Believe a Christian?
When someone says they're Christian and they know the answer to a faith and morals question, are we supposed to believe them? Few of us accept someone's answer just because they say they're right, and even fewer of us accept someone's answer simply because they say they're Christian.
Rather than getting to an argument when someone says something contrary to our beliefs, many (perhaps most) of us simply remain silent. While we may not confront them, we certainly don't openly agree with them. However, given a chance for a discussion, most of us would make it clear that we don't agree with them.
Even so, there are times when we seem to agree with what others have to say, even when we don't. That's particularly true when that person is also a politician. Even when we don't agree with them, we effectively appear to agree with them because the forum they use makes it difficult for an individual to disagree, at least with the same impact. And that lack of a meaningful response, where our "no" isn't heard, effectively gives "silent" support to what they say.
Politicians count on that silent support because they often promote programs (both good and bad) which require our support and they (the politicians) don't want to spend a lot of time arguing about them. Obviously, they want to spend less time arguing and more time implementing their program. So naturally, when politicians promote programs that touch on faith moral questions, they try to speak for all Christians, not so much because they know what we (as individuals) believe, but because they want most Christians to believe that all other Christians agree with what they are saying and give them the support that they need.
A recent example of a politician who first identified themselves as a Christian and then promoted a particular government program is Kathleen Sebelius. Kathleen Sebelius (U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services who is known to be pro-abortion), claimed to be a Christian (more specifically, a Roman Catholic), and promoted a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA sect. 1303) that forces all enrollees to pay a monthly surcharge for contraceptive drugs and abortion procedures. Sebelius wants us to believe that she speaks for all Christians, particularly Catholics, when she says that the provision is both good and moral. However, because the teaching of her faith is contrary to both contraception and abortion, she appears to be supporting the ACA as a Christian only in the hope of garnering enough support for it by either undermining or removing the opposition from Christians.
It should come as no surprise that politicians try to speak for us. After all, we have a representative government and that's why we elected them. However, when they try to speak for us on matters of faith and morals, we have to wonder if they are doing it because they know that their program will offend a significant number of people and, they want to minimize any dissent before it materializes. "Speaking for all Christians" has become an effective way to minimize Christian opposition because it exploits the differences between Christians in order to divide them and thereby minimize their opposition.
How many differences or divisions are there be between Christians on moral matters? The World Council of Churches tells us that there are well over 30,000 different Christian denominations. If that's not enough division, we only need to get two members of the same denomination together, and have them talk about their faith, in order to realize that there's even more division inside specific denominations.
An obvious example of the division in faith among Christians is easily seen in the above example of Kathleen Sebelius. Without determining which is right, (Kathleen's belief system or the teaching of the Catholic Church), we can see that there is a significant disagreement on this topic, even between members of the Catholic faith. Certainly, there are Christians who believe that abortion and contraception are morally acceptable (yes, even some Catholics).
Considering all of the division among Christians in the area of faith and morals, why are we wondering whether or not we should believe what a Christian has to say? The answer is that we're focusing on the wrong question. We’ve been misdirected. The question that we need to answer is whether or not we should believe a politician who wants to be known as a Christian, (or dietician, or health care authority, or economist, or a weather expert, or ...) before asking for our support on a particular government program?
Why the politician is wrapping themselves in Christianity is a more important question to answer than whether or not we should believe them. It seems safe to say that when politicians wrap themselves in some perceived authority, they have an ulterior motive which, if it was shared with us, would undermine our support for their program.
It seems odd to say "Don't believe him because he's a Christian." It's odd because most of us already know that we probably don't agree with everything he has to say. It would be more to the point to say "Don't believe the politician because he's trying to look like a Christian."