We now have heard two pretenders for the Republican nomination, Rep. Michele Bachmann and unannounced tease Texas governor Rick Perry,suggest that they have been “called” to run for the White House. In other words, God told them to do it. Apart from the fact that this posits the existence of a rather disloyal and mischievous deity who enjoys starting fights among the faithful for the fun of it, a politician claiming to be endorsed by the Almighty is unsettling in many ways—so unsettling, in fact, that I think the statement alone is grounds for disqualification for high office, since it strongly argues for a diagnosis of deranged.
Besides that, it is also unethical:
- If not an indication of insanity, it shows dishonesty, and a frightening willingness to manipulate the gullible and trusting.
- It is immodest and disrespectful to competitors, like baseball players saluting God after a home run, as if He decided to give a boost to his favorite player on his favorite team. (I have sometimes wondered why players don’t make the same “Thanks, God!” gesture when a player on the opposing team gets injured on the field.) It takes a trivial and self-centered view of God to presume that the all-powerful creator of the universe has nothing better to do than to mess with the run spread in a baseball game, and only a slightly less trivial and self-centered attitude to believe that He is handicapping the GOP presidential field, and finds the other choices so flawed and sinful that He has to play kingmaker— just like with David in the old days.
- It is unfair. Claiming to have an endorsement that, if true, would compel any rational voter to support a candidate but not presenting any proof is an unethical campaign tactic. If one has really been told by God to run for an office and is inclined to use the endorsement, there is an obligation to do more than ask voters to rely on hearsay. As the children of Israel said to Moses (loosely translated, now), “Show me the tablets!”
- It is cheating. In a nation that is built on a document that forbids the government to endorse a religion, candidates for high office should not be seeking an edge by claiming that God is endorsing a particular national government, even if He is.
- It is irresponsible. The “calling” statement attempts to transform what should be an election about policies, competence and leadership to one about faith.
And it is unprincipled.
We do not permit or welcome foreign powers to meddle in our elections, and for good reason. No principled candidate for president should encourage cosmic, heavenly or inter-planetary powers to meddle either. God is not an American citizen; He cannot vote; He doesn’t have a photo I.D. If there was a candidate who was genuinely called by God to run for president, and that candidate told God, in no uncertain terms, to butt out, that the sovereign democratic election of the United States of America was not celestial business, and that while flattering, such interference is misguided and inappropriate, that would be a candidate I think I could get behind.
Ethics Alarms 
Absolutely brilliant, Jack! My theology degree salutes you!
Can’t agree, Jack. Many people throughout history have responded to “the call”; either to the pulpit, to the colors or to the seat of government. To compare this to professional ball players is completely off the mark. Good Christian athletes do not celebrate any supposed Divine Intervention during a good personal performance, but rather praise God for allowing them their abilities and motivation to do so.
God is not petty, but He is infinite. And he works in “mysterious ways” thereby to a greater end. Who’s to say that Congresswoman Bachmann or Governor Perry haven’t received a subtle call from God to spread a needed message among Faithful Americans? Don’t automatically dismiss this as a disingenuous political ploy. We’ve seen many of those these days- yes- and it’s easy to be cynical about such pronouncements. But blind cynicism can itself be a road to evil.
As Jesus so wisely put it, “By their deeds ye shall know them”. Neither of these two people are perfect. But none of us are. Neither was Moses when God placed His Great Commission in his hands. These two figures are certainly not Moses! But their advent on the national scene may signal- directly or indirectly, immediately or over time- a new and better direction for the greatest Christian nation on Earth.
“Works in mysterious ways’ should be discarded by all believers as a laughable and transparent dodge. I wish I could have such a rationalization when I do something absurd. If we believed everyone who claimed they were “called”–John Brown and Oral Roberts, for instance—we would be in a justifiable panic about being in the grip of an all-powerful mad. Connecting cosmically insignificant events to the designs of a deity who is simultaneously responsible for thousand/millions/ infinite numbers of occupied worlds is, at best, astounding egomania and wishful thinking, and at worst, self-delusion.
It’s also, may I say, unwise and a bit cowardly. The little voice in my head that urges me to do something risky is mine alone, but if I convince myself that I am getting marching orders from a Superstar, I may not give it the proper examination—after all, my judgment is fallible. (Of course, if He is telling someone like Bachmann to run for president, so is God), but I’m less likely to question the Man Upstairs. Then, if my decision turns out badly, I can say, “Well, I was called!” and not have to admit, “Well, I was a jerkola.”
