Huckabee and Copeland: Guilt by Association?

I posted earlier that I was profoundly disappointed when Mike Huckabee decided to publicly associate with Kenneth Copeland as a part of his presidential campaign. And I’ve taken some heat for it – mostly from my own family and friends, but also from others on a couple of different blogs I read. Their basic argument to me goes something like this:

Huckabee isn’t just trying to get Southern Baptist support – he’s trying to get support from a wide audience. And Copeland has a wide audience, many of whom will appreciate Huckabee’s conservatism. Besides, we shouldn’t foster a “guilt by association” kind of thinking. Just because Huckabee is on Copeland’s show doesn’t mean he believes everything Copeland says.

Let me respond like this:

(1) Before readers assume I am throwing Huckabee under the bus, let me clearly state that I like him. He is a good man and a good politician. I am disappointed in his association with Copeland, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t make a great President. (Or vice-President – that was for you, Craig.) And whatever mistake Huckabee has or is making here, I recognize I am capable of far worse mistakes. I hope I’m not trying to pick at a speck without acknowledging my own planks.

(2) I think the term “guilt by association” is too vague – at least in this situation. There is more going on here than just Huckabee doing some spots on Copeland’s show. He isn’t just hanging out, having a cup of coffee with Copeland. Rather, he seems to be affiliating and/or aligning himself with Copleand. Huckabee is on record as calling Copeland a "dear friend" and receiving spiritual advice from him. He seems to admire and appreciate Copeland. This would be something more than mere “association.” Huckabee appears to have decided to be a bedfellow with Copeland rather than a critic of his theology. I question the wisdom of that decision and wonder in what other situations he may execute poor judgment.

(3) I think the principle of “guilt by association” needs examining, too. Clearly, there are some people with whom we can and should be friends - even when they do not believe exactly as we do. But befriending someone for the sake of a relationship and publicly affiliating with someone for the sake of gaining votes are two different matters. I have some friends who are not Christians and I would hope that others wouldn’t judge my theology or beliefs based on my friendship with them. But I am not publicly using those friendships for the sake of political gain, as it appears Huckabee is doing.

(4) Finally, I think the recipient of “guilt by association” needs examining. It would be one thing to associate with Mother Theresa (despite some of her shaky theology) because you share a heart for helping the down and outcast. It would be quite another to associate with Adolf Hitler because you share a passion for your country. To say we should never fault someone for the company they keep is to neglect the reality that some people are never worth associating with. In this situation, there are those that see Copeland more like Mother Theresa – a good person with some quirky theology. I’m not calling Copeland another Hitler, but his theology is more than just different or quirky. It is downright dangerous and I don’t know if the words heretic or charlatan are too strong to apply to him.

Maybe I’ll post sometime soon why I consider Copleand so dangerous. But this post has already grown too long. For now, I would love to hear your thoughts on Huckabee and Copeland.