|
I have recently been asked questions about the Church’s engagement with public policy and politics. How does a faithful Christian approach politics and government policy? The following rumination comes after several recent conversations and literally a lifetime of rumination and prayer. While I have not identified specific recent interlocutors, I am grateful to God’s people in this Diocese for raising helpful questions and insights.
I think we each must recognize our personal histories and how that shapes our attitudes toward theological, social and political issues. I am the child of the working class (my father was a carpenter and my mother worked as receptionist/bookkeeper in a family practice doctor’s office). I am the first one in my family to attend and graduate from a university. My parents grew up in the Great Depression. My mother idealized Franklin Roosevelt. As a child of seven or eight, I remember going with her to visit Adlai Stevenson’s grave in Bloomington, Illinois. She inculcated basic ideals: care for others, respect for everyone, assume the best in people, and don’t “blow your own horn.” One other practical bit of advice: “Never, ever cross a picket line.” Her years as a young adult working in a factory left its mark. In retrospect, those early foundational principles became part of my worldview.
I became a Christian and was baptized in the Episcopal Church as a university student. So, my faith perspective and understanding of social issues as a Christian are profoundly Episcopalian (and by extension Anglican). I was formed by the current Book of Common Prayer (though it was still stamped “Proposed” when I was baptized) – especially the Baptismal Covenant.
As an Episcopalian, I have been formed in the “Liberal Catholic” Anglican tradition. I have found critical inspiration in history from the likes of F.D. Maurice (1805-1872), Vida Dutton Scudder (1861–1954), Conrad Noel (1869-1942), and Frederic Hastings Smyth (1888-1960). More recently, Kenneth Leech (1939-2015), Desmond Tutu (1931-2021), Winston Halapua (b. 1945), and Rowan Williams (b. 1950) have provided guidance. There have been many lay and ordained Episcopalians (and other Anglicans) who have inspired me with service to the community and the world. I will highlight below one important individual, Archbishop William Temple, who has provided a helpful theological framework for me in addressing government policies and political realities.
I have been steeped in the life of the Episcopal Church for nearly half a century. The Episcopal Church has extensive teaching through acts of General Convention on issues of Palestine/Israel, immigration/refugees, human rights, economic justice, etc., that raise questions for us as Episcopalians and Christians. Past Federal Executive Administrations and Congresses have failed to address some key issues (like, for example, meaningful immigration reform). The Episcopal Church has a very small (albeit active) Office of Government Relations. I hope every Episcopalian in the Diocese signs up for The Episcopal Public Policy Network Action Alerts that come from that Office.
Like everyone, I come to my theological and political understanding with a personal story. Rendering unto “Caesar” (civil authority) is the balance of challenging “Caesar” when the faithful person believes “Caesar” to be wrong. This is particularly the case in a democratic republic. Personally, as a citizen, I have written two Presidents to urge them to resign: (1) Bill Clinton for lying under oath and (2) Donald Trump for his speech on January 6, 2021, that incited violence. I considered both acts that impugned the Republic and were morally wrong of the nation’s leader considering my understanding of Christian ethics. I acted as a citizen. I do think that individual leaders – religious and civil – should be held to higher moral standards. Leaders can be called to moral account without being overly partisan. Leaders are called to be the moral exemplars for the next generation. Do they/we fail? Of course, then we must repent and return to the Lord – if Christian – and, if not, at least listen to the call to serve our better angels. Governments and leaders – religious and civil – must be chastised when they use demeaning language, demonize other human beings, fail to care for the poor and the hungry, and, especially, engage in self-righteousness. They can also be affirmed for righteousness and seeking the good of others.
For me, the greater and more important issue is how a Christian responds to the social and political realities of our local community, state, nation, and world. An individual faithful person may disagree with others. Are such disagreements being engaged with fellowship, righteousness, and love – in the face of hostility and, even, violence? I think this is basic to our lives as Disciples of Christ Jesus. I assume governments are prone to mistakes and exploitation since all institutions are populated by fallible, fearful and sinful individuals. There are also the good and faithful striving for the common good.