I KNEW you would make the “thanks for my talent” excuse, but the fact is that the players say otherwise more often than not. If I had a nickle for every athlete who told an interviewer that God guided his pass, or helped him hit the 3-pointer to win the game, I’d be rich, rich, rich.
I respect a politician’s religion, but this is a misuse of religion, and a trivialization of God.
“Works in mysterious ways’ should be discarded by all believers as a laughable and transparent dodge.
It’s actually worse than that. Once you use that excuse, you can’t state that you have any understanding of God’s desires and remain consistent. “Works in ‘mysterious ways’ to a greater end” is, while a comment sentiment, exhibit A of the insanity of religion.
[T]his is…a trivialization of God
I’d argue that you can’t trivialize the nonexistent, but, in the eyes of believers, this should make sense. I don’t expect the logic to sink in though.
I agree. I tentatively label myself an I-Don’t-Give-A-Damn, but I’ve always considered it silly to think God, the Force, or some sufficiently advanced aliens really personally care about individual Earthling people or even nations when there’s the whole universe(s) to deal with.
For some reason, you just made me think about a hypothetical situation. What would happen if Aliens came about and started mining Mars, completely ignoring Earth. Would we try to stop them? Would we feel like fools for not trying to get there first to lay claim? Does an inhabited planet in a solar system have any superior claim to uninhabited planets in our same solar system?
Completely beyond off topic. I apologize.
I think if extrasolar aliens were able to get to Mars, they would be so far advanced compared to us that any “claims” we had to just about anything would not matter to them, no more than the claim of, say, an ant colony to its savannah or a group of bats to its cave.
Man. As soon as I think it, it starts to take form…
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/07/21/mining.moon.helium3/index.html?hpt=te_bn1
Dear Tim:
I’ve actually thought on that subject myself. Does a (semi) spacefaring society on one planet of a solar system have a just claim to the mineral or occupation rights of the other bodies of its system over those of an interstellar society- even if the domestic one has never established a physical presence? That might prove a question someday!
Usually, the question of ownership (by longstanding international convention) revolves around that of which national entity has established a PERMANENT base or colony. The history of the Falkland Islands is a good case in point. As a practical matter, though, possession is nine tenths of the law! And might makes right!!
If an interstellar civilization were to establish, say, a colony on Mars and proceed to develop it, what could Mankind do except feebly protest? After all, we’d be lucky if such a civilization, with the capabilities it would necessarily have, would allow us to keep charge of Earth! Besides, given that we’ve squandered 40 years of potential space exploration since the end of the Apollo project- and that we should have established ourselves at least within the inner solar system by now- it would be our own fault if Somebody Else did it before us.
Not so “laughable”, Jack. He DOES work in mysterious ways. The “mystery” comes because human beings are finite and faulty beings, whereas He is not. Those who, in the throes of jubilation over some personal triumph, invoke God as their source are not to be despised. Certainly, some public figures in whatever arena do so cynically. Others do not, recognizing the Christian Creed which states that all glory belongs to God, the ultimate source of inspiration and worthy deeds. God- not Man. Every action we take does, in some way, influence others for better or for worse. Over time, those actions become cumulative in their effect.
In our present era, where God is often either relegated to a non-participatory role or rejected entirely, I find it heartening that so many can still honestly ascribe to God their entents, motivations and deeds in regard to the furthering of His Cause. The “false prophets” will always be with us, as Jesus observed. But they reveal themselves in time. Those who hold true to their “calling” should be lauded, supported and be an inspiration to others who would likewise take up the challenge.
The problem is that politicians also work in strange, and mysterious ways, which often, when the mystery is finally revealed, turn out to be not so mysterious after all, and purely manipulative and cynical.
“By their deeds ye shall know them”, Jack. It’s easy these days to be cynical about participants in virtually all walks of public life. But I’ve met good politicians, good lawyers… and even good filmmakers! They’re there. It’s just that they’re not much noticed, as they swim against the prevalent current and are therefore an embarrassment to those of the status quo. When you find an honest and moral one, embrace him! You don’t ever know when another such will come along. And when those good ones are supported in enough numbers, they can amass the influence to return good ethics back to their respective fields of endeavor. This is what’s needed to break the cycle of depravity that rewards vileness of purpose. “Americans should select and prefer Christians as their leaders.”- John Jay.
::Gets popcorn ready::
See, now this is a religious post I can get behind.
