Building a Bridge to the Faith Community
The 2000 election saw George W. Bush repackage the Republican Party with the wrapping paper of family values, and tie a bow around the phrase “compassionate conservative.” The president’s veto of SCHIP saw the last of that wrapping paper removed, and the ribbon untied to reveal the real package of empty promises, unfunded mandates, and the enormous influence of a few special interests.
Bush’s veto brings into stark relief the ethical and theological problems facing the religious right, which so ardently supported him. It would appear that the religious right only becomes energized about policy issues that effect “life in the abstract.” Abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia are all hallmark values issues because each is grounded in a claim of biblical support for “life” no matter how unsustainable, incomplete, or incapacitated it may be.
This myopic definition of life is amazing, in that it does not recognize the biblical and ethical mandates for “quality of life.”
In Luke the 7th Chapter John the Baptist is imprisoned and sends his disciples to ask Jesus one question: “Are you the one or should we look for another.”
Jesus’ response is to recount for John what they have seen and heard: the blind receiving sight; the deaf their hearing; the lame the ability to walk. The poor have had the good news preached to them.
Jesus’ response to John underscores the quality of life issues that he addressed through his ministry. For him, to be alive was not enough - he was concerned about the quality of life.
The right’s narrow definition of life explains how George W. Bush could veto SCHIP - a bill that would literally assure a better physical quality of life of millions of American children - with such impunity.
Apparently the theology of the right applies to medical coverage only where life exists in grey areas.
It is not that I think the right is all wrong. I think that on abortion there is legitimacy for the spiritual origin of life - science not withstanding. However, to allow their boy Bush to leave children behind both educationally and medically seems to endorse abandonment while standing against abortion. In my view, the former is as morally reprehensible as the latter, and makes the right and its position more fanatical because of its inconsistency.
If the right would advocate as powerfully for quality of life issues as it does for the right of life, it might win more adherents - or at least allow itself a better hearing to those who are more open-minded.
The irony is that as wrong as the right may be, the left may have trouble gaining ground within the religious community, in that some have already vowed fidelity to gay marriage, and other adhere to the most stringent application of the separation of church. These positions signal loudly to many of us - including those whose religious views inform our perspectives on public life - that some on the left don’t think that we are right.
This is regrettable, because I believe that the “quality of life” position is obviously Christian, and is easily applied to issues of health care, education, housing, and employment. Each could have great traction with electorates predisposed to vote red.
The left has a long track record of being right on these issues, but that message is never heard because controversial issues frequently stop up Christian ears.
If the Democratic Party is to make inroads into the faith community, it must be willing to put all issues and options on the table that. Building an agenda around “quality of life” issues, also known as the social gospel, has proven successful.
Now in full Election ‘08 mode, with the right being wrong, and some on the left standing mute, the religious community continues to raise the question of the candidates that John asked Jesus “are you the one or should we look for another?”