Interested by this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.

It is now just four days until US citizens go to the polls in the 2012 Presidential election. With the economy at the forefront of voter’s minds, religion has perhaps receded a little, but the faith of both the incumbent and the challenger continue to be a focus. 

A recent intelligence squared debate asked whether Jesus would have voted Democrat or Republican (Conor Gearty suggested Democrats, James Boys the Republicans, Tim Montgomerie that Jesus would have been a swing voter and Giles Fraser that he wouldn’t have voted for either).

Fraser’s argument that Jesus does not fit in to the modern political climate of the U.S. at all was the most convincing. His point was not that Jesus wasn’t a political figure, or that his followers today shouldn’t be politically active, but that Jesus asked his followers for a total transformation of one’s life in a difficult and dangerous way that put them in conflict with all kinds of authorities. No matter how much they wear their religion on the sleeve, this isn't generally recognised by political leaders. ‘Jesus,’ said Fraser, ‘is too extreme for Christianity’. No surprises then that he’s too extreme for modern American politics. And though all kinds of agendas - Democrat and Republican - are baptised with the name of Jesus, there is a clear divide between the phenomena of political ‘Christianity’ in the US and the political figure of Jesus.

Of course, people are honestly motivated by their faith to help others and this has often manifested in a political way, but with mainstream candidates seeking election an emphasis on pragmatism and consensus is preferable. A desire to make something more palatable to the electorate may come at the expense of all kinds of principled positions, religious or otherwise. President Bush’s failure to sign the Kyoto Protocols in 2005 was seen as immoral by many, but he placed domestic and fiscal problems over larger environmental concerns. In the same way, the killing of Osama bin Laden last year signalled a pragmatic foreign policy decision in the same vein. We know that one of Obama’s favourite authors is Reinhold Niebuhr, father of ‘Christian Realism’, but what is the boundary between Christian realism and plain old expediency?

While people of faith can no doubt be involved in party politics with integrity, it will not do to deny the tensions. It is simply not easy for power politicians to act as disciples to Jesus. When they try, they make themselves unelectable. Jimmy Carter showed his doubts to the nation in his Crisis of Confidence speech of 1979, a demonstration of true Christian humility perhaps. But this was to his inevitable detriment and speedy replacement with another kind of Christian. Ronald Reagan brought a preferred air of certainty to the Presidency and it is one which has not been lost since in American politics. Carter’s ‘idealistic’ views on several topics including the Israeli-Palestine conflict are still deemed by many in the U.S. to be controversial and unhelpful to a strong America.

As we look towards the coming Presidential election it is hard to believe that Jesus would have recognised his call for radical personal transformation and change in either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. The US is simultaneously the most constitutionally secular country on earth, yet ironically one where religion is truly intertwined with politics. Still more ironically, Jesus is caught up in a kind of politics that he would not recognise and, if he did, he would reject.

Sally May has recently completed and internship at Theos and is a graduate in Religious Studies from the University of Edinburgh.

Image by Renno_new from pixabay.com available in the public domain.