Politics, Religion 

and the Common Good:  

Advancing a Distinctly American 

Conversation about 

Religion’s Role in Our Shared Life

 By Martin E. Marty with Jonathan Moore

Jossey-Bass Publishers:  March, 2000.  184 pages.

 Reviewed by John B. Wong 

and David A. Pendleton

John B. Wong:

That American life is pluralistic and its culture polyvalent needs no rebuttal.  Indeed, according to my observations as a citizen of the United States who often travels to other nations, life in this country is marked by a provocative contrast.  On the one hand, we Americans share a very strong national ethos powerfully reinforced by commercial language, market products, education, public laws and the controlling media. On the other hand, we exhibit strident individualism, political incivility, increasing litigiousness, struggles between a religious emphasis and secularism and social fragmentation. In the midst of such a cultural milieu and national mosaic, what can Marty’s book tell us?

Because nobody speaks from a neutral void, a little background about the author will help. Martin Marty  is an ordained Lutheran minister, a professor emeritus of modern Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School where he earned his Ph.D., a perennial media commentator on American religion, a senior editor of Christian Century, and a recipient of sixty-four honorary degrees. With such credentials, he stands high as he addresses the complex issues of public religion in American society, whose once-vaunted cohesion is being challenged by multiculturalism and a liberal sensibility that religion belongs to the private.  This book is a product of the Pew Charitable Trusts which "promote efforts to bring light and interpret the forces of faith within a pluralistic society."

In a well-crafted, journalistic style, Marty acquaints readers with some of the current controversies in politics and religion. He cites many examples: a taxpayer begrudging the tax-exempt status of churches that he despises; a couple having to work day and night to support their children in a religious school while subsidizing through their taxes a public school education that contains programs contrary to their religious beliefs; an economic conservative who is also a believer in abortion and gay rights and must choose to endorse or reject her political party which is controlled by conservative Christian coalitions; and many other unsettling situations to which we can all add our own examples. Marty believes that Americans remain confused, while tensions and bickering continue, about what the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States actually requires regarding the separation between church and state, something many consider sacrosanct.

The purpose of this book, Marty says,  is to provide readers with tools for moving the difficult issues of politics and religion from argument to conversation. It is his hope that this conversation will provide  "a resource on which to draw, a framework to do your own thinking, a sense of what has gone on elsewhere."  In addition, Marty wants such a conversation to be a model that contrasts with "shouting, polarization, and demeaning arguments." He intends to help those who want to do the right thing according to their beliefs in God, tradition, country and fellow citizens in compliance with  public order, law and the courts.

Marty invites us to look at a group of pithy definitions of politics and religion. The one I like by the British political scientist Bernard Crick declares that "Politics is not just a necessary evil; it is a realistic good."   Another is by historian Arnold Toynbee:  religion is "Man’s attempt to get in touch with an absolute spiritual Reality behind the phenomena of the Universe, and having made contact with It, to live in harmony with It."

Marty believes that religion plays an important role in politics and American life.  He contends that, if they are aware of the beneficial influence religion can have on the republic, people with religious beliefs can contribute to the common good by their involvement.  He supports this thesis by characterizing what religion is and does.  It focuses our "ultimate concern," builds community, appeals to myth and symbols, is reinforced through rites and ceremonies and demands certain behaviors from its adherents. He reminds us that public religion "refers to religion’s public implications, those places where religion seems to have an identifiable—and potentially extricable—influence on public life."

In clear outlines, Marty suggests the "When, Where, and What" for such conversation. It is, quoting David Tracy, a conversation which questions itself.  It is not a confrontation, not a debate and not an exam. "It is a willingness to follow the question wherever it may go." It will come as no surprise to most people, however, that Dr. Marty knows exactly where the conversation heads.  

In the United States, interaction between  public religion and politics, is inevitable, according to Marty, because it is hard for him "to think of any descriptions, definitions, or citations of profound elements in politics and government that are not somehow religious." The intermingling of politics and government, which affects the lives and well-being of citizens, and religion, which asks questions about life’s ultimate concern and meaning, is inescapable. Example:  Should assisted suicide be legal?  Another one that comes to mind since Marty wrote this book would be:  Should stem cell research be funded by the federal government of the United States?

Marty puts forth, it seems to me, an  "Even though, yet" type of argument with a subset of "even though." He avoids the word "argument," calling all such discussion "conversation."  But I do not know how one can have a serious, formal, substantive conversation on such a controversial subject as religion and politics without positing an argument.  By "argument"  I mean a reasoned, balanced discussion of the strength of one’s position, without fallacies, rancor, arrogance, or imposition.

