Huckabee: a 2nd Commandment Christian Candidate
Joe Klein wrote an interesting article for Time about Governor of Arkansas and Republican presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee. Klein writes that, although Huckabee is a conservative Christian, very religious in his personal life, etc. Republican voters / the conservative base, somehow, don’t seem to be very fond of him (yet).
Why is that, Klein wonders. Why doesn’t the Religious Right embrace the very religious Huckabee? The former Governor of Arkansas, the first Governor who, according to Huckabee himself, cut taxes in over 160 years.
The answer: he’s a ‘salvation Christian’. A second commandment Christian. A “Thou Shalt”, instead of “Thou Shalt Not” Christian. That, quite simply, doesn’t fall on good ground with many members of the Religious Right. If he wants to win the support of Christian conservatives, he needs to condemn a bit more.
He also spends too much time talking about helping the poor, and too little time talking tax cuts (paraphrasing here). Conservative audiences only seem to respond to Huckabee, once he talks about cutting taxes, not when he’s talking about food banks or, God forbid, health care.
Klein’s final paragraph:
For Huckabee and Brownback, a moment of biblical temptation looms. Both will be spending most of their time in Iowa, where Republicans have a strong religious bent. Both Robertson and Buchanan have done well there. The temptation will be to slouch back to hellfire and brimstone to unite conservative Christians. It will be an exquisite test of faith for a Second Commandment Christian like Huckabee: Thou Shalt or Thou Shalt Not? Can you win the Iowa caucus without losing your soul?
Although it’s a bit oversimplified, I do recognize my own thoughts on this matter in the general idea behind the article: it’s somewhat comparable to McCain’s position – McCain seems to have made the wrong decision early on, to court the social conservative base, while desperately trying not to lose the support of more moderate Republicans. Did he sell out? I’d say so, yes. Huckabee’s advisors might suggest to him, that he should become a bit more… aggressive, a little less… tolerant, if he wants to rise in the polls that is.
Will Huckabee resist the pressure to do so, or will he give in?
22 Responses to “Huckabee: a 2nd Commandment Christian Candidate”
My first thought is, “what is he talking about – 2nd Commandment Christians?” and I promptly referred to the 10 Commandments (see below) which did not seem to make sense in this context. Then I read Klein’s column. I think we’re not talking about the 10 Commandments at all but rather what Christians call “The Great Commandment” where Jesus said something like “Love the Lord Your God with all your Heart, all your Soul and all your Might and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.” Source of Jesus’ Great Commandment: The Hebrew Bible, Deut. 6:5 & Leviticus 19:18.
————————————————————————————
Washington Post: Versions of the Ten Commandments Vary by Tradition
JEWISH VERSION
1. I the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.
2. You shall have no other gods besides Me.
3. You shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God.
4. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or…anything that is your neighbor’s.
Based on the Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Jewish Publication Society, 1985).
Numbering varies by tradition.
CATHOLIC-LUTHERAN VERSION
1. I am the Lord your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
“A Traditional Catechetical Formula” in Catechism of the Catholic Church (U.S. Catholic Conference, 1991).
PROTESTANT VERSION
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make yourself a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or . . . anything that is your neighbor’s.
Based on the Book of Confessions (Presbyterian Church USA, 1991).
I was wondering the same thing, Holly, and I think you are right that Klein must have been referring to Jesus’ Great Commandment rather than #2 of the Ten.
CS – it certainly makes more sense in this context!
The differing versions of the 10 Commandments make a good case for why they should NOT be displayed in schools and courthouses – ANY version used endorses some religion’s view and rejects others.
Do you really think they are that different, or are you just making the point that one or another “official” version would have to be chosen and that this choice itself would indicate a preference?
Both – they ARE that different and so are their interpretations AND the choice itself would indicate a preference, so to speak, a default mode.
Yes, that’s how I thought he meant it at least.
I think he means a Second Amendment Christian ;-P
“I think he means a Second Amendment Christian”
I had to re-read the headline five times because I kept reading it like that and was confused how the post was about the Second Amendment.
Holly/CS this is the version I’m most familiar with. It’s a lot more strict about the definition of “graven image” (something that some branches of Islam actually follow) and the penalty for worshiping other Gods.
Course I’ll still never understand how having Sunday be the Sabbath squares with the ten commandments — I know the historical reasons and how Christians defend having that be their day of worship, but never been even close to convinced about it being “OK” for the day of rest.
While I don’t know enough about Huckabee to comment about him, I do know that Sam Brownback is a wonderful principled conservative Republican who respects all life. A genuine and warm human being who deserves the GOP nomination. He will make an excellent President.
At Blogs 4 Brownback we’re documenting the latest Brownback buzz. I hope you’ll consider taking a look and will support Sam Brownback for President!
mikkel – thanks for the informative hyperlink!
Psycheout – Although I respect the stand Sam Brownback has taken regarding AIDS in Africa, I cannot support most of his positions. God forbid he should ever become President!
[...] Click here to read more. [...]
Well, Holly, if God has anything to do it, Sam Brownback will be the GOP nominee. May the best man win!
If Sam Brownback is the GOP nominee, the GOP will get clobbered. God is clearly pro-choice!
Huckabee: “The Second Commandment–do unto others–is the basic tenet of my faith. ” He doesn’t know the ten commandments?
