So John McCain says he’s a Baptist, and he has been for years. But that’s not what he’s been saying for years:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has long identified himself as an Episcopalian, said this weekend that he is a Baptist and has been for years.
Campaigning in this conservative, predominantly Baptist state [South Carolina], McCain called himself a Baptist when speaking to reporters Sunday and noted that he and his family have been members of the North Phoenix Baptist Church in his home state of Arizona for more than 15 years. […]
While McCain has long talked about his family’s and his own attendance at the Arizona church, he appears to have consistently referred to himself as Episcopalian in media reports.
Carpetbagger has some good commentary on this. Religion is a private matter, and McCain should be able to believe — or not believe — whatever he wants, without criticism or scrutiny (so long as it doesn’t involve, say, human sacrifice). But:
The point isn’t that McCain can’t leave one faith tradition for another; he certainly can. It’s also not the point that there’s somehow something wrong with being a Baptist; there isn’t. The question is here whether McCain is pandering — did he switch religious traditions to score some points with voters?
Carpetbagger notes that McCain was telling reporters he was Episcopalian only three months ago. Then there’s this:
What’s more, McCain and his family attend the North Phoenix Baptist Church, but he’s the only member of the family who hasn’t been baptized in the church. McCain said he hasn’t because, “I didn’t find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs.”
Not to get too theologically picky about it, but I’m fairly certain that in order to be a Baptist in a Baptist church you have to be baptized.
Indeed, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t baptism pretty much the central rite of most varieties of Christianity? An unbaptised “Catholic,” for instance, is not really a Catholic. If it’s not important for his spirtual needs, then his spritual needs probably don’t involve very much in the way of Christian practice at all.
Which, again, is fine — in fact, preferable as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather that candidates could really be honest about what, if anything, they believe. But it seems that McCain is being anything but honest.
5 Responses to “John McCain, Unbaptised Baptist?”
It said it all, but it was spelled wrong 
[...] Unbaptized Baptist? Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
The phrase “unbaptized Catholic” is an oxymoron. There are no unbaptized Catholics, just uncomfirmed ones. As for McCain, many Christian religions believe that one baptism in almost any Christian denomination is all you need. You don’t need to be re-baptized in another Christian faith in order to become a member of that faith tradition; you just need to be confirmed, which means you’re educated in the basic tenets of that faith. Baptism simply means that you became part of Christ’s church in the world, which encompasses all Christians, whatever the denomination.
As much as I dislike McCain, he’s not incorrect in saying he’s a Baptist if he is a member of that particular church in Phoenix.
I have been a Baptist for years now and I have learned that baptism does not make you a Baptist. Agreement with the articles of faith of your Baptist church make you a Baptist, since sometimes it takes more time for people to fully understand this doctrine and take the step of faith and be immersed. Usually it rests on the pastor´s lead to instruct how important it is and the proper time to do so.
Something to say?
The title says it all an “Unbaptised Baptist”. Good grief! Pandering for sure.
Left by MJN
September 17, 2007 at 12:43pm