While artfully diffusing counter arguments, Marty maintains that, even though religion can divide, disrupt and be violent, and even though political interaction can compromise religion’s purity,  the mix of religion and politics is worth the risk.  He contends that public religion can and does contribute to the common good. He cites the service to human needs provided by the Salvation Army, even though the private side of its belief system alarms traditional Christians. He refers to the contributions of Martin Luther King to racial justice even though the stories of his private life could be subjects for regaling.. He writes that "religion is not going to disappear" because religion deals with the deepest elements of life, because it is already at work in the public arena, because it provides needed resources and because it helps to illuminate the participants. Also, religion can bring a perspective that balances out political fanaticism and helps to assure all other freedoms:  "Everything is politics but politics is not everything."  He lists eleven additional areas where religion can make a difference.

Marty cites examples of societal change begun by individual citizens with strong religious beliefs. Nevertheless, conflicts between personal religious beliefs and the law of the land are an everyday a reality for chief executives in government, legislators and judges. Tradition and some 200 years of national experience have taught such office holders to generalize their particular religious preferences or even to submerge them when they conflict with public political commitments.  Marty asserts that in the history of the United States "Righteous citizens could be shaped by the teachings and practices of any number of religions. It made little difference which religion was involved; being religious in general was all that mattered."  (I wonder about Satanists who think they are righteous and religious!)  However, for politicians to make overly religious every political decision benefits neither religion nor politics, it has been commonly held. 

In a pluralistic society where many interests and persuasions collide, religious and ethical idealists do not win most of the time. Does this mean that the citizen-believer should withdraw from politics? Marty answers "no."  Claiming that political paralysis "is destructive of common good in a republic," he holds that citizens ought to be energized by their beliefs which can improve the political order when translated into action. Marty cites George Washington's claim in his "Farewell Address" that morality cannot be maintained without religion and that national morality cannot prevail in exclusion of a religious principle.

With historical acumen and political insight, Marty traces the history of religious institutions in the United States. Congregations, parishes, denominations, religious associations, agencies and ecumenical bodies are all involved in politics in different ways and degrees.  They attest support for what the government does, contest governmental action in a minority of cases and protest in an even smaller number of instances by denouncing the government and the majority.

How has the political power of religious institutions in the United States affected the common good?  In the prohibition of alcohol, the opposition to the election of Catholic Al Smith to the presidency, the civil rights movement, the protest against the Vietnam War, the pro-choice and pro-life controversies, the Feminist debates, the controversies over school vouchers, the attempts to preserve the traditional family and in sundry other issues, the religion of believers has played a major role in American culture. Also, the religious impulses of individuals and corporate religious forces join to shape American politics, government and society. 

Religion is translated into political power in the United States by pastors who preach the prophetic word, by denominational pronouncements such as the Roman Catholic Bishops’ statements on migrant workers, capital punishment, abortion and birth control and the World Council of Churches positions on nuclear disarmament, by denominational lobbies in Washington, D.C. such as the  Baptist commission on obscenity and by parachurch organizations such as Focus on the Family.  In addition, for more than two centuries, religious organizations have been exempt from paying property taxes. Since the publication of Marty’s book, the possible federal funding of faith-based service organizations has become a hot political debate. As James Madison observed, the wall of separation between church and state is a line "that is often permeable, sometimes blurred, always contested."

While the congregations of mainstream Protestantism--Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregationalist, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist, Northern Baptist and Lutheran--have diminished in political power because of their weakened and uncertain voices, the congregations of more conservative persuasion—Southern Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Missouri Synod Lutheran, Christian Reformed and Fundamentalist--have consolidated their power bases and often taken public stands on many important social and political issues. These include the debates on abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, sexual abstinence for teens and, according to the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention, the belief that wives should submit to their husbands.  Of interest, in these contexts faith-based norms do not surface much on issues of race, justice, poverty and the environment.

On the future horizon of American religion, Marry sees the flourishing of religious special-interest groups. Some examples are the Christian Legal Society, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Evangelicals for Social Action, the American Jewish Committee and Bread for the World.  One may add to these the 700 Club, the Trinity Broadcasting Station, the Dr. James Kennedy Program, and the list goes on.

