Or, at least, I wouldn't make for a True Christian VP choice, in case Obama or McCain were to call me up and make an offer.

What qualifications are embodied in a truly Christian candidate for the Vice Presidency? Quite simply, the candidate will demonstrate actions and hold the beliefs personified by all of us who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as Savior: ...

Wow. Not many beliefs (or actions) that all Christians would agree upon. Which, of course, doesn't mean that Christianity is a broad set of beliefs and traditions, but that there are a lot of "Christians" who aren't True Christians®.

So what are the beliefs and actions of True Christians®? One might think that they encompass what someone -- hmmm, was it actually Jesus himself -- identified as the Greatest Commandments, i.e., to love God and to love our neighbors. One would, of course, be wrong.

... the need to be re-born in Christ and the affirmation of historic Christianity, having a demonstrable and proven record of support for traditional Christian morality.

As a side note, Anglicanism in general, and the Episcopal Church in particular, use the model of the "three-legged stool" in terms of discerning morality, the three legs being Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I.e., what the church believes that God revealed in the Bible, what the believers of the past two thousand years have discerned from that and from the influence of the Holy Spirit, and what each individual today brings to the table via the Brains God Gave 'Em.

Many evangelical and "conservative" churches ding Episcopalians for this, claiming that only Scripture is valid -- but, when pressed, they'll fall back instead on "tradition" and "historic" and so forth, seeming to claim that what people have thought God commands for thousands of years somehow intrinsically trumps what someone today might think God commands. 

We'll leave aside the whole demand on being "re-born" -- though that excludes a substantial number of ostensible Christians whose faith tradition doesn't do the whole "born again" thang.

So, okay, "historic" and "traditional" Christianity will be what we follow. Does that mean Catholicism? After all, Roman Catholics have the best claim to "historic" and "traditional" Christianity. No, I suspect not -- to paraphrase Orwell, all Traditions are Equal, but Some are more Equal than Others. Which probably means their English cousins, the Anglicans, are right out, too. *Sigh*

A life of dedicated Christian service to the public is demonstrated by the following:

Interesting. The whole "faith" vs "works" thing is also a big debate with Christianity, which most evangelicals claiming (when it's just a theological question) that faith trumps works -- even though the New Testament makes clear that one without the other doesn't hold a lot of water.

Still, let's assume that these folks are enlightened enough to consider that particular works ("a life of dedicated Christian service to the public") may very well reflect a presumptive faith that they'd consider Truly Christian®

Support for traditional marriage. As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must affirm that marriage is an institution created by God and defined as a union between one man and one woman. …

Really?  Now, I can see a particular faith tradition making an internal decision about what is, or is not, a true marriage. But surely different religious traditions have different opinions about what constitutes marriage.  Even within Christianity there are different rules about and surrounding marriage -- though I guess the implication is that True Christians® have a unitary marital policy. 

I'm also, by that same token, intrigued by the whole concept of "traditional marriage." Whose traditions? Going back how far? The traditions of 19th Century United States? 18th Century Japan? 12th Century France?   2nd Century Rome? Solomaic Israel? Heck, God certainly seems to bless (in the latter case) marriage between on man and multiple women. When did He change his mind?

But even if we arbitrarily consider things in the context of Modern (Yet Traditional) Christianity, are we talking marriage as my wife and I know it? As my parents understood it? My grandparents? Whose traditions are we talking about. Is any "union" between a man and a woman considered a marriage as created by God? Really? And is divorce allowed under God's created institution, and on what basis would anyone actually say yes to that as a True Christian®?

For that matter, was marriage actually instituted by God? Certainly there have been a lot of marriages that were identified as such in regions and times when, presumably, Christianity (since that's the God we're probably talking about) was not yet known -- or even where the Christian message was available, but not adhered to. Were those actual marriages? Is a Buddhist wedding an actual marriage?  Are/were marriages between folks who aren't True Christians® actually marriages, if they were not in alignment with what True Christians® believe God intended?

Support for the Right to Life, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, without exception.

I'm really interested in the implications of a Right to Life "without exception." Presumably that means someone who would see abortion made illlegal. But how would a True Christian® think of capital punishment? Certainly it's something seriously talked about in the Bible as an appropriate punishment for a variety of violations of the the Law. And what of war? Is killing others in wartime -- a violation of their Right to Life -- an exception to that right?

Does Christianity actually teach or support a Right to Life? Christ's mandate to love your neighbor would certainly seem to say so -- but I'll be the first to admit that most societal implementations of Christianity have included multiple "exceptions" to that right. 

Regardless of the more careful reading of all of this, it's clear that the obvious statement being made by the representatives of True Christianity® is that a True Christian® can be recognized as being (a) against gay marriage and (b) against abortion rights. I don't know that I know of where Christ actually identified True Christianity® that way, but I'm clearly not a Truly Christian®-enough person to make that judgment.

DAVE: I have bad news, dear. I'm not a True Christian®.

MARGIE: For so many reasons ... [pauses a moment]  Says who?

DAVE: True Christians®

MARGIE: Ah. Well, yeah, the fact that Les likes you probably rules you out right there.

So, sorry Barack, John ... I guess I'm out of the running to be your running mate. Though I am available for any other Cabinet-level position you think I can handle, despite my spiritual shortcomings. Just say the word ...

Filed under :: Elections 2008 :: Religion :: Religion - Me

Don't worry. I'll save you a seat next to me in Hell. At least you won't suffer alone. :-)

Well, if the above are the requirements for being a True Christian®, I think we'll end up with plenty of company.

Having actually read the New Testament I'm pretty sure that True Christians® don't really approve of Jesus. Not the one in the book.

Obviously you skimmed over the long sermons Jesus gave about abortion and the evils of gay marriage. They're right there in ... um ... well, I'm sure Paul wrote a full letter or two about it about the matter. I mean, it's absolutely crystal clear in the New Testament that "a life of dedicated Christian service to the public" is all about those issues, and not all that hippie stuff that the liburrruls keep tempting us toward, like feeding the poor and clothing the naked and acting justly and with mercy and loving one another and God kind of thing. Sh'yeah, right, what's that all about?

I would love to round up James Dobson and his ilk and make them answer your questions on a Reality TV show.

In my limited conception of what the Afterlife may entail, I take some small pleasure in Mr Dobson "and his ilk" being asked precisely those questions by Someone who they won't be able to dismiss as a godless faggot-loving liberal. Of course, I am immediately reminded that I will also be called to account for my own failings, which are themselves multitudinous.

I take some comfort in my less-metaphysical belief that Mr Dobson and Crewe will one day be looked back at with the disbelief and scorn and disgust that we hold today for a Lester Maddox, or a Bobby Riggs, or a 19th Century slavery apologist.

If we took up a collection and got enough money together, we might be able to engage the Pope to ask those questions. I think he'd make a great Reality Show MC. Maybe they could use some left-over props from the Inquisition.

"Is that your final answer?"

This could really work! Who's Ratzinger's agent?

Well, he does speak pretty decent English. I'm not sure I want to do his question-writing for him, though (I suspect he'd want to write his own questions, being an academic and former inquisitioner type).

(Trackback to DOF's comments on this post.)

You have some really good points here, religion has an important role for the marriage but there also should be some acceptable limits. Today's society is loosing ground with religion, people are not influenced by any religious constrains when making decisions about their marriage. As far as many believe, a marriage counselor is more helpful than a priest.