Onward Moderate Christian Soldiers

[JPhillips]

What a great editorial by John Danforth. Sums up my own Christian beliefs quite well.


Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis

IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.

[Blackadar]

Danforth for President!

[Flasch186]

well said, that is a GREAT statement.

[John Galt]

And yet of the former Missouri politicians, it was Ashcroft knocking around Iowa recently to see if he could make a run for president.

[Raiders Army]

Great article, but I have a few questions sort of related to it.

I'm trying to sort this out a little. There are differences between faith, values, and laws, correct? Although there are differences between the three, they are interconnected. One person's faith provides a basis for their values, which in turn are the reasons why laws are made (for the most part).

What I fail to understand is how (or even if) a Christian politician lets his faith interfere in the lawmaking process. Shouldn't that politician speak for the people who elected him instead of deciding on his own beliefs?

An politician is elected based on his stance on various topics, correct? I feel as if most people vote for someone based on what that person can do for them....not necessarily based on their religious preference. Is this the case? If it is, then when is it okay for someone's religion to play a role in that person's decision-making process? Just sort of wondering about how other people feel about it. Personally, I feel that if an elected official is making a decision based on his/her values, then it's okay. If it's based on his/her religious beliefs, then I would have a problem with it...the problem is that it's hard to differentiate between the two sometimes. I'm just rambling here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... Danforth was once quoted as saying he joined the Republican Party for "the same reason you sometimes choose which movie to see — [it's] the one with the shortest line".


Ah, political expediency.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Shouldn't that politician speak for the people who elected him instead of deciding on his own beliefs?

This is a very fair question, right at the foundation of our representative government structure.

I would argue (and I'd have a lot of company) that this belief misses the point of government by republic. Sure, it's appealing to think that decisions are actually made by the people, and that our representatives are simply representing our views -- but in any degree of practicality, I think we must concede that this is not so. It can't be.

The actual decisions that federal representatives have to make are far more complex than what could be gathered by a poll, or any other instrument of gathering a sense of public opinion. We just can't bring every voter up to full comprehension on every issue, and have government by plebiscite. Rather, our system is designed to work in the other direction -- our representatives make decisions that they judge to serve our interests best, and then they stand in judgment via the electoral process. Conceptually, it's pretty hard to argue with that system, especially once you see the practical shortcomings of the "majority rules" concept (things like voter initiative referendums in California and other states).

For the day by day decision-making that steers our ship of state, the best representative is one who fairly articulates his values and opinions during the elecion, and then acts consistently with those claims. If the public continues to agree with the balance of his decisions, he shoud be returned to office. If not, he should be replaced. Even if you judge certain issues to be worthy of being carved out from this general process (like the occasional ballot initiative), most would argue that the system requires a fairly small number of actual decision makers, and a structure designed to keep them accountable.


Now -- if the implementation of this otherwise sound policital philosophy has been undermined by the actual effects that serve to protect incumbents, that's another matter -- but still doesn't refute its general basis.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

For the day by day decision-making that steers our ship of state, the best representative is one who fairly articulates his values and opinions during the elecion, and then acts consistently with those claims.

What world are you living in?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Shouldn't that politician speak for the people who elected him instead of deciding on his own beliefs?

The answer to that probably falls somewhere along the line of answering "did you vote for them because of what they said they believed/supported or because you believed they'd work for what you believe/support".

Since I've yet to find a candidate that had my views/goals/priorities in precisely the same order as I do, there's little to do but take the former approach.

I might have a problem with someone I voted for doing a 180 on a topic once in office (unless, of course, that brought them in line with my own views) but otherwise ... well, you elected them knowing they weren't a lockstep match.

...the problem is that it's hard to differentiate between the two sometimes.I'm just rambling here.

I dunno if you're really rambling, I think maybe you just stated the obvious

[weinstein7]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

... Danforth was once quoted as saying he joined the Republican Party for "the same reason you sometimes choose which movie to see — [it's] the one with the shortest line".

That's pretty funny. Apparently he and Mike Bloomberg have a lot in common.

In any event, I'm not sure how much appeal an Establishment Episcopalian Republican (how's that for redundancy) has for evangelicals, or if he even speaks their language.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

... Danforth was once quoted as saying he joined the Republican Party for "the same reason you sometimes choose which movie to see — [it's] the one with the shortest line".


Ah, political expediency.

Ah, the freedom to not be trapped by political dogma.

[st.cronin]

I always thought you elected somebody because you felt comfortable with the process they use to make decisions.

That said, I think MOST Christians are moderate in the way the article describes. They may not believe exactly what the author believes, but, for example, in the Schiavo case, I think most people (also most christians) were somewhat divided on the issue. They may have felt, ultimately, that pulling the plug was the right thing to do, but were not 100% certain they were correct.

What the author is doing here is calling attention to the grey area that most of us live in, rather than the black and white world most editorial pages provide.

[Raiders Army]

QS & JIMGa, thanks for your thoughts. Stuff for me to chew on for a while, since it's one thing for us to have a concept of how it should work vice how it works in real life.

[JPhillips]

Raiders: I think its really a balancing act. For years I have been somewhat close to a Rep. from southern Ohio. He has made arguments for decisions he's made that both go against his opinion in favor of his constituents and those that go against his constituents in favor of his opinion. He tends to way it on a case by case basis.

Ideally that's the way I would like to see it done. Of course, it helps that I genuinely respect this man and even when we disagree I believe he's always trying to do the right thing.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Raiders: I think its really a balancing act. For years I have been somewhat close to a Rep. from southern Ohio. He has made arguments for decisions he's made that both go against his opinion in favor of his constituents and those that go against his constituents in favor of his opinion. He tends to way it on a case by case basis.

Interesting. The bolded part is mine. At first, I was thinking why would he go against his constituents? But then I had to ask myself, what do you mean by constituents? Are his constituents the people of his District? Or are his constituents the money-backers of his campaign? In any case, there is no way to satisfy everyone all the time, so I see how he would go against his constituents in either definition.

[JPhillips]

In that instance I meant the people of his district. For example, I know he's voted against some tax cuts that are popular in the district because he doesn't believe we should be expanding the debt.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In that instance I meant the people of his district. For example, I know he's voted against some tax cuts that are popular in the district because he doesn't believe we should be expanding the debt.

Ah...that would fall in with QS's explanation above, where he was probably more informed than the general public.