The current issue of The New Republic features two articles that should be of great interest to MOJ readers, and that are also relevant to Michael's post, below, about the expression of opposition by some Calvin College professors to President Bush's policies.
"What God Owes Jefferson," by Alan Wolfe, is a lengthly review essay of two books, Jim Wallis's God's Politics and an edited volume, Taking Faith Seriously. Wallis -- currently the Nation's most prominent left-leaning evangelical Christian -- is also the focus of Michelle Cottle's piece, "Prayer Center."
Early on in the essay, Wolfe writes:
Once confined to the margins of American politics, the religious right seems to be everywhere these days, rallying to the cause of Terri Schiavo or lobbying intently for conservative judges. No wonder that activists on the left of the political spectrum find themselves filled with wonder. Surely, they believe, it ought to be possible to remind Americans that Jesus was a man of compassion who turned swords into plowshares. On theological grounds alone, the left's case to rally God to its side ought to be stronger than the right's. "It's time to take back faith in the public square," writes Jim Wallis, America's leading evangelist for progressive causes. In the presidential campaign last year, Howard Dean asserted that he belonged to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Jim Wallis insists that he belongs to the Christian wing of Christianity.
Sigh. In my view, that "Jesus was a man of compassion" does nothing to support the claim that "on theological grounds alone, the left's case to rally God to its side ought to be stronger than the right's." That is, it does nothing to support this claim unless one proceeds from the (I think) debatable premises that (a) "the left", but not "the right", embraces "compassionate" policies, and (b) that there is nothing else in Christianity that might be relevant to the challenge of "choosing sides", besides a particular notion of "compassion" and what it requires. Of course Jesus was, and called us to be, "compassionate"; of course this call is relevant to politics, and of course this call will likely make it hard for committed Christians to be entirely at home in today's Republican (or Democratic) Party. But the politically relevant "theological grounds" supplied by Christianity are considerably more complicated than a bare injunction, "be compassionate". (And, the content of the injunction "be compassionate", is also considerably more complicated than "support Professor Wolfe's slate of public-welfare programs").
There's a lot more to the essay, and I'd welcome others' reactions. I should say, I agree entirely with a claim that Wolfe makes later, namely, that "separation of church and state" and "free exercise" are ideas that are good for religion, including "conservative" religion. (Wolfe writes, for example: "Of all liberal society's great innovations, none has been more important to the rise of conservative religion than the commitment to free exercise embodied in one of the First Amendment's two clauses."). Wolfe is wrong, though, to direct his complaints against a straw-man "religious right", who (Wolfe thinks) rejects these "liberal ideas." With a few marginal exceptions, "conservative" Christians in America do not reject the "separation of church and state", properly understood, and they agree completely with Wolfe that the autonomy and freedom of the church from state control and manipulation is essential to religious freedom. They simply believe (reasonably) that the content of the separation norm has been distorted and misshaped, into a norm of established secularism and enforced privatization of religion. There is, in my view, nothing particularly "liberal" about these distortions.
Wolfe writes, approvingly, that -- from the beginning -- "American religion, banned from the state, infused the culture. The more it was kept out of politics, the deeper would be its reach into every other area of life." As has been observed many, many times on this blog, though, "politics" is part of "culture", and to exclude religion from the "state" is not, and should not be, to exclude it from "politics." To be sure, as Wolfe cautions, it is a dangerous and bad thing for religion to be "politicized," but this does not mean it should be "privatized."
Well, the Cottle essay is well worth reading, too . . . but this post is already too long.
Rick
Steffen Johnson makes a compelling case for ending the practice of filibustering judicial nominees in his op-ed, How Filibusters Drain Quality. Here is a sample:
"Beyond the issue of who controls the presidency or the Senate, filibustering judges is plainly a bad idea. It enables the minority party to blackball any nominee with any record of distinction, since any nominee worth his or her salt will have offended one or another interest group in the course of prior government or academic service. This means the courts will be filled with undistinguished, inoffensive "moderates" rather than a diverse group of the most talented judges from both parties."
From the Chronicle of Higher Education, May 18, 2005:
President Bush to Face Widespread Faculty Dissent When He Speaks at Evangelical College on Saturday
By THOMAS BARTLETT
More than 100 professors at Calvin College, in Michigan, have signed a
letter criticizing the policies of President Bush, who is scheduled to
speak at the evangelical Christian institution's spring commencement on
Saturday.
The letter, which will be published as an advertisement in The Grand Rapids Press
on Saturday, says that the professors "see conflicts between our
understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the
policies of your administration." It calls the war in Iraq "unjust and
unjustified" and argues that President Bush's policies "favor the
wealthy of our society and burden the poor."
A spokesman for the college said on Tuesday that the letter was
proof of a lively intellectual climate at Calvin. "I would have been
disappointed if there hadn't been dissent on this issue," said Phil de
Haan, the spokesman. He noted that the college has 300 faculty members,
so about one-third of the professors actually signed the letter.
"I think the majority of people on campus are excited about the president's visit," he said.
Among those who conceived and circulated the letter was David
Crump, a professor of religion at Calvin. "We wanted to object to some
specific policies but also to object to the way that the language of
orthodox evangelical Christianity has been hijacked by the religious
right and its close association with this administration," he said.
Mr. Crump said he knew of no plans for demonstrations during President Bush's visit.
An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush
On May 21, 2005, you will give the commencement address at
Calvin College. We, the undersigned, respect your office, and we join
the college in welcoming you to our campus. Like you, we recognize the
importance of religious commitment in American political life. We seek
open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best
expressed in the political sphere. While recognizing God as sovereign
over individuals and institutions alike, we understand that no single
political position should be identified with God's will, and we are
conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of
others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of
what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your
administration.
As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate
war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched
an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq.
As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and
impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that
favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.
As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love,
gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe
your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has
often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.
As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good
creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation
and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.
Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith
that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your
policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy,
and we pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders.
Concerned faculty, staff, and emeriti of Calvin College
_______________
Michael P.
Ave Maria School of Law will host the Fifteenth Annual Conference of University Faculty for Life on June 3-5, 2005 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The conference is supported in part by a generous grant from the Our Sunday Visitor Institute.
The conference features over 25 talks on a diverse range of issues relating to life issues. The conference features two plenary talks. One plenary will be by John Keown. Keown, who holds the Rose F. Kennedy Chair in Christian Ethics in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University and is one of the leading scholars in the world on the legal and moral aspects of euthanasia, will give a lecture entitled "Euthanasia in Europe." The second plenary will be by Richard Wilkins. Wilkins, who is Professor of Law and Managing Director of The World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University, will speak on "International Law: A Threat to the Right to Life?" The banquet speaker will be Father Thomas King SJ from Georgetown University.
Other notable sessions include a panel discussion on the Terri Schiavo case. That discussion will include presentations by Father Rob Johansen who has written extensively about the Schiavo case, Professor Mark Latkovic from Sacred Heart Major Seminary, and Professor Richard Myers who is a Professor of Law at Ave Maria School of Law and the President of University Faculty for Life. The conference will also include a talk by Clarke Forsythe, who is the Director of Americans United for Life Project in Law and Bioethics, and a talk by Father John Conley SJ on the thought of Pope Benedict XVI.
University Faculty for Life (UFL) was founded in 1989 to promote research, dialogue, and publication among faculty members who respect the value of human life from conception to natural death. UFL members are drawn from a variety of disciplines, including law, philosophy, mathematics, nursing, theology, history, political science, literature, and psychology.
The conference schedule and a registration form are available on the UFL website, here.
