November 11, 2005
-
"Stolen" from justpeachy607's blog. I though it was extremely well expressed, and highly pertinent to this debate I've been having, spanning BOTH of our blogs, with claire_chenault.
**********
Onward, moderate Christian soldiers
By JACK DANFORTH
Published Sunday, June 26, 2005
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 such as 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 might 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.
Jack Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri. This commentary appeared in the June 17 edition of The New York Times.
Comments (20)
Wow. Excellent.
Excellent.
Maybe there is a hero or two after all.
ps Did you get my email?
I agree. Excellent. I am at a loss for words (for once).
I just read that article on her site! So, you like the letter I wrote? I wrote it in the moment, you know, so I wasn't sure how clear it was. I was grateful for your feedback, it makes me less self-conscience since it's already in the mail and i can't change it now.
Unfortunately, what Jack Danforth does NOT address is how moderate Christians, as he calls them, can justify "governmental action" when it comes to the things that so-called conservatives call "welfare" and so-called liberals or progressives refer to as "social justice". Claire_chenault, if he's smart, will pick up on that not-so-small omission. And then I will depend on your assistance in answering him.
Snap! Yes. You caught me. Right now I am living in America, but I was not born here. I am one of these filthy immigrant types that come in and take American citizens' jobs! I am not exactly of British origin. I am from one of the British Colonies though
Cup of tea, what-what. Would you like a scone to go with that?
Well Anna and Eccentrique,
Seems to be me you are both violating your own standards at the moment, jumping to conclusions about me with no information at all. I wasn't criticizing anyone by asking for whys or stories....I never said I don't care about the way things are.....I have no intention to offer you any commentary on your life or your opinions whatsoever. I simply wanted to hear something more personal, more human than political criticism, and I figured there are reasons for why you both feel the way you do. In fact, I'd still like to, even though you've tried to verbally slap me in the face. Sorry you took it wrong........and no, I'm not sheltered, I'm not rich, I never get my nails done.....I certainly don't think I'm a snob and would gladly change if convinced otherwise. But, I'm not angry. Maybe that disqualifies me in your eyes from being a person of worth or of fair game for a conversation. Doesn't sound very open-minded though.
No problem, Eccentrique. I agree with you on the points he didn't cover. Personally, I think we must have a network in place for the most vulnerable if we want to be considered civilized. Do we want our culture to be a herd of beasts leaving the weakest to die alone?
Just now I noticed his political affiliation and reeled a bit. So much for my "open and unbiased" perspective.
Nice to read of a moderate Christian approach for once. It did not surprise me that he was an Anglican/Episcopalian. They often seem to be the sensible ones. I didn't see anything I disagreed with on the first reading.
Thankyou. Yes, I would gladly like to hear more, if you care to share it. And you are correct, that at this moment in my life, I do not have the time to peruse past blogs.....so in an effort to understand better, I asked what I did. No, I don't live in Scandinavia (I wish I could go there on vacation though! but, alas...I'm very passport-deprived and vacation-fundless).....and I won't know if I can personally identify with your story until I hear it. But I don't know anyone on this earth who is impervious to hardship and suffering of some sort, and I always think it is good to see each other's inside story. In fact, since people will never come to full agreement on political, social, global or religious issues......it seems to me the inside story is what keeps us all honest, respectful and compassionate. I would think an increased dose of the last, in particular, would be good for us all.
All of that is to say, I look forward to hearing your tale (and Anna's) if you choose to give it.
Thanks for reconsidering writing me off. Forgiven.
BTW, what's "RYC"? - I'm not familiar with all the lingo.
Bravo!
How refreshing considering our current era of Pat Robertson and his bitter parisanship, brute arrogance, and blatant heresy....
*Laughs like a maniac* No! Ha-ha! I will never tell you where I am from! Never! They'll have to hunt me down with foxes and kill me first!
But foxes are nonviolent creatures. Unless you are a chicken. Then they'll just eat you up, feathers and all.
Dear Eccentrique...interesting post here..I have dropped by before and have never commented...It appears that we have many mutual Xangan friends keep up the interesting posting!!
^ The fox thing - let me clear that up. I saw your confuzzlement. Just the whole fox-hunting thing is meant to be a British thing - right? So I was taking the piss - I told you my humour is weird. I take it Anna_Lanche was answering me in that comment. For the record: it just might be that I am a chicken of some nature.
RYC's on Anna's site:
I've also been known to disembowel minority children and eat their insides. Sometimes I even eat poached eagle eggs when spotted owls aren't available. I like the drag my boat behind my SUV because it uses more gas that way. I hear it boogers up the ozone layer. And, when I have nothing better to do I like to chop down random trees and burn them on a junk pile. It's good for making smoke signals because I've not figured out how to operate a pulse tone phone yet. But, I can work a flash light when going to the outhouse at night. I've been known to say 'yall' too.
This guy (Crud of Kings) is so in love with his rhetoric that he's posted it EVERYWHERE in his juvenile desire to make sure we all see it.
Ha ha ha!
I'm not impressed by this smartass comment. My smart ass comments are cleverer, more imaginative, and more pointed.
render that which is Caesar's to Caesar and render that which is God's to God....could this have been scriptural separation of church and state so long ago? You know Saul of Tarsus when he became "Paul" was no longer in the political arena..he was a tent maker....
jm
What_truth--I was just being silly. Foxes, chickens, you know. Following the animal motif.
No implication of you being a chicken (as in chicken shit or chicken hawk).
And I *LIKE* foxes. They are cute.
Don't worry Anna_Lanche - no need to explain. I took no offense in it. I just saw that Eccentrique had been puzzled by your response to my little fox-hunt taunt. (So absurd that to catch me you need to set the foxes on me so the hounds may follow...that's how wily I am)
Feel free to be silly. I do. I could use a few good laughs, even at my own expense 
I don't take myself seriously...unlike SOME *cough*. 
Comments are closed.