A Review
of John Danforth’s
Faith and Politics
By
Rev. Stephen Apostolos Cakouros
The poet John Milton wrote, “...who kills a
man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good book
kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.”
The
author of Paradise Lost makes the killing of a good book a capital
offense. We are not in danger of committing such an offense since Faith and Politics by former Senator
John Danforth came to us dead from the printer. It is not by any
imagining what Milton would call a good book. Laymen will soon discover
that the Senator glosses over those passages of the Bible that do not meet with his approval. Scholars will look
in vain for something significant. At the same time a comment is made
near the beginning of the book that does get our attention. Danforth says
that “Jesus said almost nothing about government.” Apart from this being a
wobbly sentence, it is misleading.
The Gospels are replete with political
references. Just one example will suffice to prove this. Every time
Jesus came into conflict with the Pharisees, politics and religion were both in
play. Thorough research would have shown the Senator that John Hyrcanus
(c.104 B.C.) opened the way for the Pharisees to enter politics. By the
time Jesus began His preaching ministry the Pharisees were a
political/religious party. The Pharisee Nicodemus is called by the Apostle John
a “ruler of the Jews.” (John
3:1) The political intrigues of the Pharisees indicate that the Gospels
were written during the period accorded them by conservative
scholars.
The book jacket displays what appears to be
a revelation. A photograph of the Senator takes up the entire front
cover. What happened to the old days in England when clerics signed their
books with only their initials? The reader should not be surprised to
learn that this book suffers from pedantry. The Senator wants us to
follow him through the political jungle, but as we turn the pages we discover
that even an experienced politician can lose his way. The Senator has
fallen in with secular progressives who have been known to be guided by a
flawed compass. This explains why their paths have taken them south of
Christianity. Danforth, though a Republican, a member of the so-called
party of “family values,” has left the straight and narrow. For one thing
he is now on the same page with the homosexual community. He has gone so
far to the left of Christ that he now calls on religious groups to develop ways
in which they can officially sanction same sex
relationships.
Just as one might suspect, the Senator takes
other liberties. Without compunction he tells us that if we so desire
we can harvest human embryonic stem cells, even though this could cost the
unnamed 
donor/victim
her life. Those involved in that research have no appreciation for Psalm
139 and the value it places on embryonic life. Is that Psalm not in Danforth’s Bible?
Danforth fully backs research which allows
for embryonic stem cell harvesting for the purpose of what the average man or
woman would call “cloning,” however it has been labeled by another less
objectionable scientific term: somatic cellular nucleus transfer. Since
cloning has a negative connation for about 87% of Missourians, the advertising
savants behind the recent Amendment 2 campaign set out to confuse voters.
There should be no doubt whatsoever that Senator Danforth was a major player in
this promotion which columnist Robert Novak said was nothing short of a “scam.”
The misinformation campaign used redefinition in the same way that revisionists
reshape history.
Senator Danforth and his associates are
very conscious of the fact that embryonic stem cell harvesting is viewed with
suspicion by most of the Christian community. This explains why the Senator,
who is also a reverend, has been using his ordination as a marketing ploy to
support research-grade cloning.
We were supposed to be persuaded not only because
Danforth was a Senator, but also a reverend. Day and night, he appeared
on our television screens. Uninvited he came into our living rooms and
there in the presence of the family Bible (containing the 9th Commandment, “you shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor”) he audaciously called his opponents liars because
they exposed the fraudulent nature of Amendment 2.
Pesky Evangelicals
While telling us how we should do things
Danforth seems incapable of either stretching the mind or touching the
heart. In respect of the latter, he is not able to conceal his contempt
for Evangelical Christians that have of late become involved in the culture
wars. The topic of love comes up, but it is in very short supply when it
comes to Evangelicals. The thesis of the book is that America (in particular
the Republican party) is being divided at this time between outspoken
Evangelicals and conservatives and those who wish to include everyone in the
Republican Party. The fault, if there is a fault (by the way, Jesus was
accused of dividing Israel) lies with Christian conservatives who are “getting
all the attention.” One can easily detect that Danforth is fearful that
he will be pushed out of his own political party. He seems to think of
his political party as if it were a family from which no member should be
disowned. Faith, as it applies to politics, is nothing more than a
synonym for tolerance.
With this definition of faith prompting him
the author places in the crosshairs almost all outspoken
Christian/Evangelical conservatives. They are far too narrow and “divisive.”
One
has to wonder what Rev. Danforth would have said about John Calvin of Geneva or
Savonarola of Florence who were deeply involved in politics and could not
tolerate anyone who separated their lives into two parts, the political and the
ethical.
True to form Danforth takes exception to
Catholic bishops who desire to fence off the communion table from Roman
Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion-on-demand in order to
procure favor with voters. The Senator seems to think that we are wrong
when we tell politicians that they must first reckon with God before
considering the wishes of their constituents.
