A center that sees its task as nothing more than brokering compromise between political extremes is a vacuous center that, ironically, worsens the very polarization it hopes to ameliorate. A true center, an emphatic center, is defined not by the compromises it makes, but by the position it takes; not by the principles it sacrifices in the interest of compromise, but by those that inform its very being. It is this kind of center, an emphatic Christian center, that we advocate.
The emphatic Christian center is a center because it is centered; it advocates and acts from defined commitments. What it advocates is not determined by its place on the political spectrum, but in fidelity to its core. It is also a center in a second sense: it actively centers the politics of the spectrum - left, right, and center. p13-14
We need a strong, emphatic voice that centers political discourse with consistent, coherent, principled commitments, calling the political wings back to their own truest insights. An emphatic center, in contrast to its vacuous counterpart, strives to combine firm convictions and gentle hearts. The politics of the spectrum are mere form and location; a productive politics must introduce content ...We are convinced that the Christian conception of human existence as estranged from an omnipotent, just, and loving God is descriptive of the world in which we live, and - more important - productive for a more livable world. It is not that Christian conceptions are the only fruitful ones; nor that they cannot be supplemented or corrected by other religious, nonreligious, and antireligious insights; but neither can these insights be replaced by some sort of universal reason or vague personal spirituality. p 17-18
The contemporary poltical problem is not simply one of ethics (or in the term often favoured by conservatives, 'values'). Rather, an emphatic Christian centrism must arise from a source deeper than mere politics and morality. It is, in the first instance, theological. Its specific positions spring from a vision of existence that rests on a deep intuition of our status before God and God's revelation in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit. We provide three interrelated specifications of that vision: (1) a recovery of the emphasis on our separation from God expressed in a variety of symbols of sin, particularly the symbol of original sin, making justice a central criterion of political and social life and providing a real ground for hope; (2) an emphasis on love, particularly as respect and appreciation for the depth of one's opponent's commitments; and (3) divine power and omnipotence, which, far from detracting from human power, is rather what makes it possible in the first place. [author's note: we understand power not as domination or control, but as a communication of efficacy. cf Pasewark, A Theology of Power]. p19
The concern of many thoughtful people who fear any religious involvment in the political realm is because they suspect that religion is by nature exclusive and seeks to dominate the public realm. Religion, such a view holds, is intrinsically tyrannical - and 'religious politics' as often does its best to confirm this perspective. Besides, it is held, 'pluralism' means that since no one religion dominates, then no religion can speak.
The answer lies in the transformation of such religious tendencies, both from without, and more important, from within the particular religions themselves. Healthy social cohesion...reasts on unity through plurality [E pluribus unum], as Christian trinitarian traditions (among others) argue. Thus the emphatic Christian center seeks the re-invigoration of political life, but is aware that it can be only a contributor - and, on Christian grounds, that is all it can seek. That is why, for Christian reasons, the secular structure of the state is not optional, but, in fact, necessary. p 20
