I’ve just read the “Book Excerpt,” “My Spiritual Journey,” from Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope in the October 23rd issue of Time magazine. In the excerpt Obama describes a Christian America that is basically evangelical in nature. The liberal Christian values that I have become acquainted with since leaving the Amish order do not exist in his evangelical USA. For instance, he stated that “37% [of Americans] consider themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than believe in evolution.” I was extremely troubled by the comparison for two reasons. First, it implies that most if not all Christians are evangelical. Second, comparing a belief in angels to a belief in a scientific theory is like comparing apples to oranges. Let me explain. A belief in angels is a matter of faith. There are no photographs, fossils, or recordings of angel statements, no evidence of any kind to support the belief. If I personally believe in angels, it is a matter of faith. If, on the other hand, I believe the scientific theory of evolution to be correct, my belief is based on the researched evidence of many scientists, secular and Christian who have discovered fossils, layers in the earths crust, as well as carbon dating of both layers and fossils that demonstrate the very strong possibility that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct. Thus, these two things, angels and evolution are not comparable.

Barack Obama is a rising star in the Democratic Party, and a possible presidential contender. I respect his presence in American politics as a positive force. He does not speak down to his constituents. Rather, he talks thoroughly about the issues expressing his personal doubts and convictions as well as known pros and cons concerning them. At the same time, it is necessary that Barack Obama as well as all democrats avoid confusing articles of faith with scientific theories as evangelical Christians do. Instead, we must address the obvious divide between them. As a Christian myself, though not of the evangelical variety, I know that each and every one of us believes in God based on personal experience and perception. While I believe that some beliefs concerning God are universal, these are not the articles of faith evangelicals are so ready to defend with a literally interpreted Bible – literally based on an institutionalized church provided position concerning all things – rather they are beliefs about the basic practices of goodness that a universal God would have us all perform. I do not need to enumerate these practices, they are known by all mankind, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any of the other faiths practiced on this earth. At the same time, I also have particular personal articles of faith that are not universal. I believe the various religious faiths are derived from the same God. God is not only a Christian God, though I believe that Jesus Christ was his/her son, who did come to save us from the evil part of our human nature, including that which would condemn all those who do not believe exactly as we do. I also believe that God/Allah is a Muslim God, and I know he/she condemns the murder and terror that Muslim fundamentalist practitioners of jihad perpetrate in his name. God is the same God, regardless of religious practice. I believe God to be the only universal truth. And, I believe that spirituality is a natural God given human instinct. These articles of my personal faith must not, however, be confused with any part of science for they are not the same. The practice of faith, and the practice of science must not be mixed together unless one does so in order to create a marvelous emulsion, a suffusion of the flavors of each that is artful, and that enhances the suspended particular notions present in each.

So, Barack Obama, and all Democrats, myself included must not be afraid to define our position as opposed to literalism in all its forms. We must not be afraid to place our definition of God and Christianity in opposition to the evangelical notion that God is Christian and only Christian that all other forms of religious practice are in error. We must not be afraid to stand up for pluralism in all things other than the one God who would have us practice universal goodness. I believe that we must be able to do this thing or democracy and all that it has to offer this damaged world is doomed to failure.

There’s nothing surprising about this bit of theatrics that I call “The Pastor and the Prostitute.” It’s just a repeat evangelical pastoral (h-m-m-m-m-m) performance with new actors. I admit, it’s human to prescribe right behavior for others, but pursue wrong behavior oneself, though it seems to be diurnal practice for many of us. I myself am inferring a certain “wrongness” as I use the label “prostitute, though Mike Jones has admitted to the euphemistic term, “escort.” I also know that in some cultures, prostitution is seen as a necessary occupation. And, I have myself been tempted by adds in gay newspapers. Ah, there I go with the personal confessional prescribed by our culture – do it before it is done unto you.

Unfortunately, this play will pass through a million permutations as it is performed in every living room in the United States. Mike Jones will be the evil promiscuous gay man in many of these versions, preying on the good pastor and turning him from God, though in others he will be seen as the hero. Ted Haggard for his part will be a saint in some variations and a pathetic self-loathing homophobe in others. In my mind I see “The Pastor and the Prostitute” performed as a tragedy, a Postmodern Shakespearian play complete with comic relief as an over indulgent church grounds keeper (a secret Democrat) takes a leak behind a bush (pun intended) as he expounds on the foolishness of seemingly great religious men. And, of course, the character flaw that initiates the tragic play is not Ted Haggard’s assumed homosexuality, but the lie lived in order to build an anti-gay evangelical ministry of national importance.