What Christian Democrats can learn from progressive Anglicans

A few months back, there appeared in the British newspaper The

Guardian a remarkable op-ed piece by Marilyn McCord Adams, an American
theologian (and Episcopal priest) who teaches at Oxford
University.  Her topic was the (then-and-still) deteriorating
unity of the Anglican Communion.  Adams has never made any bones
about her liberal theological views, and so it may be surprising that
she took greater issue with her fellow progressives than with the
ultra-orthodox. 

Adams characterizes Anglicanism thus: “Knowing that
liberals have a soft spot for tolerance, conservatives demand respect
for their conscientious convictions in the form of institutional
accommodations.”  But then she reminds us that progressive
convictions are also conscientious.  When liberal Christians put
church unity and intellectual pacifism above the beliefs they hold in
their hearts, conservatives “win a double victory: not only do they
co-opt the church’s institutional structures; they confirm the
widespread suspicion that liberals do not have enough backbone to be
conscientious at all.”

It should require no leaps in logic to apply Adams’ insights to
American politics.  Here, some Christian progressives perceive
themselves to be at risk of alienating secularists in the
electorate.  But the bare fact that something is politically and
even intellectually difficult is hardly a reason not to try.  When
we refuse to run the risk of being called imperfectly progressive, or
imperfectly Christian, or both, we cut ourselves off from one of the
most powerful sources of rhetorical energy that we Democrats can deploy.

For one thing, we know from first-hand experience that conviction, to
put it bluntly, sells.  John Kerry’s presidential bid suffered
hugely from the lack of a consistent master narrative.  George W.
Bush’s team decided early on to contrast a supposedly waffling Kerry
with an (equally supposedly) consistent president.  “At least we
know where Bush stands.”  The lesson for us has to be that even
the appearance of conviction cannot but be an advantage.

This would be true, I think, even if every blogger and reader of this
website were here to seek nothing more than political gain.  But
for those of us who find some connection with the person of Jesus of
Nazareth, there is another imperative.  Adams’ op-ed is again
helpful.  “ ‘Going along to get along’ is not the gospel…. Doing
so shows no charity to the oppressed whose cause we feel called to
sponsor.”

At the end of the day, religious convictions and political convictions
are not that dissimilar.  Jesus in Matthew’s gospel tells his
disciples not to light a lamp and put it under a basket but, instead,
to allow it to shine where all can see.  He speaks the same words
to us Christian Democrats about our faith convictions.  The
question is whether we will have the courage to listen.