Walking on eggshells. That is an appropriate way of
addressing the topic of the morning - politics - a subject that
confronts us every time we open a newspaper or turn on the TV.
After all, there is an election in a week and a half. So saying,
as we all know, political discourse in recent years has been
reduced to the level of mud wrestling, and people of good will,
in an effort to maintain peace and decorum, shy away from
political conversation, impending election or not. Mix the
politics in with religion and you have a particularly toxic brew,
especially when some folks want to equate the two, insisting that
their understanding of religion not only informs their politics
but demands certain positions from any politician who wants their
vote. And anyone who might disagree with those positions is
certainly a pagan, an enemy of God, and headed straight to Hell.
Mud wrestling. So any discussion of the subject is like walking
on eggshells.
Well, as much as that might be the case, it is a subject
that cannot simply be avoided because to say that religion and
politics do not mix is to misunderstand both religion and
politics. The two are inextricably bound together because both
reflect the heights of human aspirations and the roads we choose
to reach them.
An insightful new book deals with both religion and politics
and it comes from an author with a unique perspective. The book
is Faith and Politics: How the "Moral Values" Debate Divides
America and How to Move Forward Together.(1) The author is John
Danforth, for 18 years a US Senator from Missouri, a Republican,
who happens also to be an Episcopal priest. You cannot tie
religion and politics more closely than that. He writes:
That religion is now a divisive force in American
political life doesn't mean that in order to avoid
fracturing the country, religious people should stay
out of political controversies and attend only to the
personal side of religion. Some faith groups - the
Mennonites, for example - have chosen the course of
disengagement from public life. But many people of
faith believe that politics is a religious as well as a
civic duty. Tradition supports that conviction.
Religious people have engaged with government since
Moses confronted Pharaoh. One of the books of the
Bible is called Judges. Two are called Kings. That is
government. Acting for God, the prophet Samuel
anointed Saul and David kings of Israel. In the Old
Testament, God was the ultimate ruler, and kings
answered to God. As God's agents, the prophets told
kings where to go and where not to go; which battles to
fight and when to surrender; what to build and when;
and how to treat the poor, the fatherless, the widows
and the aliens. And when kings did not do as they were
told, the prophets, again acting for God, confronted
them and meted out punishment. The idea of
incompatible realms of religion and government is not
supported in the Old Testament.
Nor is it a tradition of Christianity, not since
Constantine established Christianity as the religion of
Rome. In our own time, Christians, believing they were
furthering the demands of their faith, have championed
a variety of political positions - not just the
conservative agenda of the Right, but also opposition
to war and the death penalty, and support for civil
rights, environmental protection and increased
assistance to the poor.
The question is not whether people of faith should
engage in politics, but how we go about doing so.
Beyond the obvious choices of whether we are liberals
or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, is a more
basic decision, one that is more consequential to our
common life than how we might align ourselves on the
issues of the day. It is whether, in the practice of
our religion, we are a divisive or a reconciling force
in our country. Religion is now a divisive force in
American politics, but that is not to say that it
should be so. As we relate our religious faith to our
politics, we can choose whether we are reconcilers or
dividers.
Good point. The question is whether or not elected
officials have the choice. Danforth notes that the way
candidates win elections these days is to campaign from the
extremes; they have to "energize the base," the core supporters
of either the right or the left, the folks who can be counted on
at the polls. OK, that is a proven strategy that wins elections.
But then once the newly-elected official takes office, he or she
is expected to get something done on behalf of the constituents,
and that generally requires working with folks "on the other side
of the aisle" to arrive at some mutually agreeable compromise.
All well and good. But if the candidate of one party ran on a
platform that does not allow for compromise, and the candidate of
the other party did the same, what happens? Without a capacity
for compromise, the political landscape starts to look like
scorched earth as whichever party commands the majority
steamrolls its agenda and ignores intelligent debate. That is
simply dangerous. Sen. Danforth:
The reason many Americans are turned off to politics is
not, as party ideologues lament, that they do not have
clear enough choices between candidates. It is the
opposite. They have extremely clear choices, but they
do not like either of them. They do not like either
candidate. They do not like either party. I have
heard many people use essentially the same words in
describing their election-day frustration: "I want to
check a box that says, 'None of the above.'"
One of Sen. Danforth's suggestions for improving our current
situation is for elected officials to substitute CONCERNS for
AGENDAS. For example, to use one of the hot button issues of the
day, think about abortion. Sen. Danforth generally opposes
abortion. An AGENDA opposing abortion might be to demand
legislation outlawing the practice altogether plus Supreme Court
rulings that would overturn Roe v. Wade. A CONCERN about
abortion might be willing to take a broader approach - sex
education to help folks avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first
place or the availability of birth control methods that involve
more than an instruction to "just say no," to name just a couple.
The idea is to come to the table willing to listen to a variety
of approaches that would move toward a certain goal rather than
coming with an insistence that there is a way - MY way - and no
other will do.
A CONCERN rather than an AGENDA. Sounds good to me. Think
of all the issues that are facing us right now - the war, health
care and its out-of-control costs, energy dependence, Social
Security reform, and so on. If we sent folks to Washington with
concerns rather than agendas, I suspect a lot more would be
accomplished.
To be sure, our faith will shape our concerns. We know we
are to be loving people who care for those in need as well as
moral people who restrain our worst impulses. So saying, that is
not the same as creating an agenda. Sen. Danforth again: "What
we lack is a set of rules that tells us with specificity what
political positions we should take and what candidates we should
support. Jesus lets us figure that out for ourselves."
