I very much appreciate the Q & A with Andrew Schlafly. I applaud his suggestion of using “original intent” to understand the Bible. So often a reader reads a Bible, little realizing that it had an original audience who may have understood its message differently than what a 2010 American would understand.  

My fear is that a PAW question cited a key problem in approach: The Gospels are being interpreted through the lens of politics, rather than politics being interpreted through the lens of the Gospels. My Bible has a message for everyone, and the political messages that may be communicated are ultimately subservient to a spiritual message, for everyone, regardless of where or when they live.  

One’s political stances on issues definitely will be affected by a Bible’s statements relative to those issues. But I am convinced that God did not bring a Bible into existence to primarily turn Americans or anyone into political conservatives. He did wish to introduce mankind to a Savior, whom one may have, by their turning to and following him, as their personal king and master. As individuals grow in their knowledge of the Bible, they will grow in their faith, which will affect all human relationships, including those with leaders, and those whom they may lead.  

So there are definitely political repercussions to becoming a Christian and following the Lord. But the cart cannot come before the horse. My Lord is the God of the Bible. He is not a political philosophy that may have many features that are derived from a Bible.  

I wish Mr. Schlafly well on his “second opinion” Internet encyclopedia. But I cannot caution him nor any reader enough to let God speak for himself, through his word, and to let one’s political philosophies grow from there.

Rev. Michael O’Connor ’77