Scriptures. So in our secular age we’re going to face the fact that there is now in the hands of largely secular authorities an official doctrine of sin and an official interpretation of Scripture to which all are supposedly going to have to bend the knee, at least all those who intend to serve in political office and public influence."

I posted this as a reply:

Dr. Mohler wants it both ways. On the one hand he is an enemy of the separation of church and state. At every turn he insists on the importance of theology. It is at the root of everyone’s worldview, he believes, and worldview is supremely important to the values we hold and to the choices we make. He wants politicians to understand that their religious convictions, “if rightly held, have to be translated into public policy.” Yet when it comes to the theological beliefs of politicians – like whether homosexuality is a sin – he objects to voters taking them into account. But if Dr. Mohler is correct, that is exactly what they should do. They should be leery of a politician who holds theological beliefs incompatible with their own values.

In the quote above, as he often does, Dr. Mohler goes completely overboard, far beyond the facts of the case into apocalyptic hyperbole. A British politician was asked some questions about his Christian beliefs about sin, he was under political pressure to answer in a certain way, and eventually he did so. Neither the government nor any party was “now stating what is and is not allowable in terms of the doctrine of sin and in interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.” There was no “secular authority” forcing anybody to “bend the knee.” This was a matter of what a politician calculated to be politically acceptable to the voters for a man in his position. He was free to answer in any way he wanted, as the voters are to vote.

Dr. Mohler says, “We are looking at people who are being bullied out of their traditional Christian beliefs, or at least it’s safe to say they are being bullied into a situation where they publicly repudiate or deny the Christian beliefs that they might otherwise claim to hold.” But what’s all-important here is the context in which those Christian beliefs are held.

First, we are talking about politicians who help set government policy on LGBTQ rights. So for them, the crucial questions are, do they adhere to a doctrine which prohibits them from imposing their religious beliefs on others, and are they able to do so consistently?

If, like Dr. Mohler and many conservative politicians, they oppose separation of church and state, and believe their religious convictions should determine the laws they support, then their theological beliefs are legitimate subjects of political concern and debate.

But Tim Farron, when asked on Britain’s Channel 4 News “Personally, ... do you think, as a Christian, that homosexual sex is a sin?”, answered “I think that ... somebody who is a Christian does not then go enforcing their views on other people. And it’s not our issues – our views on personal morality – that matter. What matters is, do we go out there and fight for the freedom of every single individual to be who they wish to be, and that’s what makes a liberal.” 

Any politician who holds such a view – whether they are liberal or conservative – and consistently lives by it should be free to hold and express any theological viewpoint without political consequences. Though I’m a liberal and an atheist, I think it’s a shame that Tim Farron didn’t feel free to stand up for his Christian beliefs while insisting on his liberal values that ideally prevent those beliefs from impinging on his job as legislator. But to the extent that such a line is not credible -- and it is often a difficult one to draw and hold to -- public interest in and concern about his theological beliefs seems justified.