We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

Does religious faith make someone a better politician?

Question: A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans agreed with the statement: “Religious faith makes someone a better politician.” In fact, a majority said they would never vote for a candidate who had no religious faith. Do you agree that religious faith helps make someone a better politician?

Answer: As a Christian pastor, people would probably expect me to answer this question with a “yes.” But as a matter of fact, I think the issue is much more complicated and the question can’t be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Here’s some issues I’d consider before answering this question.

* Is there any evidence that religious faith makes someone a better politician? Historically, have religious leaders done better than non-religious leaders? I don’t see it.

* Why would religious belief make a person a better politician? A political issue is one that divides “the polis” (Greek for “city state”). Politicians should help us resolve political issues. Why does a person’s religious belief or lack of religious belief make them better at doing this?

Of course, if the “polis” is largely characterized by a particular religious faith, it would probably be an advantage for that polis’s politicians to share that faith. But this doesn’t tell us anything about the value of religion in politics, for the same would hold true of all shared values in a polis. A leader has to share common ground with the people she leads.

* In pluralistic settings such as America, it seems to me a politician’s religious belief might actually make them a worse politician. Historically, when looking for solutions to political problems, people with strong religious beliefs have tended to look for theological solutions rooted in what they believe to be divine revelation. In pluralistic societies in which people hold to many different religious beliefs, rooting political solutions in divine revelation would tend to further divide the polis.

* I’d argue that the greatest advance of political freedom happened during the 17th and 18th centuries when secular authorities forced an end to religious violence (with the Peace of Wesphalia in 1648) and political thinking became separated from religious belief. (A great book on this topic is A Stillborn God by Mark Lilla). In countries (like America) that put a premium on the secular value of political freedom, I don’t see that possessing a religious faith would necessarily be an advantage.

* A politician may have greater peace, courage and wisdom because of their religious faith. This would obviously be an advantage to them. But this doesn’t really help us answer the question we’re wrestling with, because you can find plenty of people with religious faith who are anxious, cowardly and stupid, and you can find people who lack religious faith who still have peace, courage and wisdom.

* Before answering the question about whether religious faith makes a person a better politician, I think we’d need to know which religious faith we’re talking about. A person who defends the claim that religious faith makes a person a better politician and leaves it at that has to be prepared to say a Muslim extremist would make a better leader than a secular person. Only Muslim extremists would support this.

I suspect that those who defend the idea that religious faith helps a person be a better politician actually mean that a person who embraces their own religious faith would be better in office than a person who didn’t embrace their own religious faith. But this, clearly, is simply prejudice. It hardly constitutes a rational justification for answering “yes” to the question, “Does religious faith (in and of itself) make a person a better politician?”

In light of these considerations, I think I’d have to answer this question “no,” though there are particular circumstances in which a particular kind of faith would be an advantage.

Related Reading

Oh Constantine

Once upon a time there was a Roman Emperor named Constantine who used the enemy-loving Jesus to kill his enemies. What does this have to do with us? Find out:

What is the significance of 2 Kings 20:1–7?

The Lord tells Hezekiah “[Y]ou shall die: you shall not recover” (vs. 1). Hezekiah pleads with God and God says, “I will add fifteen years to your life” (vs. 6). If everything about the future was exhaustively settled and known by God as such, his prophecy to Hezekiah that he was going to die would…

Topics:

What is the significance of Jeremiah 3:19–20?

“I thought how I would set you among my children…And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife…you have been faithless to me…” If the future is eternally and exhaustively settled, and if God therefore knows it as such, he could not have…

Topics:

What is the significance of 2 Peter 3:9–12?

Peter says that the Lord has delayed his coming because “he is patient with you, not wanting any to perish” (vs. 9). We are encouraged to be “looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” [NIV: “speed its coming”] (vs. 12). If the future is an eternally fixed reality, of course God…

Topics:

What is the significance of Esther 4:14?

The wise Mordecai encourages Esther to bravely risk her life by pleading the case of the Jews before King Xerxes, saying, “…if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come…

Topics:

What happens to babies who die?

The Bible does not directly address the issue of what happens to babies who die before being able to make a decision for or against Christ. People have thus had to arrive at conclusions about this matter on the basis of other beliefs they hold to be true. The majority of evangelicals today assume that…