The Deity
Danforth even tells us that he can make
known the nature of the Deity. Truly! As a matter of fact he says
that his desire to include everyone in his political party is based on his
enlightened understanding of the nature of God. Rev. Danforth tells the
reader that he believes in “a large God.” This god we discover “cannot be
shrunken by political activists and stuffed into their own agendas.” We
detect in this remark a sleight of hand. When conservative Christians
demand that politicians act in accordance with their values, that is
politics. But when progressives call for the lowering of moral standards,
that is faith expressing itself in the political arena. Running like a
fault line throughout this book is this glaring inconsistency.
Quite naturally this kind of a written work
will be filled with autobiographical references. The most disturbing
biographical note records how Danforth changed his position over time when it
comes to decency itself. He rejects the words of Moses, “You shall not
lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22) The author has strayed
so far to the left of traditional Christianity that he even provides
homosexuals with a set of governing rules. He thinks that sodomy is
acceptable if homosexuals prove faithful to one another. In other words
faithfulness rids the sin from sodomy.
Danforth recounts how he was reproved by his
fellow Episcopalians for not being sensitive enough to homosexuals.
Apparently his opinion began to change about that time. Now the Senator
is right in step with his denomination (The Episcopal Church in America) which
in the last few years has ordained an active homosexual to the high office of
bishop. This is largely due to the way that church interprets
truth. Danforth speaks in a way that is representative of his
church. “God’s truth is expansive enough to embrace conflicting opinions,
even on hot button issues, even if with people with whom we vehemently
disagree.” Here is the flaw in his thinking. He does not understand
the nature of truth. Truth is not inclusive; it is exclusive. Truth
says this is; the other is not. But this is not how liberal America
thinks about truth when it comes to moral issues, and the Senator is clearly a
liberal when it comes to what homosexuals may do when they disrobe, or what
technocrats may do when they don lab coats.
Inferences
Danforth by writing this book may be
inferring that Evangelicals cannot be trusted, and that they may be in favor of
a particular kind of government, one less democratic with no room for his large
god. Inferences of that kind are malicious and common among those who
feign that they are more democratic than those sitting to the right of
them. The Senator must know that Evangelicals have generally avoided
politics, and that most of them voted as Democrats (when they did vote) before Roe v. Wade and the gay activist
movement. Politicians know that Evangelicals became vocal when they saw
that America was sliding in the direction of Europe, the new Dark
Continent. What some of these politicians (Danforth among them) do not
seem to know is that if the Evangelicals do not vote in favor of the Republican
Party it will once more become a minority party in America. This means
that if the Republican Party is wise and if it wants to retain power, it will
have to place considerable distance between itself and books like this
one.
At the same time a book like this can be
read. It will provide the reader with an insight as to how theological
liberals think. Just like Evangelicals they know that they must base
their opinions on what God is like. Liberals have created a god in their
own image. He is popular chiefly because he is flexible. This god
has the capacity to move along with the times. Something proscribed and
vehemently condemned by the apostles can now be reversed. Consequently
this large god cannot make room for those whose old-fashioned values force them
to speak up because they know if they did not speak, the rocks would cry out.
All of a sudden the liberal god becomes ‘intolerant.’
I must say that if the Senator is as loving
as he wishes us to believe he is, he will take pity on these Christian
conservatives who do not meet with his approval. A handful may be
opportunists, others may be zany, but most are like the reformer Martin Luther
who was held captive to something called conscience, a conscience that had been
instructed in the Word of God.
Could Luther have kept silent? Never! That being the case the Senator
should know that it will take more than his sparsely-worded offering to silence
those of us who, according to him, are “getting too much attention.”
Christians reason from the Scriptures when
it comes to matters of conscience. If Danforth wants to change our thinking
about the Word of God, he will need
to show us how to cut-and-paste as he does. If he could do that, faith
would be what it is to him - tolerance. Of course his chances at succeeding
in this are slim indeed, especially if Faith and Politics is any indication of his skill in influencing us
who are familiar with the Bible.
The Good Book knows nothing of the
large and liberal god which the Senator preaches. The God of the Bible “is the same yesterday and today
and forever.” (Heb. 13:8)
Secular progressives must face it; the God of the Bible will never allow Himself to be updated. Those who recognize
this are the real servants, and they prefer to be thought of as the servants
of The Most High God.
Rev. Stephen Apostolos Cakouros is a freelance
writer and researcher with four theological degrees. His last earned
degree was from Princeton Theological Seminary. Please contact Rev. Cakouros
at heresy39@yahoo.com or his assistant Sally Henley McCoomb mccoombs@wustl.edu
with any comments, questions or for further information about his soon-to-be
published book Down from the Mountain: Faith,
Reason and Culture Wars.
