New York Times hosts large debate on the Christianity of presidential politics

As the dialogue about religion becomes a larger part of national politics, and may continue to be for years to come, the New York Times declared it is fair to ask: "If politicians say their religion guides them, and influential ministers have a litmus test for candidates' 'biblical values' . . . which politicians espouse policies that align with Christianity?"

The Times posed that question to 11 respected and "knowledgeable outside contributors" to discuss the issue in its online "Room for Debate" feature. The responses covered a wide range of thought and insight.

Michael Novak, for example, noted that "one thing that cannot be said is that Christian thinking on politics is simple-minded, inexperienced or one-size-fits-all." The well-known theologian and author added that "it is useful to recognize that thoughtful and committed Christians make strong arguments on several sides of many absolutely central national debates — from abolition to abortion. The great Catholic moralist Blaise Pascal wrote once that the primary moral imperative is to think clearly. And it is useful to enter such debates, therefore, with a degree of modesty and humility. There is always some truth in errors of one's opponents, and some errors in our truths. That is why public argument is so important to all of us."

That position was supported by several of the commentors in the Times debate, including Jean Bethke Elshtain, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago, who writes that "there is no 'checklist' for who Christians should vote for."

As voters, she said, "we look for candidates who embrace principles we cherish."

Similarly, Josef Sorett, an assistant professor of religion and African-American studies at Columbia University, writes that "there is no simple or singular formula for applying Christianity such that a clear candidate emerges." And Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, said that because "no candidate will ever embody perfectly a commitment to biblical principles . . . a well-informed conscience, aided by prudence, is required to discern the truth about the candidates and their claims."