John Danforth: I'm Not Absolutely Right, and You're Not Absolutely Wrong

John Danforth: I'm Not Absolutely Right, and You're Not Absolutely Wrong

The former senator and United Nations ambassador says religious people should be the leading voices for political compromise.

Christianity Today | 26 October 2015

A

mericans are bitterly divided on a host of political and cultural issues. John Danforth regrets that religion has often been deployed to deepen our divisions rather than to seek the common good. In The Relevance of Religion: How Faithful People Can Change Politics (Random House), the former Episcopal priest, Republican senator, and United Nations ambassador argues that communities of faith can restore a spirit of civility to our longstanding disagreements. Jake Meador, the lead writer at Mere Orthodoxy, spoke with Danforth about the possibilities—and pitfalls—of faith-based activism.

What do you mean when you talk about “the proper place” of politics?

Politics is not the realm of, “I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong.” It’s the art of compromise. It depends on civility and a degree of interpersonal forbearance. People practicing politics have to show some degree of respect for their adversaries. Putting politics in its proper place means seeing that it’s not, to use the language of Paul Tillich, a matter of “ultimate concern.”

You encourage religious believers in politics to work for the common good. But one lesson from recent debates over same-sex marriage and the Planned Parenthood videos is that different groups have very different ideas of what the common good is. How can we pursue the common good when we disagree on what it is?

People who are pro-life and have traditional views on marriage often think their beliefs are no longer politically viable, particularly since the Supreme Court has decided these matters. It may be, however, that the best way to advance those positions is in the broader society, as opposed to lobbying the government.

In the book, I mention Loretto Wagner, a woman from St. Louis who died recently. She was a major pro-life advocate who made an impact in her community by creating relationships with pro-choice citizens. This resulted in some constructive, practical achievements, in areas like teen pregnancy and support for pregnant women. If you’re fighting a battle that’s bound to be a loser politically, it’s good to rethink where you are best able to advance your values.

But with abortion, what about the wave of state-level restrictions we’ve seen enacted? Doesn’t this suggest that political progress is possible?

I don’t think a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade has any chance of success. But there are piecemeal reforms even the most ardent pro-choice supporters could get behind, especially limiting access to abortions in the second half of pregnancy. Overall, though, I would encourage making the moral case for the sanctity of life and assuming, as a matter of law, that abortion will remain available.

How can religion help strengthen communal ties in a fragmented society?

In the book American Grace, social scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell see a strong relationship between participation in a religious congregation and connectedness to the community. It isn’t a matter of theology, liturgy, or quality of preaching; it simply has to do with being there, with being part of the faithful community.

With geographical separation, the automobile, and the ability to travel long distances to go to the church of one’s choice, it’s essential for congregations to emphasize things that build community: not just worship but also a Bible study or bingo in the church basement.

Do evangelical Christians, as opposed to religious people in general, have anything special to contribute to politics?

Evangelicals have an active faith and are inclined to be active in the public square. They have a deep knowledge of the Bible as God’s Word, but ultimately they understand that while faith relates to all of life, politics is not religion.

Wendell Berry was once asked if he felt like he was standing in front of the locomotive of history, waving his arms and yelling “stop!” He responded that “you can do that very comfortably if you’re willing to be run over.” How can religion give us resilience in the face of partisan ugliness?

Faithful people have to become much more active, but my understanding of “action” differs from activists on both the Right and the Left. Activism isn’t about piling up wedge issues. It’s about saying, “Let’s make government work.”

I once had a conversation with a senator whose office receives between 30,000 and 40,000 pieces of correspondence every month. One month, the office investigated how many of those letters were calling for compromise. The answer was: barely any, fewer than 100.

The conventional wisdom among many politicians is, “Don’t compromise, or else you’ll be challenged in a primary.” The loudest, most insistent voices say, “We’re on the right side, and everyone else is wrong, so don’t give an inch.”

Where are the other voices? People of faith should be the voice affirming that politics is not absolute, and that we’re not on this earth simply to grab as much as we can.

John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech happened over half a century ago. Who today tells us to “ask what you can do for your country”? By and large, politicians talk about us versus them. My hope is that religion can restore to politics a sense of our bonds to one another.