These special interest groups have changed from the politics of resentment against the liberal agenda to the politics of the will-to-power by organizing and empowering themselves to reshape America.  They have become very influential, according to Marty’s analysis, by using modern communication tools that have the advantage of swift movement while preserving the individual’s voice. These groups are able to mobilize with great resources and imagination, and they succeed in summoning people of considerable talent, energy, focus and drive to provide leadership. They do well at fundraising and drawing media attention, and in promoting causes that further polarize society. They are also effective in getting politicians to listen to their unambiguous concerns early and clearly. Unlike the more established denominations which must diffuse their politically laden motives, these groups don’t have difficulty generating financial support.  

With the proliferation of special interest religious groups and faith-based ventures which are often involved in activism, the political landscape of the United States has changed.  Marty claims that "America is a religiosecular society, a place where lines between church and state are increasingly blurred, thanks to such interest groups.  The boundaries of the zones marked sacred and profane are not so easily discernible as they once were."  He concludes that today these special-interest religious groups are the conduits through which political energies exerted by religious people are applied to American politics.

Marty invites all religious people to join the political conversation.  The battleground includes debates about the refusal of Christian Scientists to provide standard medical treatments for their children, Federal aid to students of segregationist schools, tensions between management and labor, welfare reform, and others. "I am going to speak only for myself," he declares in his final chapter.  "I do not want to be inhibited by concern that my argument here has the endorsement of ...."  He then advances his own conclusions, actions, and directives.  

Admitting that the conversation is always open-ended, that religion and politics are always dynamic, Marty leaves it to his readers to draw their own conclusions.  "Yet I reiterate," he declares, "that although religion is in some dimensions a private affair, it also belongs in public affairs.  Religion is a part of ordinary life: the workplace, the worlds of friendly interaction, the mall, the academy, the media, the gallery. But it takes on special importance in the political realm. This is why the voices of religion should be in the public forum and the political table."  Marty advises his readers to get involved by establishing forums, engaging in words and deeds about environmental issues, attending to the plight of the aged and their needs, caring about education, health care delivery and security for the dispossessed, and by reading newspapers with "religion and public life" in mind.

This is a book from which students of most professions and disciplines can benefit.  Its breadth of coverage, though at times at the expense of depth, understandably so, challenges the reader on every turn.  Every chapter title has a thesis statement right below it, so that one is never at a loss as to where the author is going.  This is a unique technique for which Marty surely deserves commendation.  The flow of the text is gentle and smooth and the language is lucid and down-to-earth.  In my estimation, by skimming, a serious reader can in one hour get the main points in Marty's invitation to a conversation on politics and religion.  

Reflecting over the terrain just covered, it seems to me that Marty did not analyze what constitutes the common good.  True, he lists 18 ways religion can contribute to society.  But what about the results of the direct interaction of religion with politics?  Marty cites the Salvation Army and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Some might argue that Salvation Army's charity work could be easily substituted by a non-religious agency.  Furthermore, the good of King’s political legacy is far from clear-cut.  

 I suppose the crux of the question is: "What constitutes 'good' and 'common,' what is of greatest value and with whom should it be shared?"  Admittedly, "good" is a philosophical and ethical concept and there are different conclusions as to what it is.  Perhaps it would be too much to ask in a book of this nature  for a thorough discussion of what the "good" is and with whom it should be shared in a pluralistic society; however, a brief discussion might be helpful.  For instance, recalling H. Richard Niehbur’s five paradigms in Christ and Culture, how would those who prefer the "Christ against Culture" orientation view the common good resulting from the intertwining of religion and politics Marty promotes?

Another question must be directed toward some Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, and other conservative churches regarding the funding they receive from various governments for their relief and educational work and for their research programs.  If, as Marty argues, the line of separation between church and state has become increasingly blurred, is it the task of these churches to make themselves more distinct and perhaps separate  or just to take advantage of the blurring of the line of separation in order to further what they regard as their Christ-centered programs? All said, Marty’s advice that the conversation be continued makes sense.

David A. Pendleton:

In the mass media, journalists and reporters cover stories on religion and politics in terms which will boost ratings, sell magazines, and make for "controversial copy." Whenever religion is reported in the same sentence as a public policy issue, genuine "discussion and dialogue" are often not even mentioned. Whether it is the Jewish-Palestinian conflict in Israel, the Protestant and Catholic state of affairs in Ireland, the Serb-Croatian war in Bosnia, or some other conflict around the world, religion and politics are depicted as being at odds. "They just don’t mix," said one fellow elected official from Hawaii that I know.

