Democrats are Christians, too!

We are we are we are!

That's how it comes across to me — complete with stomping feet — whenever a ranking Democratic leader complains about the relationship between Christians and Republicans.

You're stifling the discussion of faith by Democrat Christians! You fixate too much on abortion and same-sex marriage! You ignore the poor/hungry/disenfranchised! You're trying to impose a theocracy on our country!

So I had to laugh at yesterday's Oregonian story about how "a growing number of Oregon and national Democratic leaders want to haul religion out of the party's backrooms and into the open."

I guess I interpret that this way: they don't want to be closet Christian Democrats. They want to be bold about their faith and how it impacts their politics. And I think that's great. All Christians should be bold about their faith (though none have more difficulty with that concept than this humble blogger), and they shouldn't be shy about letting their faith guide their political beliefs.

It also comes across as an inferiority complex — We are christians! We are we are we are! — but I can't help thinking it's mostly about politics, not about faith.

Of course, this is not a new concept. It's been discussed for years, but even moreso since the day after the 2004 presidential election, when conservative Christians were credited as a key contributor to George W. Bush's re-election. Even before he was elected chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean was quoted in a Christianity Today story as vowing to reach out to evangelicals. For all the efforts of the party, however, the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot on this issue, such as Dean's pronouncement in June that Republicans were "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

The Oregonian story notes that Republicans have been much more effective in gaining the support of evangelicals, partially because Democrats have "tended to ignore, if not alienate, that sector." However, they believe they can make political gains by appealing to "progressive" voters of faith (not just Christians), just by talking more openly about their religious beliefs and "emphasizing the biblical underpinnings for poverty, anti-war and health programs they support."

That line about alienating people of faith has to be one of the greatest understatements of the story. In recent history, the Democratic Party has been much more interested in helping the American Civil Liberties Union rather than the American Center for Law & Justice, more interested in promoting Planned Parenthood than in promoting planned abstinence.

The problem with this outreach is twofold. First off, Democrats haven't exactly come across as sincere in their efforts to portray their own faith or discuss faith in general. The Christianity Today story noted that when he was the Vermont governor,

Dean promoted homosexual civil unions. His presidential campaign stumbled over clumsy attempts to display biblical literacy and religious values. At one point the governor was quoted as declaring that the Book of Job is his favorite New Testament book.

The eventual Democratic nominee for President, John Kerry, professed himself uneasy about talking of his Catholic faith, and his pro-abortion-rights views generated a lot of criticism from his church leaders.

(Psst . . . Howie . . . Job is in the Old Testament, but it's easy to miss. It's only 42 chapters long, and it's right before the meaty 150 chapters of the Psalms.)

It's that perceived insincerity (note that I didn't say they are insincere, only that they come across that way) that leads to a fair amount of distrust among evangelicals. Even among Democrat Christians, it's hard to put your trust in a party that seems so out of touch with the values inherent in faith.

The Oregonian story quoted Rabbi Daniel Isaak of Portland's Neveh Shalom congregation, and I think Rabbi Isaak inadvertently made this point. He said that the language used to discuss issues of faith is intensely important:

"Liberals are very careful about not mixing church and state," Isaak said. On the other hand, the liberal agenda can be discussed in a clear religious context, whether it's about helping the poor, helping the elderly or affirming that God cares about all, including different faiths and lifestyles.

"The language is important," Isaak said. If Democrats talk about religion comfortably and honestly, they can appeal to religious voters, but "if they use language that is not sincere, they'll fall on their faces."

The problem lies in that phrase "different faiths and lifestyles." Does God love everyone? Yes. Without question. "For God so loved the world..." Not part of the world. The world.

However, does God say that all faiths and lifestyles are acceptable from an eternal perspective? Not according to the Christian faith (John 14:6, Hebrews 5:9).

