Keeping the Faith

Why faith-based progressivism might not just be possible—but desirable.

I should say at the start that John DiIulio and I are fellow Catholics and fellow aspiring do-gooders. He is an accomplished political scientist and public intellectual, a plain-speaker, and a person who practices what he preaches more than most of us do, committing his time, talents, and treasure to the poor and dispossessed, especially those in Philadelphia, where he grew up and still lives. At a time when presidential candidates argue whether or not America is a “Christian nation,” when conservatives look to evangelical ministers to anoint a Republican standard-bearer, and when many liberals seem preoccupied with winning the “faith vote,” DiIulio offers a plan rooted in principles, not politics. In his new book, DiIulio presents an engaging and attractive vision of a “godly republic” and a program of action for a faith-friendly civil society. I hope his vision is true, and I hope his arguments garner attention and support–and not just because we are friends.

Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-Based Future has two major parts. In the first, DiIulio argues that the United States has been and remains what he calls a “godly republic”–religious, tolerant, and respectful of the requirement of government neutrality with regard to religion. This analysis lays the groundwork for his second argument: that faith-based civil-society organizations have the capacity, and ought to have government support, to tackle the major problems of the disadvantaged in the society. While his reading of religion’s role in American life is accurate, DiIulio’s analysis of the religiosity of Americans almost certainly exaggerates the extent to which faith-based organizations can solve social problems, with or without the support of government. But the narrower argument with which he closes the book, about the potential for specific faith-based interventions in specific urban problems, makes a persuasive case for a new, constrained version of an initiative that many progressives derided under the current administration–and may want to reconsider.

DiIulio distinguishes the notion of a “godly republic” from both a “Christian America” and a purely secular America. Americans, he argues, combine a deep religious commitment with a deep respect for freedom of religion, as well as a sense that government should be neutral with regard to religious practices. His is in part a historical argument–that the idea of the “godly republic” was at the center of the Founders’ vision for the nation. DiIulio then makes a legal argument, concerning the Supreme Court’s line of reasoning in religion cases. Specifically, he posits that the set of religious cases can be read in a way that reveals two themes. The first is that religious freedom includes the freedom to practice either religion or non-religion. The second is that the prohibition on the establishment of religion requires that government be neutral in dealing with both religion and nonreligion. Both his historical and his constitutional analysis lead DiIulio to conclude that there is no requirement that government be secular or that it avoid all dealings with religious organizations, only that it be neutral and scrupulously protective of religious freedom. This basic argument is well-supported in the literature and is persuasive, though it is certainly not the unanimous opinion of historians and constitutional scholars.

But precise resolution of the historical and constitutional arguments is less important than understanding religion in contemporary American politics and society. And here there is considerable agreement among sociologists and political scientists, who rely on extensive polling data and diverse qualitative studies to paint a picture very consistent with DiIulio’s. The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as religious, and within that majority a majority is Christian. Whether or not the Founders envisioned religion in the public square, it is clearly there now and will remain, since for so many Americans religion is both an important (for some the most important) aspect of their identity and also the foundation of their values and commitments. Banishing religion from public life is probably not possible, and also not necessary, as the religious majority of Americans is basically pluralist and more or less tolerant. They claim to base their morality in their religion and expect their public officials to be religious (presumably as a marker of good character), but by and large the polls show that Americans want these same officials to do their work in service of the people, not in service of particular religious ideas. Even those who think we are or ought to be an explicitly “Christian” nation (and many evangelicals, among others, express this sentiment) mostly believe, as sociologist Christian Smith has documented in his book Christian America?, that such a nation still ought to respect the freedom of religion and conscience of all.

Alan Wolfe, a savvy chronicler of the contemporary religious landscape, supports DiIulio’s assessment in most respects. His interviews with a wide variety of people, reported in his book The Transformation of American Religion, present a picture of religion that is neither particularly doctrinal nor particularly demanding. For most Americans, God is benign, non-judgmental, and inclusive. Attending church or synagogue builds self-esteem and social capital, as well as a vague sense of communing with something beyond ourselves and doing the right thing. American religious sentiments, as expressed in Wolfe’s interviews, are remarkably tolerant, flexible, and pragmatic, further suggesting that we need not worry too much about religion’s poisoning of politics. Wolfe’s interviews also reveal, however, that American religion is not very serious. This is a very important, and somewhat disturbing, finding when one considers DiIulio’s belief in the power of faith-based organizations.

• 1
• 2
• 3

Post a Comment

Name

Email

Comments (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.