Faith, Hope, And An Absence Of Charity

Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, has made valuable contributions by demonstrating in his own life that evangelical religion is not politically monolithic, that it can inform and infuse progressive as well as conservative movements. His OpEd in the today’s New York Times calling on the Democrats to enlist God in their campaign, on the other hand, is a timely if wholly unintentional reminder that pouring religion over politics can lead to an unpleasant and combustible mix.

Wallis is certainly on solid ground in pointing out that

The United States has a long history of religious faith supporting and literally driving progressive causes and movements. From the abolition of slavery to women’s suffrage to civil rights, religion has led the way for social change.

Of course it is equally true that un-progressive causes have also been supported and driven by religious arguments: that slavery was divinely ordained, that women’s place is in the home, that godless communism should be wiped out, etc. Still, I completely agree with Wallis when he asserts:

The separation of church and state does not require banishing moral and religious values from the public square. America’s social fabric depends on such values and vision to shape our politics — a dependence the founders recognized.

This point cannot be made too often, and Wallis should be commended for making it in the editorial pages of the New York Times, where it is rarely if ever encountered.

Since most Americans are religious to one degree or another, one can readily understand why Wallis, a committed liberal, does not want to cede religion and religious values to the Republicans. But when Wallis trots out the sort of holy arguments he would like Democrats to make, all he succeeds in doing, I believe, is reinforcing the negative image of liberals as holier-than-thou moralizers. I find the following style of argument about as appealing as fingernails scraping a blackboard:

How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration’s failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure. Neglect of the environment is a religious issue. Fighting pre-emptive and unilateral wars based on false claims is a religious issue (a fact not changed by the capture of Saddam Hussein)

….

… Rather than suggesting that we not talk about “God,” Democrats should be arguing — on moral and even religious grounds — that all Americans should have economic security, health care and educational opportunity, and that true faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins.

Now that Howard Dean has decided to follow this advice (at least in the South), will his attacks on Bush suddenly become more compelling when he adds that Bush’s domestic policies are a “religious failure”? Most Democrats do not believe Bush’s domestic policies are really compassionate. Fine. But if “true faith results in a compassionate concern,” then what Wallis is saying is that Democrats should attack Bush for lacking “true faith.” Can he, or anyone, really believe this would be good for the country, or even for the Democrats?

Democrats should be saying that a just foreign and military policy will not only work better, but also be more consistent with both our democratic and spiritual values.

Why should they say that? Do Republicans believe that an unjust foreign and military policy is both better and more consistent with our values? Can’t people disagree about what policies are just without having the quality of their faith called into question? Apparently not.

I actually admired Wallis before reading this OpEd. I still think the “public square” should have plenty of room for religion and religious values, but Wallis says nothing here about how his religion informs his policy preferences. All he’s done is question the faith of those with whom he disagrees and turn himself into an amen corner for the Democratic platform. If that platform is to prevail in the upcoming electoral wars I suspect it will need a good deal more than a sprinkling of holy water.

ADDENDUM

As a secularist myself, I’m still brought up short every time I encounter people, of whatever political persuasion, who are always poised, pen and pad in hand, ready to write out God’s prescription for various political programs and policies. If God’s will is really so easy to discern, why are there so many different religions, churches, sects?

In any event, I would actually like to hear Dr. Dean’s religious prescriptions (and since I’m one of the lucky ones living in the South, maybe I’ll get a chance). Up to now one of his more enlightening theological discussions occurred during his interview with Judy Woodruff on CNN:

WOODRUFF: Was it just over a bike path that you left the Episcopal Church?

DEAN: Yes, as a matter of fact it was….