This seems to be his Baptist theology speaking. Baptist and Evangelical sermons have been making the rounds along the lines of “Remember after the Great Commandment — loving God — there is the Second Commandment–love others.” When asked what is the “greatestâ€? commandment of God’s law, Jesus responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like unto it: You shall love thy neighbor as yourself.â€? (Matthew 22:37-39)
This might be a little related to the authoritarian “Great Commission” movement, before Jesus comes again everyone must hear about Jesus and have had a chance to be converted and the purpose of the church is to spread the word.
Is there a third commandment “Love Thyself”?
As I get older I find more sense in “An it harm none, do what ye will.”
Holly, I have to say your initial post is one of the clearest and simplest demonstrations I’ve seen of why your third post is spot on, in my mind. Unfortunately, I’ll also have to admit my own previous ignorance in the relatively subtle, but very telling and important differences among them when compared directly.
Mikkel,
This is tangential, but since you brought it up, I don’t quite understand what you don’t understand about the Sabbath. If I read you correctly you seem to be saying that you understand having a day of worship but not a day of rest? Or is your point about which particular day it falls on?
If it’s the issue of resting, my understanding is that it’s based on the scriptural idea that God rested on the seventh day (which to my church is not literal, but a figurative reference to working six days out of the week which puts our focus on this life, this world, and then ‘resting’ on the seventh which basically means putting the focus during that day on the eternal life and heaven.)
I’m not trying to quibble, just confused about your comment and trying to figure out what you meant by it.
CS: Historically observing the Sabbath has been extremely important — in the Old Testament and during much of the history of Christianity, people could be put to death or have other severe punishment for working on that day. My point is that it is very clear that the Sabbath is Saturday, something Jews/Muslims/Seventh Day Advendists/Anabaptists/Mennonites (a few others I think I’ve forgotten) acknowledge.
Whenever I ask a fundamentalist Christian why they don’t observe it on Saturday they’ve talked about why Christians have church on Sunday and try to justify it. I’ve never heard a good reason why their day of rest isn’t on Saturday though.
If the Church doesn’t take it literal then it’s a moot point, but the people I’m talking about think that the Bible is absolutely universal in every respect and must be followed word for word literally. They’re also normally the ones talking about how the Ten Commandments need to be posted everywhere so that’s what prompts my question about how they interpret the Sabbath and “graven images” points. (And to a lesser extent the Lord’s name is vain because even though it’s quibbling it does mean not to break contracts where you swear on the name of God — which is how all contracts used to be.)
p.s. poking around some more I find that in Islam they acknowledge the Sabbath as Saturday but that Muslims don’t need to take a day of rest.
Hmm, well, I guess I just don’t understand why the Sat/Sun distinction matters so much. Aren’t the days of the week pretty arbitrary and manmade? You could say that the order of days of the week is Sun-Mon- Tues….Fri-Sat, or you could say it’s Mon-Tues-Wed-…Sat-Sun so that you make the “seventh day” whatever you want it to be, couldn’t you?
I guess I don’t get the historical point that you seem to be making, other than that at some point Christians obviously changed the day that they observed the Sabbath to be something other than what the Jews observed. I don’t know the exact history of that change but it seems obvious that it may have taken place so that Christians might distinguish themselves from the Jews of their time and so that they might highlight the importance of the day of the week that Christ arose from death as a central point of faith.
Hah, something about this discussion brought to mind the tendency in both matters of faith and other affairs, to do things a certain way without really knowing why we are doing them. Reminded me of a story shared by my mom-I think she read it somewhere and it’s likely not true but illustrates a point- about a woman whose daughter watched her preparing a roast for a family meal. The mother cut off a small slice of the meat from each end and then placed the roast in the pan, seasoned it and put it in the oven. The daughter asked why she had sliced off the ends and the mom remarked that she didn’t really know, that this was just the way she had learned to do it from her mom. They both got curious and called the grandmother who said she didn’t know either- it was the way she had been taught. Great grandma was still alive so they called her and she laughed when asked the reason for cutting off the ends of the roast. She explained: “I only had a small roasting pan so I always had to cut some off in order to fit it in the pan.”
Haha it doesn’t matter to me, you could have it on Wednesday to get rid of “hump day” and it’d be perfectly fine. This has the info on historical stuff. I’m just saying that when someone is a literalist they should treat things literally — and this is one of the most egregious examples of not doing that. When people say things like “the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our society and should be posted everywhere” and they aren’t observing three of them as strictly as they were originally written and there’s no underlying reason for this, then I tend to be skeptical.
No offense CS but sometimes it seems like you haven’t had much experience with fundamentalist Protestants that are staking claim to the “moral majority” in this country…the kind that when I ask them a question they don’t know they flip through the Bible they’re carrying to try to find the answer and if that fails say that their pastor will be able to tell them what they think. Fortunately evangelicals and catholics seem to be reemerging.
Actually Mikkel I have a good bit of experience here in the Bible belt with those types of literalist evangelicals. I guess the problem is that I don’t find that people tend to direct their criticisms specifically toward that group; rather there are often critical comments made about the “religious right” or “conservative Christians”. My objections are similar to the way a liberal progressive might feel when conservatives use strawman arguments against all ‘libruls’ by pointing to some of the most ridiculous extremists among them.
Once we got into the discussion you explained that your beef was with the literalists but I didn’t get that from your first comment. I think your general point is apt and I think that the argument (that if you’re a literalist then you lose the right to cherry pick) applies to many issues like creationism. There are two separate accounts of the creation story in Genesis and there’s no way to reconcile the conflicting details in the two versions unless you assume a non-literal interpretation.