Keeping up Appearances in Politics and Religion

As we approach the presidential election later this year, it is easier than ever to see the how the Bible influences candidates’ campaigns and voters’ views on the election. Scrolling through my Facebook feed, I saw a friend’s grandmother post an article in support of Ted Cruz, and it had been followed up with a very memorable comment: “I believe that Ted Cruz is the best candidate for the position and be the next president of the United States of America… Why? Because he is a true believer in Christ.” Questionable syntax and reasoning aside, this serves as just one example of how some can be greatly influenced by religion in the political sphere.

In “The Bible in the Presidential Elections,” Jacques Berlinerblau explores some of the ways in which politicians use the Bible but also discusses broader concepts such as the distinction, or lack thereof, between primary scripture and the interpretation of scripture that has become so commonly used in religious circles. Berlinerblau argues that “religious folks typically fail to grasp the difference between their primary scriptures and the millennia of hermeneutical interpretation that…often drowns out the originals” (24). This summation suggests that the interpretation of scripture is being given authority by those in different religious communities, elevating the status of these interpretations, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to something like scripture themselves. In fact, interpretation is already so embedded in the scripture that it is accepted as the true word of God by some groups. Berlinerblau cites a passage that is generally read as a condemnation of homosexuality, explaining that a biblical scholar “would not translate or interpret…these verses as an unambiguous repudiation of same-sex eroticism,” but it has become so commonly seen as such that many accept this interpretation as authoritative (25).

However, this interpretation through translation may be the only interpretation given when scripture is used in a political setting. Berlinerblau goes on to say that “scriptural allusions were almost always the essence of brevity” in attempts to “hurry through or even conceal one’s faith-based pandering” (27, 29). His discussion of this phenomenon makes such references seem insincere, more similar to name-dropping than clarifying meaning or ideas. While this section raises the issue of the legitimacy and sincerity of these references by many politicians, it may also make one wonder what exactly the general public, who has become so used to and reliant upon interpretation, really make of these allusions. With politicians skating over biblical references and not, in reality, applying the ideas they espouse to their politics and audiences accepting rushed quotations as a display of piety without really considering the meaning of the scripture, it appears that the use of the Bible in politics is almost entirely superficial—a show put on both by candidates and voters to put their piety on display.