Why have modern presidents relied on ‘faith advisers’?
If I am deficient inmy knowledge about chemistry, or amedical issue, orwhat kind of car to buy, I consult people who know more than I do on these subjects.
Whenit comes to faith, though, I can handle that with a little help frommy friends, meaning the writers of the Old and New Testaments, and sermons from trusted past ors who believe in what is written in those books.
I don’t need a “faith adviser,” or “faith leader,” which seems to be a trend among modern presidents.
After observing faith advisers to President Trump, including some kooky ones, like Paula White, who said,“WhenIwalk on White House grounds, Godwalks on White House grounds,” The Washington
Post reports Joe Biden is putting together his own list of faith advisers. It should not be surprising that most appear to be anti-Trumpers whose “faith” trends with the secular progressive policies of Biden and KamalaHarris.
Politicians love to use religion and faith to legitimize their policies in order tomake themselves and those policies appear “righteous.” HowcanTrump’s faith advisers and Biden’s incoming ones both be right when their views on faith and policies mostly contradict each other, and in some cases are contrary to a high view of Scripture?
Abraham Lincoln raised the same question in his second inaugural address when he said of the conflicting advice hewas receiving fromunsolicited faith advisers of his day: “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the sameGod; and each invokesHis aid against the other. ... The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”
Tertullianwas a prolific early Christian writer fromCarthage in whatwas then the Romanprovince of Africa. He raisedmany of the issues that have been debated by succeeding generations about faith, reason and their application to politics and the governing authorities.
In his “PrescriptionAgainstHeresies,” Tertullian viewed faith “as the submission of our will to the DivineAuthority.”
Here is where faith advisers often diverge. Aswith liberal judgeswhooften read into the Constitution their personal biases and interpretations of what is written in that document so, too, do liberal faith advisers appear to align their beliefs with what ruling politicians of the day believe, whether it comports with Scripture and “DivineAuthority,” or not. Usually not. Conservative faith advisers cannot escape similar scrutinywhen they cherry-pick the Scriptures.
Areal faith adviserwould tell a ruler what he needs to hear, notwhat hewants to hear; what will lead him to a right path and not downthewrong one if, in fact, we are allowed to determine right fromwrong in our pluralistic and tolerance-of-everything culture.
Perhaps the ultimate faith adviser is found in the OldTestament. His namewas Nathan the Prophet. He confronted the powerful KingDavid of Israel about his affair withBathsheba and his sending her husband, Uriah the Hittite, to the front lines to be killed soDavid could haveBathsheba for his own.
Nathan’s direct confrontation ofDavid led toDavid writing one of the great Psalms of genuine repentance and acknowledgment toGod that “Against you, you only, have I sinned and donewhat is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.” (Psalm 51:4
NIV)
That’s the kind of faith adviserwho shouldmatter to any leader. If reports are true about thoseBidenmay choose, they will be of nomore use to him than the ones whohave advised PresidentTrump.