Whether religion is a divisive or a reconciling force
depends on our certainty or our humility as we practice
our faith in our politics. If we believe that we know
God's truth and that we can embody that truth in a
political agenda, we divide the realm of politics into
those who are on God's side, which is our side, and
those with whom we disagree, who oppose the side of
God. This is neither good religion nor good politics.
It is not consistent with following a Lord who reached
out to a variety of people - prostitutes, tax
collectors, lepers. If politics is the art of
compromise, certainty is not really politics, for how
can one compromise with God's own truth?
Reconciliation depends on acknowledging that God's
truth is greater than our own, that we cannot reduce it
to any political platform we create, no matter how
committed we are to that platform, and that God's truth
is large enough to accommodate the opinions of all
kinds of people, even those with whom we strongly
disagree.
The last chapter of the Senator's book is called "Paul's
Primer for Politics," and draws on Romans, chapter 12, to lay out
some principles. The Senator writes, "Christianity does not give
us an agenda for American politics. It does not provide policy
positions that we can identify with certainty as being Christian.
What it does offer is an approach, a way of thinking about and
engaging in politics, that while not issue specific, is highly
relevant to our ability to live together as one nation, despite
our strongly held differences."
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's
mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy
and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of
worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of
this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your
mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what
God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Danforth insists that politics is a way of expressing our
Christian values, but politics is not Christianity. To confuse
faith and politics is to be "conformed to the pattern of this
world," which the apostle Paul says is a no-no.
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do
not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but
rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in
accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
Danforth notes that this is a tough one for Senators (and,
no doubt, Congressmen too). "Supported by staff, flattered by
lobbyists, whisked by Capitol Police into elevators reserved only
for senators, nearly everything about a senator's life supports
the inclination to "think of yourself more highly than you
ought," especially while being transported to the farthest
reaches of self-esteem by the splendid sound of your own
rhetoric." Even when speaking to an empty chamber with only the
C-Span camera for an audience.
Verse 10: Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.
Honor one another above yourselves.
The Senator says, "In the heated world of politics, it is
important to act as though we love one another, even where there
is no underlying feeling of love. In the Senate, the language of
affection and respect, even to the point of unctuousness, is the
lubricant that allows the Senate to function."
My first debate on the Senate floor, on a long since
forgotten topic, was against Senator Ed Muskie of
Maine. A former presidential candidate and future
secretary of state, Muskie was one of the most highly
respected people in Washington. He was also known for
his temper and his high-volume, red-in-the-face oratory
on the Senate floor. Except for introducing myself to
him on the day I was sworn in, I had never exchanged a
word with Ed Muskie. As far as he was concerned, I was
some unknown whippersnapper who had the gall to
challenge one of his strongly held convictions. The
debate was heated and the rhetoric loud, with Muskie
shouting at me across the chamber. While I have no
memory of the substance of the debate, I will never
forget one phrase Muskie used amid the shouting and
expressions of outrage. He called me "my very good
friend from Missouri." He did not know me from Adam,
and I had become his very good friend.
Sen. Danforth goes on: "The requirement that we show honor
definitely extends to fellow Christians with whom we disagree.
After I wrote two newspaper opinion pieces stating that Christian
conservatives should not control the Republican Party and do not
speak for all Christians, a television reporter who interviewed
me asked why I did not simply say that the conservatives are
'nuts.' He was inviting me to move in the opposite direction
from Paul, to outdo myself in showing DIShonor."
Moderates, who want their own views of religion and
politics to be respected, have an obligation to respect
the views of Christian conservatives, not just to
secure their own place in public debate, but to fulfill
Paul's mandate. Indeed, much as moderates might
disagree with the particular policies advocated by
conservatives, there is much in the conservative
message that deserves their respect and support.
Paul again: Bless those who persecute you; bless and
do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn
with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one
another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate
with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do
not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what
is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible,
as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
everyone.
"As far as it depends on you..." Well, a united America
DOES depend on us," says John Danforth. "It is the
responsibility of people who follow Jesus. It is not a political
agenda. It is the ministry of reconciliation."
Two weeks ago, TIME magazine published an excerpt from
Illinois' Sen. Barak Obama's new book in which he recalled an e-mail that he received from a doctor shortly after he had won the
Democratic nomination in his US Senate race.(2) It read:
"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary
win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am
seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I
write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me
from supporting you." The doctor described himself as a
Christian whose faith led him to oppose abortion and gay
marriage, but also to question the idolatry of the free market
and the quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize
much of our current foreign policy.
Obama continued, "The reason the doctor was considering not
voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he
had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website,
which suggested that I would fight 'right wing ideologues who
want to take away a woman's right to choose.' He went on to
write, 'I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I
also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard
for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that
those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse
desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment,
are not fair-minded...I do not ask at this point that you oppose
abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded
words.'"
Obama said, "I checked my web-site and found the offending
words. My staff had written them to summarize my pro-choice
position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my
opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.
Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame."
The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and
changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple
terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to
bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the
same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had
extended to me.
Obama, the Democrat; Danforth, the Republican. Both offer
hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles
the beliefs of each with the good of all. Political discourse should not be reduced to the level of mud wrestling, but neither should it require walking on eggshells. We Christians can do it, and in the process, show the world how. See you at the voting booth.
Amen.
1. New York : Viking, 2006
2. Barak Obama, "My Spiritual Journey," Oct. 16, 2006
click and send us mail