Oops, the liberal got it right

I generally enjoy reading the Al Mohler blog, but today I believe that he goofed. Here is a blog entry concerning religious views of political candidates. He quotes Michael Kinsley, a liberal columnist, that we should know the religious views of candidates. Specifically, Kinsley, with Mohler's approval, wants to know what a candidate's church teaches about issues that will affect others; abortion, euthanasia, gambling and the like come to my mind.

So far so good. THEN, Mohler parts ways with Kinsley when Kinsley suggests that he wants to know what a candidate's church teaches on worldview issues that don't directly affect others. For example, if a church teaches that you are to be true to your spouse, that teaching doesn't make adultery a crime for others. Mohler thinks that makes the teaching off limits. He says,

[kinsley should] think carefully about the distinction between doctrines that relate directly to public policy and those that do not.

What? Are there really aspects of our beliefs that don't relate to all of life. Can we separate out what we believe is right from how we would prefer to see others live? If I am elected President and hold evangelical beliefs, that will shape all of my decisions. I won't be likely to surround myself with advisors that are obvious adulterers. I won't invite female preachers to say the prayer at state dinners. In short, I will be an evangelical. And, without saying what my beliefs are on some of these issues, I will offend people just by being a person of faith.

Do we really think that people around us aren't offended by our beliefs, even if we don't push those beliefs on them? Of course they are. It galls them to think that people who are "holier than thou" are in the neighborhood.

Rememeber, if you believe it, it will be a part of who you are in public, as well as inside the walls of your church, or you are a hypocrite. Kinsley got it right.