Was Santorum running for theologian-in-chief?

Rick Santorum has ended his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. This is an historic moment. Santorum’s was possibly the most religiously-based presidential campaign, not only in this election cycle, but perhaps in American history.

Santorum’s vision of the presidency, as gleaned from his many statements on faith and policy, was more of a Christian “theologian-in-chief” than a political leader of the most religiously diverse nation in the world.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaks to supporters at Savre Lanes in Menasha, Wisconsin in this April 2, 2012 file photograph. Santorum will announce that he is going to drop out of the presidential race, two sources familiar with the decision told Reuters on April 10, 2012. REUTERS/Darren Hauck (UNITED STATES – Tags: ELECTIONS POLITICS)
(DARREN HAUCK – REUTERS)

The Santorum run was an historic candidacy because his often off-the-cuff remarks would reveal what is at stake for American democracy when ‘faith in the public square’ shifts and becomes more like ‘one faith should dominate the public square.’

The best framing for this analysis is, of course, Santorum’s comment that he “almost threw up” after reading John F. Kennedy’s historic 1960 address on separation of church and state. The very visceral quality of Santorum’s reaction, its literal ‘from the gut’ reaction, is most revealing. The idea that his conservative Catholic faith could remain private, and not dictate what he would do as President in running the government of a religiously and non-religiously pluralistic society, was literally anathema to Santorum.

Kennedy’s famous statement showed exactly how he thought his Catholic faith should neither dictate, or he as a Catholic be dictated to by Catholic religious authorities, and how his presidency of the whole nation meant religious and non-religious neutrality. He so famously said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

Santorum introduced not only revulsion for the separation of church and state into this presidential campaign, but within the church arena, theological differences. Santorum strikingly attacked the “theology” that he presumed undergirded the president’s views and described them as one “not based on the Bible.” Obama’s agenda, Santorum told tea party supporters, is “about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” But later Santorum affirmed that he thought President Obama was a Christian. Thus, Santorum brought up a Christian theological difference as a campaign issue. Theological differences between one faith and another are indeed divisive, but perhaps even more divisive is criticizing the theology of a member of one’s own faith in the political square. Neither is appropriate.

Santorum’s popularity with the Protestant evangelical “base,” mostly accounted for his success during the primaries. Santorum’s attraction for this group illustrates that there is a segment of the conservative American religious public who believe that separation of church and state is wrong as codified in the first amendment. Many in this group seem to believe that a particular type of Christianity should “be established,” that is, not just have a voice in our public debates, but be decisive in our political administration. That’s establishment by any name.

There is enormous risk to our democracy if someone elected to the presidency of the United States thinks the job is to be “theologian-in-chief,” not “commander-in-chief” and political leader of a religiously pluralistic America. In the United States, our freedom of religion depends, without question, on freedom from tyranny of one religion over another.

Santorum’s candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination has ended, but I do not believe this is the last we have seen of someone running to be “theologian-in-chief.”