Second, in any discussion of the poor, hungry or war-ravaged, Democrats automatically accuse Republicans of ignoring those needs. However, while it's sometimes true, it's usually not that simple. It's not so much a willingness to ignore the needy as much as it is a disagreement about the necessary paths we should take to meet those needs. Pastor and blogger extraordinaire Mark D. Roberts put it nicely in Part IV of a series he wrote last year:

I believe the Bible calls all Christians to care for the poor. The pages of Scripture are filled with God’s concern for the poor and with many exhortations to reach out to those in material need (for example, Deuteronomy 15:10-11; Isaiah 58:6-9; 1 John 3:17). So, when I preach from such passages, I call my congregation to care for the poor, not only through individual acts of charity, but also by working in society to eliminate the causes of poverty.

Now I know Christians who believe, on the basis of what I’ve just said about poverty, that my preaching at this point should take a sharp turn in the Democratic direction. After all, this is the party that tends to talk a lot about caring for the poor and ending poverty. Democrats generally believe that the government should lead the effort to alleviate poverty through a wide variety of federal, state, and local programs. Since these programs cost money, Democrats argue that it’s necessary to raise taxes on the wealthy to cover the costs, and that this will ultimately lead to a more just society. All of this sounds consistent with biblical teaching. So does the Bible support the Democratic agenda, at least when it comes to the problem of poverty?

Not necessarily. I also know Christians who are deeply concerned about the problem of poverty and do much in their own lives both to care for the poor and to bring about social change that will eliminate poverty. But these Christians do not believe that the government should take the lead in this effort. Rather, they see the ultimate solution to poverty coming from the jobs that will be created by a strong economy and a thriving business community. They believe, not only that government efforts to alleviate poverty are ineffective, but also that government involvement often makes matters worse. They believe that the most successful care for the poor comes, not from government, but from faith-based ministries, such as the Salvation Army or World Vision. So these faithful Christians who care profoundly for the poor find the Republican party to be the one that generally shares their perspectives on how best to eliminate poverty.

One of the reasons the evangelical movement has aligned itself so strongly with the GOP is the Democrats' inflexibility in discussing faith-based issues. When discussing issues such as helping the poor, the argument is one of method, and there are ways to achieve compromise if both sides are willing. When discussing issues such as abortion, the argument is more black and white: yes, the unborn are worthy or protection, or, No, the unborn have no rights. Despite polls showing support for measures such as a partial-birth abortion ban, parental consent or informed consent, the Democratic Party has no interest in broadening that part of its tent.

Those Democrats who believe the unborn deserve the protection promised in our country's founding documents find themselves dealing with a Democratic party beholden to the most extreme factions of the pro-abortion movement, so that no discussion, no compromise, no protection is achieveable. Perceiving no willingness to bend, Democrats of faith have no choice but to turn to a Republican party not only willing to listen to their concerns, but have a broad enough coalition that people of different beliefs (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Dobson) can be part of the same party.

The biggest downfall among Republican Christians (myself included) is a willingness to listen only to those who share the same beliefs. It is this closeting that has sometimes led to the GOP's inability (or unwillingness) to give the disenfranchised the same priority as the unborn. As Mark D. Roberts said in Part III of his series:

There’s no escaping the fact that good Christians often differ considerably in their political views. Perhaps the main reason this seems wrong to many “good Christians” on both right and left is that they rarely talk to anyone outside of their own little circle of agreement. If I talk politics only with those who agree with me about politics and faith, then I naturally come to assume that all who share my faith also share my politics. Not only do I end up with a skewed perspective on reality, but also I miss the chance to clarify and correct my political viewpoints through thoughtful discourse with people who disagree with me. Wouldn’t it be something if the church could become a place for this kind of political conversation?

I think it would be valuable. It would contribute to the de-polarization of the electorate, and it would go a long way toward conveying the church's love for all people. The cynic in me also says it's not gonna happen.

Nonetheless, I welcome the chance to discuss issues of faith with both parties. I only have one question: does this mean that Democrats are going to abandon their constitutionally-challenged perspective on the separation of church and state?