God is a personal adviser and inspiration to all of them. They all pray relentlessly. Or so they say. If that's not true, I want to know it. And if it is true, I want to know more about it. I want to know what God is telling them--just as I would want to know what Karl Rove was telling them if they claimed him for an adviser. If religion is central to their lives and moral systems, then it cannot be the candidates' "own private affair." To evaluate them, we need to know in some detail the doctrines of their faith and the extent to which they accept these doctrines. "Worry about whether I'm going to reform health care, not whether I'm going to hell" is not sufficient.

At the very least, Christians should certainly understand that Christian beliefs are never, as Kinsley observes, "our own private affair."  Christianity makes a claim upon every area and dimension of life -- discipleship cannot be relegated to a privatized compartment.

Kinsley is a defender of liberal principles, and it becomes clear that the beliefs he fears are those that might lead to policies restricting personal behaviors.  "Most important, we need to know what forms of conduct a candidate's religion forbids or requires and how the candidate interprets that injunction," he argues.  "Is it a universal moral imperative or just a personal lifestyle choice? Every religion has its list of no-nos."

But Kinsley doesn't stop there.  Consider this fascinating paragraph:

Some church doctrines give offense even though they don't constrain an outsider's behavior in any way. They can imply a more general worldview, and voters have a right to know if a presidential candidate shares that perspective. Until recently, just about all religions had a built-in patriarchal worldview--God the Father, male priests and so on--that many today find offensive. To what extent has the candidate's church moved with the times, and what has the candidate done to push his or her church in the right direction? I say the right direction, but many voters, of course, believe that this kind of modernization is the wrong direction. They also are entitled to know where the candidate stands and to vote on that basis.

With these words, Kinsley launches into dangerous territory.  He is no longer talking about how religious conviction might influence public policy, he is talking about the beliefs that govern the church's internal life. 

It is important that Christians look carefully at Michael Kinsley's argument.  Some United States senators have begun grilling presidential nominees on matters internal to their churches.  Are Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, and many conservative evangelicals now to be excluded from public office, just because these three groups limit the rabbinate/priesthood/pastorate to men?

Kinsley is right to argue that the privatized argument of  Kennedy and Cuomo will not stand close scrutiny.  He is also right to call for candidates to share how they struggle with these questions.  He needs to struggle a bit more himself, and think carefully about the distinction between doctrines that relate directly to public policy and those that do not.

© All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com. Used with permission.