Josh Ryden

Final Reflection on Washington, D.C. semester

May 2nd, 2008

            Thinking back over the Paul Henry semester in Washington, D.C. gives one much to ponder. In the space of three months our group was exposed to a very diverse cross-section of Christianity in American politics. We encountered Christians from a variety of theological backgrounds all working out what they viewed as the proper balance between citizenship in the Earthly and Heavenly kingdoms. Based on these experiences, I believe I have gained (among others less coherent) a certain three insights about Christianity in the political sphere: a) Christians across the spectrum of political persuasion all seek a broadly similar conception of the common good, though their commitments emphasize different aspects of Christ’s nature b) people’s ideological commitments have a drastic effect on how they synthesize their religious convictions and political philosophy, and c) a central commitment differentiating conservatives and liberals is the level of confidence in human reason.

            After hearing from organizations ranging from Sojourners to the Family Research Council, I became convinced that anyone believing only one side was truly concerned about helping “the least of these” and showing Christ’s love was simply mistaken. Such a belief is refusing to understand the concerns and underlying assumptions that organizations make on both sides, which then translate into the organizations’ approaches to faith and policy. I was saddened when classmates would snicker at either organizations, thinking that the “other” people were clearly crazy and totally out of touch with the proper priorities of a Christian approach to the problems at hand. Rather, I saw in both left and right leaning groups emphasis on different elements of the Christian worldview, each reflecting different aspects of Christ’s nature.

            I found that the broadly conservative approach emphasizes the just aspect of Christ’s nature, where he was bold in speaking against the evil and suffering resulting from sin in people’s lives that in turn affects those closest to them, and the importance of personal renewal. In such a focus, the conservative also places a central emphasis on human relationships and the foundational role that relationships (family, church, local community) play in the life of the state. On the other hand, the broadly liberal approach emphasizes the mercy and compassionate aspects of Christ’s nature. This perspective views the most effective way of bringing about the common good as seeking to directly assist “the least of these,” often involving the whole populace in the effort willingly or otherwise. They are most concerned about inequality in systems, and view its eradication as a central objective of the Christian political perspective.

 Therefore, while these two groups have different approaches at how to best bring about the common good (emphasizing different aspects of Christ’s nature) it is importance to realize that they both in fact are seeking the common good.

            Over the semester I have also come to see the extent to which people’s ideological commitments affect the way that they integrate their religious commitments into their political perspective. This particularly became apparent when comparing the political positions of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and those of my boss Michael Novak. During my internship I was for a time tasked with copying and cataloging from various journals he had been involved in throughout the eighties, the largest of which being a journal of Catholic lay opinion whose central purpose had been to provide a forum for lay Catholics who felt that the USCCB did not represent their views on economics and foreign policy. From within the same religious community here were two vastly different conceptions of the role of the state, and also of the nature of the international system that in turn affected how each integrated the same set of religious convictions into public policy issues. I also saw this displayed in the strikingly similar theological commitments among organizations like Sojourners and the Family Research Council. Both are broadly evangelical, and would assent to much of the same body of belief concerning the person of Christ, the scriptures, and the task of the great commission. In spite of such theological agreement, these two organizations had vastly different political priorities and affiliations.  

            An additional insight I feel I have gained arose from reading Sowell’s The Conflict of Visions, where he discusses the extent to which conservatives and liberals place confidence in the abilities of human reason, and the far-reaching effects of this commitment. I saw this largely displayed in the extent to which certain organizations endorsed federal or state-supported solutions rather than ones arising from the “free associations” in society. Sojourners in particular seemed to favor federal programs and policies instituted via a “top-down” approach, as they saw this as the most effective way to combat the rising inequality and injustices in the American system. Such a tendency reflects a level of confidence in the abilities of people in government to plan policies that reflect and will effectively influence the realities of the problems in America. Other organizations such as the Cato Institute would not put nearly as much confidence in the abilities of government officials to be able to grasp or reconcile the vast complexities of the current American reality enough to be able to produce effective policy. Rather, Cato would endorse a more “bottom-up” approach to solving policy issues, where the people on the ground determine the best possible decisions by interacting in the process themselves, such as through market models.

            In conclusion, I believe the semester in Washington, D.C. has both left me with a number of answers, and perhaps an even greater number of questions. I feel I have walked away with a clearer sense of the complexities involved in trying to navigate what constitutes a properly Christian approach to matters of the state. I also have developed a healthy appreciation for those in who work in public policy, having seen the complexity of the issues and the challenging aspects of implementing the solutions.