Cal Thomas and John Danforth on Christian Political Activism

Christian political activism is possible, even laudable, but caveat emptor.

Folks, another excellent column by commentator Cal Thomas published today in my local newspaper. On "Church, not state, must advance moral agenda", Thomas writes a positive critique of an Op-Ed piece written by former Senator and UN Ambassador John Danforth entitled "Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers," that appeared on the New York Times on June 22 and had been republished on other newspapers, in this instance, in the International Herald Tribune.

Let me start with Danforth's piece. In it Danforth states:

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.

So far, so good. In fact, he reminds us--and I agree--that,

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.

I agree with both thoughts. Christians would be known by their love. This is the very Scriptural standard found in the Gospel according to St. John and on his first catholic letter. This is the standard we fail every day to reach.

However laudable and correct these sentiments are, Sen. Danforth went right ahead and misapplied them:

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.

In other words, "moderate Christians" support euthanasia, the destruction of human embryos in experimental or surgical procedures to save other human lives, don't make a fuss about mentioning God in public functions nor do they refer to or display the fundamental moral law known as the Ten Commandments in the public arena, and imply that "moderate Christians" should oppose the homosex agenda or protect the traditional family through legislation because this would "humiliate" homosexuals. He implies that holding these opinions is to hold to "the Love Commandment."

Spoken like a true "mainstream" Episcopalian. If this is to be a "moderate," I shudder to think what it is to be a "liberal."

Thomas agrees with Danforth's central claim, but takes some issue as to the implications of Danforth's statement:

[Danforth] writes that the "only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves." One can quibble over where Danforth's "absolutist" position may lead politically (and I do, given the position of religious moderates and liberals when it comes to a host of other issues in which they are engaged — from anti-war activism and the environment, to civil rights and same-sex "marriage"), but his central thesis is correct: Christians are limited in what government can do for them and for an earthly agenda.

Thomas prefer to emphasize the moral failings and societal evils that Christian conservatives very seldom criticize. Echoing pollster George Barna, Thomas says:

...many conservative Christians are divorcing as those who are of different religious persuasions, or of no religion, and as many of the children of conservative Christians are having sex as non-Christian children.

But the ordained and self-appointed conservative Christian leaders do not seem to preach as much to their own about these shortcomings (or, if they do, they are not heeded) as they do to the rest of the country about theirs.

Then, Thomas takes aim at Danforth's moral wishy-washiness:

Danforth notes that Jesus sat with "tax collectors and sinners" and sees these acts as part of Jesus' "tolerance" and inclusiveness. But his purpose was not to justify their often corrupt tax-collecting practices and other sins. It was to lead them to repentance and faith in himself. He told the woman taken in adultery that while he did not condemn her, she was to "go and sin no more." To a moderate, I guess that was intolerant.

That's right on the mark. I myself have one commenter in this blog that decries my "intolerance" but prefers to deemphasize the moral demands that Jesus makes of us in the Gospels. Danforth and my critic both belong to the category who see the moral demands of the Gospels as mere guidelines or suggestions, but if in the end one chooses not to follow them because they would somehow violate certain psychological "integrities," then that's fine and OK too.

As for my own position regarding Christian political activism, I agree with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput tongue-in-cheek answer that if I don't impose my moral views on others, others will impose theirs on me, and that's why politics is the arena for this wrestling match. Christians should not shy away from it.

I freely admit that the Commandment to Love holds absolute primacy in the life of the Christian and is the ultimate measure of our commitment. But love does not sanction behaviors and views that in practice deny its force. I can't see how Christian love allows for euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, or circumspection on mentioning God and His Commandments in the public square.

One thing is certain: when Jesus was tempted, Satan showed him all the kingdoms and the powers of the earth and asserted that "they have all been given to me and I give them to whomever I choose." Christians should be aware who is the master of kingdoms and powers and politics and thread lightly in this realm.