Is there a litmus test?
I believe there must be.
That is to say, there is one or more particular characteristic or belief a politician must have to be considered a Christian.
Whether the reader is Christian, or not, I think we can all agree that ultimately, ours is not to judge.
Yet all of easily say things such as "Most of the Republican candidates are Christian". I doubt that few reasonable persons would disagree with this. Those who disagree would undoubtedly be extremists. This means some or all of the candidates have been judged as Christian or not, by some standard.
We might say anyone who goes to Christian church occasionally, is a Christian.
We might say anyone who says "I am a Christian.", is a Christian.
We might say anyone who has been baptized is a Christian.
I would say these things are not, in themselves, sufficient indicators to agree these persons are Christian.
A politician cannot say "I am a Christian. Also, I am also a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.", and still be considered a Christian, especially by Christians. Someone who declares themselves as a Muslim, has excluded themselves from being a Christian. Likewise, someone who declares themselves as a Christian, has excluded themselves from being a Muslim, under the general understanding of what it means to be a Christian or Muslim. These two belief systems are mutually exclusive. One cannot be both, except in some special application of the terms, which is generally not accepted by the vast majority of the members of these groups.
Jews and Muslims might agree that Jesus was a great spiritual teacher, but surely this does not make them Christian.
They would agree that the Old Testament is a history of the relationship of the one true God, and mankind, but this does not make them Christian.
Any politician or citizen, is free to make up his own rules of what it means to be a Christian, but this does not mean the vast majority of Christians or citizens will agree with them.
I am looking for beliefs or actions that are consistent (or inconsistent) with being a Christian politician.
I would agree that none of us can offer "proof" that any particular politician is or is not a Christian, but we can offer a preponderance of evidence to show the vast majority of reasonable persons would agree with us.
Here is my suggestion for a litmus test in determining what politicians are Christian.
A Christian politician recognizes Jesus as the divine son of God, who shed his blood (died) to offer mankind salvation from their sins, the remission of their sins, forgiveness of their sins, which is necessary to spend eternity with God.
This belief does not insure the person is a Christian, but without this belief I cannot see how a person is a Christian, except in some special sense, not commonly accepted by Christians. If for example a person believes this, and also that the faithful must offer a human blood sacrifice at regular intervals to please God, we should be able to agree they are not Christian (in any traditional sense).
Some might say a belief in the virgin birth and resurrection is necessary for a Christian, but I believe this is too harsh for our purposes, the purposes of determining what politicians are Christian.
Some might say a Christian must believe the Bible is the divine word of God, but again I believe this is too harsh.
Some might say a Christian believes only those who are Christian get to spend eternity with God, again, too harsh.
For the purposes of determining who is a Christian Politician, I believe we must be liberal in our acceptance of the meaning "Christian". In other words, there will be many who will say "Yes, that politician is a Christian, but I have different (stronger) beliefs than that." Many liberal sects are undoubtedly Christian, but are not literalists. They accept things their more conservative brothers reject.
I believe it is common knowledge that some members of some sects of Christianity, believe that some other sects are not really Christians, because they are considered as not following the teachings of Christ. These persons are using "Christian" in a much more strict usage than simply identifying the belief system of a politician.
It is a belief in the pure divinity of Jesus (not merely divine inspiration) that identifies a Christian.
Those who disagree may present their position.
I would also think that a Christian politician would be willing to make a declaration to that effect.
A Christian might fear for the well being of themselves or loved ones so might deny being a Christian to save innocent life, but barring such unusual circumstances, a Christian politician would be expected to openly proclaim that they are a Christian. A lack of this would imply a denial of Christianity, and more evidence would be needed.
Christians are not "required" to join or attend a particular church, and yet surely a Christian (politician) will be drawn to a particular church, and observe its teachings and sacraments. If someone says they are a Christian, but proclaim that they cannot follow the teachings of any organized church, there would be reasonable doubt whether most of us would consider them Christian. We would want to know more, want to know why this is true. We would not say this means they are not a Christian, only that they might not be a Christian, in the general usage of the term. We would want to know what it is that prevents this politician from aligning themselves with a particular sect, (or group of sects) of Christianity. We would wonder, with so many sects of Christianity available, why is it none suits this particular self declared Christian. Christianity, after all, normally includes a fellowship with other believers.
For each particular case, we can look at the evidence available, and say yes, that politician is a Christian, or no, that politician is not a Christian. In most cases it is this body of evidence that must be considered to decide. Simple statements such as "Here is a photo of her attending a church service.", should not be considered a preponderance of evidence and should not convince us she is a Christian.
These things are true whether the politician is living or dead.
In a separate thread, the poster Truth Prevails, implies that the statement of Thomas Jefferson: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." indicates to us that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian politician, and further, that we should expect our government to act in a certain way, because this statement is representative of the people who laid the foundation of this country.
This quote is taken out of context, and when the body of evidence surrounding this statement is reviewed, it is easily seen that Thomas Jefferson does not pass my proposed litmus test for identifying a Christian politician.
There is a preponderance of evidence that Jefferson rejected traditional Christianity, and rejected the divinity of Jesus. If I am challenged to present documentation to verify what I say about Jeffersons beliefs, I will do so. It is a simple matter of public record.
The evidence that he believed Jesus was a great spiritual teacher, and possible divinely inspired, is equally overwhelming.
Those who would disagree with my saying Jefferson was not a Christian politician, would have to propose either a lack of any litmus test, or a different test, one that Jefferson would pass.
And later Truth Prevails writes:
I will agree that the United States was founded to some degree and rooted to some degree on/in the doctrines of Christ, but this is misrepresentative.The United States was founded on Christianity and was rooted in the doctrine of Christ and America has been greatly blessed just as it says in the Bible Blessed is the nation whos God is the Lord! There is absolutly no denying the evidence!
A truer statement would be that in the establishment of the United States, between the competing ideals of Deism and Christianity, Deism superseded Christianity.
The greater influence came from the Deism that was a product of the enlightenment. Christianity had a secondary influence.
I would be interested in discussing such things.
