I think it is fully appropriate to use religious discourse in a religious context to articulate a position that represents a religious believer’s viewpoint in the public policy marketplace. That is the case with discussion among fellow religious believers about abortion policy, and same sex marriage policy, and religious freedom policy. This is encouragement of active participation in democracy.

What I find objectionable is the subversion of religious language in the service of political power. It is essentially a personal claim to prophetic, even messianic, authority. It is an assertion of self as being closer to God, rather than humility before God.

That is why I am offended by the language used by President Obama, when he told us that we are wealthy sinners if we do not volunteer to be our brothers’ keepers by supporting Federal control of health care. He is claiming to enlist the authority of scripture in support of a messy political compromise whose specific contents are still being tossed around like a bad hash.

“My brother’s keeper” was not the commandment of God, but the sarcastic rejoinder of Cain when he lied about knowing the whereabouts of his murdered brother. God never told Cain, or Adam, or Abraham or Moses, that we must each be in control of our brothers, as we would with our sheep, controlling when they go in or out and where they go. Loving our neighbors, the real command, does not mean doing for them what they can do for themselves and their own families. But the profession that Cain derided is what Obama aspires to: He would be our keeper, in charge of us, caring for us, and keeping us from organizing our own herds and caring for ourselves.

It might not be manipulation on purpose. When someone uses the “I feel led” or “God told me” language without further discernment, how is an answer given? Especially, when it is geared toward a decision to be made, teaching, etc. It leaves little room for reconsideration and disagreement.