History teaches that all empires stutter and ultimately change – I don’t think “fail” is the right word because human civilization adapts and changes. Change is the constant. As Christians we hold on by affirming: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). We struggle to live our faith in the changing world.
When addressing policies of administrations and statements by those in authority, I think the Church and individual Christians have a responsibility to speak up and, in extreme cases, engage in civil disobedience. Do the policies provide for the common good, promote justice and righteousness, care for the vulnerable, and nurture the environment for future generations? That call has been a reality through the centuries under monarchies and dictatorships as well as republics – including this one as witnessed by the abolitionist, civil rights, passivist, and environmentalist movements. Self-reflection, humility, respect for others, and non-violence are essential to any response grounded in Christ Jesus.
We are going through interesting times. I am not certain that the changes in technology and the world order will be settled in our lives – perhaps in time for my grandchildren to grow into mature adulthood. The post-World War II world order is fading away.
I do not appreciate the leadership styles or rhetoric of our times. I recognize that some of those engaged in public discourse are “faithful Christians” formed by Scripture, tradition or reason. Many – even most – are not. I will speak out and share Church teaching on specific issues. While a sitting Diocesan Bishop, I will not publicly endorse parties or candidates. I will always strive to be careful not to impugn or degrade another human being – even one with whom I am in stark disagreement. I take the promise to “respect the dignity of every human being” most seriously. I am keenly aware that massive societal change – dare I say revolution – comes with emotion and reaction. Such will be our times.
As I mentioned, Archbishop William Temple (Archbishop of York from 1929 to 1942 and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1942 until his death in 1944) has been most helpful to me in shaping my response to the role of the Church in society. Some clergy will remember Kwok Pui-Lan, the presenter at last year’s clergy conference, mentioned Temple in her book The Anglican Tradition from the Postcolonial Perspective.1 She outlined Temple’s role in the United Kingdom during the turbulent years between World Wars. She notes that he did not come to grips with the British colonial heritage. He was focused on conditions in England. I first encountered the Archbishop’s writing in an anthology collected a few years after his death by Canon Albert Edward Baker.2 The following principles were gleaned from various writings by the Archbishop (I have noted where they can be found as I have found them in the original books).
The sacredness of personality is the principle which affirms the value of each of us as individuals before God. The basis for this principle in our Christian life is the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. The Incarnational Principle affirms the sacredness of individual human persons as products of creation and the foci of redemption. (see John 1:1, 14).3
In his inauguration sermon as the Archbishop of York, Temple said:
So we come to the central declaration, more central for Christian faith than even The Word became Flesh; for that depends for its inexhaustible wealth of the meaning on the actual mode of the Incarnate Life. But here is the great truth. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone that believeth on Him may not perish but have eternal Life. That is the heart of the Gospel. Not “God is Love” – a precious truth but affirming no divine act for our redemption.4
The ground of the divine life is empathy. God joins with humanity in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our faith depends upon God’s complete presence in human life. By the incarnation, God has united us with the divine through Christ.
As Christians, this changes the way we understand every other human being. All people are our siblings. We – all of us – are the children of God. The call to “respect the dignity of every human being”5 is central to our encounter with others.
In the case of social and political questions, we begin by seeing Christ Jesus – the Incarnate One – in others, all others.
The second principle—the fact of fellowship—reminds us that we live in Community. This is the Pentecost Principle. There is no such thing as a natural human being, a lone wolf—especially a Christian lone wolf. One cannot be a Christian outside of the fellowship of believers. Our relationships do matter; the conduct of each of the individuals within the fellowship is the concern of the whole. We are not a collection of individuals, but a community created at Pentecost. (see John 13:34-35). This Principle drives the ministry of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).6
| 