Here in the United States, we are no better. A quick glance over a few issues of recent weekly news magazines reveals that the conversation amounts to little more than the following:  A psychologically disturbed Christian bombs an abortion clinic or shoots an abortion doctor; a crowd of protesters gathers across the street to mourn the death of the "martyred pro-choice physician" and between shed tears shout "keep your rosaries off our ovaries!"

The present situation is more of a shouting match rather than a constructive dialogue. At the very best, individuals find themselves talking at each other rather than with each other.

Noted scholar Martin E. Marty, author of more than fifty books and a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Divinity School, has offered a description of the interrelationship between religion and politics in America and a short prescription for "advancing a distinctly American conversation about religion’s role in our shared life."

Co-authored with Jonathan Moore and ably supported by an editorial and research team funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the University of Chicago, this work is truly the fruit of a group effort

In the first two chapters entitled "Handle with Care" and "Worth the Risk," Marty outlines what is believed to be common wisdom today – namely, that "religiously motivated political action has no place in a democratic republic" – and offers a substantial rejoinder to the "common wisdom." He argues that religion is not without risk, but when it is part of the civic conversation it can, among other things, illuminate the presuppositions of all conversation partners, help diminish political fanaticisms, assure other freedoms, offer chances for renewal, combat apathy, help protect the individual in the world of politics, and give voice to the voiceless. The list, while admittedly open to amendment, is truly impressive.

The next two chapters begin what is Marty’s overall effort to demonstrate that religion and politics are already mixed and that the question is not whether they should be mixed but how they should be. Individuals, he points out, are formed and mobilized by their faith. They are registered to vote. They read newspapers, watch television, form opinions, and vote their beliefs in the polling booth on Election Day. Moreover, their church congregations, denominations, and para-church/ecumenical organizations are effective in disseminating their religiously informed views to the wider public audience.

Marty is not arguing that what is ought to be. He is not fatalistic. Rather, he is realistic. Because religious beliefs deal with the "deepest elements of life," there can be no genuine separation, for "religion is already at work in the public arena." History has shown this a la  the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, Knights of Columbus, and the Anti-Saloon League. More recently, we have witnessed the rise and fall in influence of the Christian Coalition and the like. As long as there are believers, politics will continue to be informed by religious belief. Politics and religion, therefore, cannot be divorced unless you disenfranchise all voters who have religious beliefs.

Religion, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed, is central to the American character because of our fondness for voluntary associations, many of which at one time were religious in nature. A truly secular public square would not be an American public square. We cannot keep religion out of politics but we must ensure that they co-exist in a civil manner, Marty contends.

In the closing chapter, Marty gives a hearty "amen" to the Madisonian view that a democratic republic prospers from the diversity of voices participating in a public discourse. He then calls for civility. He especially appeals to religious groups to set the tone for inter-faith dialogue and dealings with the larger body politic.

Whether Marty’s call will be listened to remains to be seen. This excellent and persuasive book is both scholarly and accessible. Should we expect anything less from Martin E. Marty?

Yet I cannot help but conclude that few of those who truly need to hear its message – namely, the crazy abortion bombers, the keep-your-rosaries-off-our-ovaries! fanatics, and all of the others – will hear it. That is, unless of course people like you and me in our places of worship and work, in the grocery store and at the town park, speak and live its message. I recommend this book, but if you are reading this review you probably don’t need to hear its message. You are already part of the "choir."

I’m reminded of Lord Acton’s profound statement: "No country can be free without religion. It creates and strengthens the notion of duty. If men are not kept straight by duty, they must be by fear. The more they are kept by fear, the less they are free. The greater the strength of duty, the greater the liberty." Self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians chapter 5, and, if present in our lives, it ought to contribute to a more civil public dialogue, at least from the believer’s side of the equation.

I am delighted that Marty has recognized the difficulties real politicians face. As a "practicing politician," I have sought – sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully – to find a coherent way for my Seventh-day Adventist values and beliefs to inform and enrich my political philosophy. I have consistently arrived at policy positions, which I believe are consistent with Adventist beliefs, but have chosen to articulate secular rationales for such policy positions. Is this what Joseph or Daniel or Esther would do? I don’t know.

But I do know that when I have had to choose between the sincere beliefs of a Christian Scientist or Jehovah’s Witness, on the one hand, and saving the life of the deathly ill child of such a parent, on the other hand, I have always sided with the child. I have listened. I have struggled. I have been respectful. And I will have to vote and live with my vote.

 We need to advance a distinctly American conversation about religion’s role in our shared life. That civil discussion must happen. But at some point – as when emergency medical care must be administered – the discussion must be concluded and a decision must be made.