God is "getting a lot of press" lately as all the major presidential candidates have brought religion into the campaign. Not in controversial fringe issues, but rather in addressing major social concerns. Is the United States undergoing a significant change? Or are we witnessing politics as usual?

In an honest, if somewhat crass declaration, senior policy adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Elaine Kamarck, told The Boston Globe, "The Democratic Party is going to take back God this time" ("Gore Includes Religion in Agenda," 1999, AP). She was referring to her party's "religious strategy" in the rapidly heating up 2000 presidential race.

While Mr. Gore's principal spokesman attempted to distance himself and his boss from such a blatantly political approach to religion ("I don't think God is partisan"), campaign speeches from all candidates already ring with a variety of uncharacteristic references to religion.

Mr. Gore regularly refers to his "faith tradition" (few people know that he actually studied at Vanderbilt's divinity school as a young man). In stark contrast to typical Democratic Party tradition, Mr. Gore has called for "a new partnership between church and state" (Ibid.).

The vice president opposes organized prayer in public schools during the school day and also opposes using public dollars to send children to parochial schools. What, then, has changed? What he appears to promise is an open ear to the influence of the religious lobby. "If you elect me president," he said before a Salvation Army audience, "the voices of faith-based organizations will be integral to the policy set forth in my administration" (Ibid.).

"The moment has come," said Mr. Gore, "for Washington to catch up with the rest of America… Americans profoundly, rightly believe that politics and morality are deeply interrelated" (Ibid.).

He is certainly right about the popularity of religion in the United States. According to a recent survey of nearly 6,000 Americans, religion plays an important part in the lives of a majority. "Quite simply, God is back," said Ira Matathia, CEO of the group that conducted the survey ("'Trendsetters' Turning to Religion" 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc.).

"Faith-based" Is the Buzz Word

Other presidential candidates openly refer to their personal faith and offer promises of support for "faith-based organizations"-the generic phrase most candidates as well as reporters seem to prefer. In formally declaring his candidacy, popular Republican Governor George W. Bush declared among his campaign goals: "Draw a moral line" and get "faith-based organizations" such as churches involved in easing social problems.

Appearing in what one reporter called "a faith-based crisis pregnancy center" in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, former Vice President Dan Quayle said of his wish to occupy the most powerful position in the world: "We think it's going to be God's will. But we will find out. You know, we believe in the power of prayer" ("Quayle Takes His Platform to Iowa for Grab at Caucus," 1999, The Arizona Republic).

Former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, currently the only rival to Mr. Gore from his own party, has publicly come out in support of "faith-based programs," promising public funding for some programs operated by religious organizations that deal with social problems.

Republican candidate Elizabeth Dole has openly acknowledged a "return to God in her life." She begins every day with prayer and attends church regularly. Both Mrs. Dole and Mr. Bush have long advocated school prayer and public funds for religious education, in addition to aligning themselves with church groups.

Mr. Quayle has from the beginning of his campaign promised to "reset America's moral compass," linking violence in schools with the country's departure from school prayer. He also supports public funding for religious education.

Is This Selfish or Sincere?

Not to diminish or impugn the sincerity of any of the presidential candidates, but all of the sudden open talk about religion in the context of the upcoming election sounds much more like politics as usual than faith. I am reminded of a parody that I heard many years ago in Canada during an election campaign. The words went: "Take a ____ to lunch this week (you fill in the blank with a member of a politically correct minority)! Show them they're a 'regular bunch' this week!" The obvious implication was that "election allegiances" would last only as long as the campaign.

Does all this talk of "faith-based" things portend a significant change in the United States? Or will it live only as long as the campaign?

Associated Press writer Sandra Sobieraj offers a blunt analysis: "For Gore, the political benefit of religious talk is twofold: it sneaks some ground out from under Republicans who have long dominated the morals debate; and, less overtly, may serve to disassociate him from [President] Clinton's personal scandals" (Ibid. "Gore Includes Religion in Agenda").

Such overt embracing of religion by politicians has shocked organizations that are dedicated to the separation of church and state. It is indeed confusing in a country that bans religion from its classrooms. Recently, a New Jersey first-grader made national headlines when his teacher, citing First Amendment concerns, denied his desire to read a story from the Bible to his classmates. A legal battle is currently underway in northern California where the Oroville Union High School barred the valedictorian of the class of 1999 from mentioning God in his valedictory.

It is a well-publicized conundrum that survivors of violence-victimized Columbine High School flocked to neighborhood churches for consolation and comfort-at the same time that federal law mandates a sharp separation between religion and education.

Dropping God's Name to Get Elected?

Has the nation made a 180-degree turn to the things of God? Will U.S. leaders actually lead the nation's citizenry, by example and by policy, to return to God? Time will tell. For the present, what all have said thus far is a continuation of "politically-correct-speak" voicing support for concepts that are known to have wide appeal with the electorate. That's done, of course, for the sake of winning votes.

This article is not intended to be either anti- or pro- any political candidate or party, for the United Church of God, an International Association, is nonpolitical. But this article is anti-insincerity. Turning to God involves profoundly more than merely providing support for the social programs of "faith-based organizations."

Quoting the God that many politicians seemingly want to publicly embrace, "What right have you to declare My statutes, or take My covenant in your mouth, seeing you hate instruction and cast My words behind you?" (Psalm 50:16-17). It is one thing to want to be photographed with God, so to speak, and quite another to actually do what God says.

Warning of the prevailing self-absorption of people of the last days of human history, the apostle Paul prophesied that societies would be dominated by men and women fettered by obvious indulgences. "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Timothy 3:1-4).

Who could disagree that such immoral shortcomings in character make for poor leadership? How true are the cries of the candidates for a need to "reset America's moral compass" for its present compass setting is leading the country to certain shipwreck! Where are the leaders who are genuinely guided and live by godly principle instead of by the hedonistic forces listed in the above paragraph?

True Faith Is Not a Political Issue

But the list of selfish corrupters includes a less obvious one-religion. Or, in keeping with the trends, we should call it "faith-based corruption." Paul spoke of people motivated only by self-interest that have "a form of godliness but [deny] its power" (2 Timothy 3:5). The power of God is able to transform lives if people honestly learn what God expects of them, stop doing what God forbids and literally behave as He intends they should.

Unless or until leaders actually embrace the words of God, they only flirt with the illusion of morality. If talk of "faith-based" this or that is only politics as usual, it is cruel talk indeed-so much "faith-based baby kissing." If the campaign thundering produces nothing of substance, the speeches will be clouds without water in a moral drought. Rather than follow those who voice such talk, Paul advises "from such people turn away!" (Ibid.).

Calling upon the name of God is not a political ploy to be manipulated as another tactic in an endless list of strategies to secure one's election to office. It's for men and women who believe God and will live by His words regardless of the popularity of those words with the masses. Are there such leaders-people with unfeigned godly character? Many are saying, "I am!" We'll see. WNP

Sources: The Christian Science Monitor; Nando Media; News America Digital Publishing, Inc.; AP; Agence France-Presse; Reuter's; The Arizona Republic