Moderate Christian Soldiers In Politics
December 29, 2010 4 Comments
Image via Wikipedia
In 2005 former U.S. Senator and ordained Episcopal priest John Danforth wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about the interaction of religion and politics. The editors put a headline of “Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers” to the piece.
When published, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Social issues were dominating the headlines at the time, and centered on such things as marriage of homosexuals, embryonic stem cell research, and the Terry Shiavo case. Danforth was upset by those who made calls to “Vote Christian”, implying that those who disagreed on an issue were not Christian.
The following year he released a book entitled “Faith and Politics”. The subtitle is “How the ‘Moral Values’ Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together”. I am reading this book now.
In it, Danforth argues that the “Christian Right” that dominates discussion of social issues in the Republican Party is pushing “wedge” issues that divide, while a genuine Christian agenda would be bringing people together through “reconciliation”. He does have to mention how his own Episcopal Church has seen people leave to form “minuscule denominations” over some of these very same social issues. Danforth holds the belief that his Church is broad enough to be able to accommodate those of differing opinions without the need for people to separate themselves from it.
Since he wrote his book, the Republicans have lost control of both Houses of Congress, being relegated to small minorities. However, the election of 2010 has seen a Republican comeback of sorts, with the new Congress consisting of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a stronger minority in the U.S. Senate.
The past few weeks have seen the Lame Duck Congress vote to repeal the long-standing policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for the U.S. Military. This effectively means that in the future, self-avowed homosexuals will freely serve in the armed services. This bill passed with eight Republican Senators crossing party lines to vote for the repeal of the Clinton-era policy.
It appears that the so-called “Christian Right” is not the same machine it was just a few years ago when Senator Danforth wrote his op-ed and book. Indeed, social issues have taken a backseat to other concerns in the minds of many voters. The Tea Party movement is not based on social issues, but is a fiscal-responsibility movement. This helped Republicans as they pushed back against the extreme growth in reckless deficit spending under the Democrats.
Locally, in the neighboring Yakima 14th Legislative District, we saw a competition come down to two Republicans. The incumbent, Norm Johnson, fended off a challenge from political neophyte Michelle Stroebel (the wife of a pastor). Johnson drew the challenge after supporting a state bill on domestic partnerships.
The socially conservative challenger made this the centerpiece of her campaign, but did not draw enough broad support in the general election to win. The final vote tally was 52.5% to 47.5%.
Does this mean that voters are not as divided by “moral values” debates as in previous years? I think the jury is still out on that one, but for the moment, other issues are driving the train. Traditional Republican values on low taxes, light regulation, limited government, and local control are more likely to win elections in the current climate.
Republicans will do well to remember this when they go to Washington D.C. in the new Congress, and to Olympia in the Washington State Legislature.
Related Articles
- Danforth fears GOP may reach point ‘beyond redemption’ (washingtonmonthly.com)
- The Religious Ties of the Republican Party (politics.usnews.com)
About Jason R. Raines
Eagle Watch
jimsweb.net
WSRP BLOG
Can religion and politics be a combined force in the United States. Of course it can and it surely is. Being humanity has drummed up the word ” RELIGION ” ; is is well taken out of context now and then. Does religion belong in the same category as Christianity. No, no necessarily ! A person can be religion about many different things other than believing in a God!
We have seen in the past religious fanatics within politics. The one comes to mind is Billy Carter’s brother Jimmy . A Southern Baptist who causes one of the major economic catastrophes per agriculture I can remember. Interest rates into the 30 % rate. And still a senile old gentleman who goes over current presidents and does what he wants.
Then last election, we say another Southern Baptist in Huckabee who was totally against Romney because he was a Mormon. Thus throwing votes elsewhere and giving Obama the presidency. Here we saw religion at it’s worse. And we now have a religious president in Obama. But is he a Christian. VERY doubtful. Thus religion and politics work quite well together; but one must eliminate Christianity from the works because in politics, many such as Huckabee and Obama forget what Christianity is when politics come involved!
Don,
You are all over the map with your comment, and I will try to respond in as brief a way as possible. Regarding Obama, he turned his back on the radical Chicago church he was a member of for 20 years. This is an example of a politician seeking moderation when it became clear that his church was too far to the political left for the mainstream.
Danforth argues in his book that politicians need to represent people of all faiths (including those of no faith whatsoever). He singles out the Christian Right for criticism, but does mention that there are similar problems on the extreme Christian Left as well. Danforth’s view is that we are not a “Christian” nation, instead we are a nation where people have the freedom to practice any religion they choose.
As far as Huckabee being against Romney solely because Romney is a Mormon…that seems like a cheap shot against Huckabee. However, if Romney runs again, he will have to find a way to appeal to the Christian Right base that Danforth is talking about, seeing as how the evangelical Protestant activists do hold significant influence in Republican primaries.
It is this type of focus on religion that is so troubling to Danforth. Instead of dividing Americans, he would like to see it used to bring them together.
I have been a member of the Episcopal Church since time immemorium – at least for me. In recent years, a deep rift has occurred in the Religion of my youth and my family.
Bishop John Danforth’s stated position in relation to politics and religion is a refreshing departure from that of Bishop Robinson who chose to use his sacred and influential religious position as a dark pulpit to “bare” his sexual life to the public; an ill-advised scheme to promote homosexuality. Hopefully, Bishop Robinson’s schemes, to expound sexual methods from the pulpit, and creating images that darken the doorways of the Episcopal Religion, will be soon supplanted by the “true” Christian teachings of Bishop John Danforth and his disciples.
James E. Stevens
Thanks for the comment Jim,
John Danforth is an ordained Episcopal priest, but has been a lawyer and politician in his professional career. Throughout the years, until he retired, he was active in ministry on some level, serving as a Canon at St. Alban’s for example, or as a supply priest. However, to the best of my knowledge, he is not a Bishop.
Officially, I am still listed on the membership rolls of the Episcopal Church, although I do not currently attend a church of that denomination. Like you, I have had my concerns about the promotion of homosexuality within the church. While I find Danforth’s opinions valuable in the ongoing political and religious discussion, it is not to say that I am in the same place he is. For example, in politics, Danforth believes in domestic partnerships, or civil unions; while religiously he believes in the blessing of same sex unions while also honoring traditional marriage between a man and woman.
Where I find myself agreeing with Danforth, is in his frustration that 99% of the Episcopal Church’s energy and media coverage is centered around a divisive issue, while there is so much work to be done in the world at large.