Pingback: Could God Be Calling Multiple Candidates? « MInTheGap
God called me collect.
What a jerk.
Yeah, I hate that too.
It is immodest and disrespectful to competitors
Ah, but you see, this is the key to why or how these sorts of proclamations get made as the Evangelical Christian Nationalists truly believe they are the chosen— not just chosen as in the case of being “Christians”, but chosen to be special, i.e. the ones that are “the deciders”, the ones that are supposed to lead, be “Jesus-sanctioned Capitalists”, the ones that have a duty to “take back America” (from all those other people at any cost, no matter what.
Sorry if it’s been mentioned on your site (which I just discovered and love!), but check out Michelle Goldberg’s superb “Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.”
That’s paranoid talk, Adela. It stems from a complete lack of understanding about what Christianity is. You accuse us of considering ourselves to be an elite “chosen” people. Yet, it’s that very concept that we see in the secular globalist movement that we resist. And we resist it BECAUSE it’s anti-God. What you are doing, mindfully or not, is accusing us- in Clintonian style- of your very own motivations.
I know many people who feel (or say) they have been called by God to do various things. These generally fall into three categories.
Category 1. A person who feels that God has called them to do something that will benefit many people (other than themselves). The thing they are called to do requires a lot of training, hard work, and results in very little money or praise. They don’t generally tell people they were called to do this except as a response to the question “Why would someone as talented and smart as you be doing something so thankless and impoverishing?”
Category 2. A person who feels that God has called them to fill a position of power, authority, or extreme skill. Such people pour themselves into preparing to best fill said position. They only admit that they are doing this in close confidence or when asked why they are going to such extreme measures to prepare themselves.
Category 3. Someone who loudly announces they are called by God to do something. This something is usually something grand, resulting in money, fame, power, or a combination of the three. They generally tell people they were called in response to the question “Why should you be allowed to do this when you don’t appear to have the qualifications, experience, or work ethic required for such a lofty position?”
People in two of these categories have much more of my admiration than people in the other.
You have The Comment of the Day!!! Kudos!
I hope that God isn’t favoring either Bachmann or Perry, but I’d cut them both some slack on this. A calling doesn’t have to come directly from God. My Microsoft Encarta dictionary defines calling as “a strong urge to follow a particular career or do a particular type of work.”
I had a calling to make government better, and now I have a calling to write and teach about ethics. Neither one came from God, as far as I know.
I like that version of calling, but Rick and Michele have been pretty clear, as I read them, that they are talking about a Long-Distance Calling.
Just because God calls us to do something does not mean that our effort will be successful, even if we do it the best we can. I would hope that most people understand this. Very often, it seems to be the case that the value, or the lesson, is in the journey rather than the outcome. This is pure assumption on my part — God has not seen fit to reveal his works to me, a fact for which I am eternally grateful.
It is also possible that these worthies mistook their own desires as a call from God. Sometimes, it’s hard to tell the difference, for whatever reason. If we forget, for a moment, that we are talking about politicians and just assume they believe what they say, this could be little more than a misunderstanding on their part.
To me, this is akin to praying for victory in an athletics contest, instead of for a good game, fair competition, and no injuries. God may well call people to do certain things at which they will fail by design. A call from God to do a thing is not an imprimatur of impending success, although I’m sure these two probably intended it to convey just that message, which is nothing new to politicians.
Of course, such an impression a) presumes to know the mind of God and b) carries with it an unfair and arguably untrue implication that his or her opponents have no such divine sanction. It would have probably served them better to leave God out of the discussion, even if they had felt his call. Others may have felt it, too.
There is an old saying that God answers all prayers, but that his answer is often “No.” Indeed, they may well feel the call, even from God, to engage in this endeavor. But if we assume the call is true, we may also assume that the outcome will serve God’s design, and that outcome may not be what either candidate hopes. The answer to their dreams of the presidency may be “No,” calling or not.
Does the idea that God would call us to do something at which we are sure to fail sound off-putting? Only if we assume that only desirable outcomes for ourselves reveal the hand of God. This is the source of the other old adage, “If you want to hear God laugh, tell him your plans.”
From that perspective, there seems little unethical about their comments except the suggestion that it carries an associated inevitability of success, and that they are the only ones whom God Himself has moved to act, a concept that cannot be true if both candidates truly felt compelled by a higher power.
Boy, Glenn…talk about showing off. You lie low for months, and then when you decide to stoop to the fray, you knock it out of the park. Comment of the Day. Thank you.