Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 8, 1993                   TAG: 9401140006
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Cal Thomas
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

GOD'S SERVANT?

Clinton said he would try hard ``to create a new sense of common purpose.'' That does not mean, he said, ``that we have to minimize our diversity, pretend that we don't have deep convictions or run away from our honest disagreements.'' Instead, it means ``that we must find a way to talk with respect with one another about those things with which we disagree and to find the emotional as well as intellectual freedom to work together when we can.''

At the breakfast the president made some good points, and some of his comments deserve consideration. He correctly noted that government ``can't possibly do anything for anybody in this country unless they're willing to do something for themselves. . . . You cannot change somebody's life from the outside in unless there is also some change from the inside out.''

Every president sooner or later gets around to using God as one of his special assistants. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives have done it. Richard Nixon used to hold Sunday services in the White House. He would invite ``politically correct'' clergy who never questioned his policies. Lyndon Johnson sought the help of various clergy as he fought the Vietnam War abroad and antiwar sentiment at home. President Reagan enjoyed the almost universal approval of conservative evangelical pastors and lay people. All presidents try to baptize their policies as if God needed government to achieve His purposes.

President Clinton seems to have taken a page from Jimmy Carter (including a demonstration of humility when Clinton acknowledged that some of his policies could be wrong). Clinton, like Carter, comes from a Baptist background, but not all Baptists are the same. Carter and Clinton belong to the ``moderate'' wing of the denomination, which often sees government as redeemer and the facilitator of a liberal political agenda.

Along these lines, there is one serious flaw in Clinton's otherwise commendable remarks. It is his contention that government can create the ``common good'' in America. In fact it is not government but ``we the people'' who create the common good.

Perhaps the most revealing comment made by the president was that God's will is ``difficult to know, even harder to do.'' This view is what divides those who believe that God had enough strength left over after creating the universe to cause those He had created to accurately write down how we could find Him and what He required of us from those who believe the Bible is a collection of nice thoughts, some of them ``inspired,'' which need our interpretation to bring them up to date.

The policies and lifestyles that emanate from each of these views are irreconcilable because they begin at different sources and lead to different conclusions. Chief among these differences is the purpose of government. The conservative theological view is that we need government because we are sinners. If we will not be constrained from within by the presence and power of God, we must be restrained from without by the power of the state, acting as God's agent, in order to conform people to a standard of righteousness and thus to promote the general welfare.

The other side considers government to be a savior, supporting us financially, healing our ills, creating our morality - doing the work that was traditionally the province of individual responsibility, the family and the church.

President Clinton grew up in the ``God is dead'' generation, in which many people thought they could do without God. Recently, a number of prominent children of this era have been trying to ``resurrect God.'' To those who never buried Him, this new ``god'' is unrecognizable - made in the image of man rather than the reverse. Cynics could dismiss this new spirituality as an insincere political tactic, and it may turn out to be just that.

But President Clinton has pledged to hold a series of informal meetings with religious leaders, including some of a more conservative stripe. One hopes these will have a positive impact on his life. As for the impact they will make on public policy, consider the former presidents and don't hold your breath.

\ Los Angeles Times Syndicate