Book Review
by Darold H. Morgan
God`s Name In Vain
Stephan L. Carter,
Basic Books, 2000
The well-known law professor from Yale University, Stephen L. Carter, has authored another timely book which will challenge students of the volatile church and state issues in contemporary American life. He announces bluntly in his introductory paragraphs the theses of his volume, and he rarely is far from these as the book unfolds. "First, that there is nothing wrong and much right with robust participation of the nation`s many religious voices in debates over matters of public moment. Second, that religions- although not democracy-will almost always lose their best, most spiritual selves when they choose to be involved in the partisan, electoral side of American politics" (p. 1).
These are commendable objectives, but the author`s treatment somehow leaves a sense of dissatisfaction. This reviewer s conclusion does not come from the obvious fact that this is a well written, thoroughly researched book. Carter`s solid reputation is enhanced even by these pages. But the peculiar ambivalence, the lack of specificity about proposed solutions, the perception of bias in favor of the so-called diminishing Christian right in America, are among the reasons for this discontent.
In spite of these negative reactions the student interested in this exceptionally important subject of religion in American politics will profit from reading Carter`s new book. Reasons for this are apparent. His chapters on Fannie Lou Hamer and the Abolitionist movement in the nineteenth century are among the best in the book. Both chapters point to Carter`s timely and appropriate writing about Black Americans, "the most religious people in the Western world"
(p.35). His approach to their voting as overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic and to white evangelicals, who tend to vote Republican, makes for some of the most provocative reading in the entire volume. References to religious leaders and their involvement, both African-Americans and white evangelicals, in relation to such issues as school vouchers, classroom prayer, abortion rights, racial justice art of politics produce to some degree one of Carter`s most helpful conclusions: "If history has lose their taught us anything, it is that religions that fall too deeply in love with the art of souls very politics lose their souls-very fast" (p.18).
Here is where the ambivalence begins to show up. Ample evidence is quoted fast." throughout relative to the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, and the fascinating heritage with manipulations of Ronald Reagan. There are abundant references to failed prerogatives by religious leaders in the midst of a complicated multiculturalism and an obvious presence of liberal leaders. The inference abounds in the strong contention that religious leaders must keep on trying despite all failures and rejections by a majority of the American public. Not to do so is to invite some depressing results.
Much has happened in the political arena since Carter published his book. Bush`s Republican administration has strongly affirmed the voucher issue, It has also with much fanfare launched its "faith-based" approach with federal assistance as part of its public welfare program. So far the issue of separation of church and state has come more to the forefront of public debate than ever before. Using references to Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and others, Carter could have gone on to reaffirm the time-honored walls erected early in American history between church and state. But this affirmation never quite gets into the focus now urgently needed when diversity, the innumerable moral issues, and multiculturalism seem to mandate other directions.
Assuredly, religion in America should participate in "debates over public moments." From the days of Roger Williams to Carter`s one-sided presentation of Paul Weyrich, religious leaders have been anything but reluctant to get into the heart of the moral action, regardless of the matter at hand. Perhaps the most urgently needed message for folk who feel they must be a part of the on-going debates involving church-state challenges is Carter`s vivid and repeated reminder of the inevitable compromise of the church if one ignores both the historical elements and the tragic loss of prophetic insight.
Granted the religious diversity and moral complexity of the United States are major givens today. Religious leaders of all faiths must speak prophetically and perceptively to this never ending list of issues. Can this be done in the context of the wisdom of our constitutional forefathers who erected wisely walls of separation between state and church. Carter`s book would be considerably stronger if he had ended on that theme.
As far as one can see into America`s future, one will conclude that this religious political debate will intensify. These emotionally charged issues will provoke many attacks on once solid walls of an historic and essential separation. Any book or article that addresses our history and balance and insight will be welcomed. An informed public is still the best defense to keep these hallowed walls high and intact.
