Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Faith: Is There a Role to Play in Bringing Compromise?

Opinion

Faith: Is There a Role to Play in Bringing Compromise?
man holding his hands on open book
Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash

Congress may open with prayer, but it is not a religious body. Yet religion is something that moves so very many, inescapably impacting Congress. Perhaps our attempts to increase civility and boost the best in our democracy should not neglect the role of faith in our lives. Perhaps we can even have faith play a role in uniting us.

Philia, in the sense of “brotherly love,” is one of the loves that is part of the great Christian tradition. Should not this mean Christians should love our political opponents – enough to create a functioning democracy? Then there is Paul’s letter to the Philippians: “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone.” And Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” The flesh could be seen as a politics of ego, or holding grudges, or hating opponents, or lying, or even setting up straw men to knock down; serving one another in the context of a legislative body means working with each other to get to “yes” on how best to help others.


Getting to “yes” in today’s political environment in Congress has been difficult. Yet it has happened with bipartisan majorities passing legislation. Last session, with a slight margin for Democrats in the Senate and a slight majority for Republicans in the House, the numbers necessitating some coming together, an omnibus appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority kept the government open. A foreign aid bill passed by a bipartisan majority funded Ukraine in the war of naked aggression by Russia, Israel in its right to exist, Gaza's humanitarian aid, and Taiwan as it faces a China that believes it is part of China. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was extended by a bipartisan majority for two more years, making sure that the United States continues to have authority to monitor foreign terrorists, but also under continual oversight much greater than before FISA was enacted at all.

Is there a Christian position on any of this, yes or no? I would say a qualified “no.” I do not doubt the faith of anyone who comes to contrary positions that I believe in. Yet I do think there is room in today’s politics for more brotherly love, reasonableness as a virtue, and exercising our freedom such as to “serve one another.” Perhaps we can go beyond numbers as the only reason for bridging differences; perhaps a kind and still voice can play a role, too.

Throughout my career in public service, I have engaged with the Religious Right and the lesser-known Religious Left. Both are actually very strong in their own ways. What seems to be missing is a Religious Center. This center could be Center-Right or Center-Left. For me, what I want is a religious movement willing to try to get to “yes” on every issue – so long as the end position is reasonable. This does not mean capitulating to everything. Just that “no” is not the only position.

I think of the organization Bread for the World when I worked in the US House of Representatives during the George W. Bush administration. People of faith showed up in our office with a stack of letters and “asks” that both Republicans and Democrats could support. One was the funding of Millennium Challenge Accounts, a competitive program that awards funds to developing nations that govern justly, invest in people, and promote economic freedom. Another was the funding of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). President Bush had called for the creation of these programs, and Democrats agreed.

A religious coalition of the Center-Left and Center-Right on select issues could do tremendous good for our country. Imagine more respectful dialogue and good compromises. The religious coalition would not appeal solely to a party’s base. Only to love of all (Democrat or Republican), reasonableness for all (Republican or Democrat), or serving each other (Republican and Democrat). I can imagine what this looks like – and maybe you can too. I hope what we see is less a country torn apart and more a country of the best in leadership.

Scott Miller is a graduate of Widener School of Law, a former chief of staff in Congress, and the author of 'Christianity & Your Neighbor's Liberty.


Read More

Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Getty Images

Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership

Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.

That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Windows of a house

Low-angle view of two dormer windows protruding from townhouse roof

Grace Cary, Getty Images

Go Home

The distance from Washington, D.C., to my hometown of York, Pennsylvania, is 100 miles. When I worked as a Congressional staffer in D.C., I could get out of town and be back where I grew up in about an hour and a half, at least so long as I avoided rush hour traffic. Those last miles as I crossed the Pennsylvania-Maryland border brought a sense of gratitude for the relationships I would be keeping up. At my nephew’s soccer game, at an English-style pub with my long-time best friends, with my mother at the breakfast table having a local newspaper in her hands, life was ordinary.

I would return to work in D.C. feeling grounded. I felt better connected to

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol with a flag waving in front of it.

As Washington stalls, young bipartisan lawmakers in Alaska, Mississippi, and beyond are proving that cross-partisan collaboration still wins.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The Politicians Who Can Fix America's Polarization Problem Will Win

Political predictions are notoriously unreliable, but here is one I am willing to stand behind: the elected officials who figure out how to govern across difference will dominate the next decade of American politics. With dysfunction and paralysis having become the status quo in Washington, elected officials who work together to get things done will turn heads, offering desperate voters a much-needed alternative to a broken system.

Consider what happened in Alaska last year. The state’s lawmaking structure does not encourage political independence. Alaska has the nation's highest veto-override threshold: three-quarters. So when a popular education bill promising smaller class sizes, a cellphone ban, and vocational training funding cleared the legislature, only to be vetoed twice by the governor, it looked dead in the water.

Keep ReadingShow less