This is the first of what I hope will be several reflections on a basic question I am asked from time to time: what is the relationship between religion and politics? Actually, more likely I'm told that religion should stay out of politics, but I choose to take that as a question for discussion. For a deeper and more communal response, I commend this document to you, written four years ago by our Diocesan Social Justice Commission, of which I was then a part and one of the writers.
For many reasons (including but not limited to the Establishment Clause intended to keep church and state separated) I think religious communities ought to guard against becoming partisan communities or backing particular political candidates or agendas. Fifty years ago The Episcopal Church was sometimes known as "the Republican Party at prayer." The fact that this was generally perceived as more or less accurate is a good reminder that "getting political" is not a new thing. The Episcopal Church has changed, however. (So, by the way, have both major political parties!) If anything, the Episcopal Church may now be perceived as "the Democratic Party at prayer" while Evangelicals have taken over the G.O.P. But there is hardly any apolitical religious affiliation, and it is both dangerous and unbliblical to avoid political questions,which affect real people's lives.To preach spirituality apart from people's real lives and the economic, social, political, racial and ethnic challenges of a particular time and place is to ignore the meaning of the Incarnation and the witness of Biblical faith.
I am an Episcopal-Christian and I am a Democratic- American. Both denomination and party are adjectival for me: a way into what it means to be a follower of Jesus and a citizen of the United States. There are reasons I've chosen both to be an Episcopalian and a Democrat but my allegiance is always to Jesus the Christ, and to the nation that has given me so much freedom. I don't have to disparage Pentecostals or Canada, however, to be who I am. As an ordained leader, however, I am clear (and try to make it clear to others) that if they are, let's say a Republican and a Presbyterian, that I want to engage in conversation and that I don't confuse political and theological opinions with the common quest for truth.
The goal is for religious people to address real life issues. Sometimes those will be perceived as partisan, but the agenda is rooted in Holy Baptism, not electoral politics. There are concerns we need to speak up about if we are serious about our faith. For more conservative folks this includes (but is not limited to) opposing abortion rights and respect for the traditional nuclear family. For more progressive folks this includes social justice issues such as economic injustice. It's the nature of the human condition in general and perhaps religious people in particular to be hypocrites, but that's a separate question. (For example, evangelicals might condemn President Clinton's marital infidelities and ignore President Trump's.) When this happens it often reveals an underlying partisan bias, rather than a true act of faith. But if you believe that marital fidelity matters in politics then it is not "partisan" to apply that standard to elected officials - as long as the standard is applied fairly. Otherwise one begins to lose credibility...
One response to religious hypocrisy is to want a more apolitical religious faith: faith that is spiritual but neither religious nor political. But this ignores what Biblical faith really is. It is heretical. Let me offer a few examples.
1. The Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth and that humankind is set "in the garden" to tend to it; to be good stewards of it. As I read that narrative (not literally, by the way) I see it is a call to care for the earth. If human decisions are harming the earth then Christians need to pay attention to the best science available to us and act. We need to also join with others who share this concern for the earth. In a partisan political climate this will be perceived as "political" which is why there needs to be clarity. If one party, at a given moment in history, believes the scientists and one does not, then talking about our responsibility to the earth will sound like taking sides. It is. But it's not partisan; it's an act of faith.
2. If you don't know the Bible I hardly know where to begin but again point you to a Diocesan Social Justice study document, found here. There are "strangers" (including immigrants and refugees) all the way through it and you just have to trust me on this - or start reading. Abraham was a wondering Aramean who went to a new land. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. The Torah insists that hospitality to the stranger goes to the heart of Biblical faith. Jesus and his family were refugees in Egypt because of a brutal dictator. As an adult itinerant preacher, Jesus spoke about the hospitality of a Samaritan man. As a preacher, then, when I hear about refugees and immigrants, the Biblical faith that has shaped my imagination kicks in. In this case I think both parties have failed, by the way. But only one party has allowed it's more extreme wing to demonize the stranger and work toward building bigger walls than bridges. Naming this is an act of moral courage; not political partisanship.
3. Jesus talked about money more than anything except the Reign of God. You can look it up. Jesus was not a capitalist. Nor did he ignore the fact that what he called mammon could become a false god - something that could become an idol for people of faith. Jesus never said "greed is good." He did say, "blessed are the poor." He did challenge the rich young ruler to give it all away. Talking about money (or economic policies that hurt the poor) is a part of what it means to follow Jesus. If at any given time in human history one political party is more interested in the poor and middle class rather than the rich getting richer and people of faith support tax policies and minimum wage laws that help the poor this is not a partisan act; it's for the love of Jesus.
People of faith can and will disagree on big and small matters. When I was a parish priest and universal healthcare was being debated, I told my parishioners that for Christians, caring about healthcare for all was part of our Baptismal Covenant. How we felt that might be best implemented was a political challenge and there might be serious and healthy policy disagreements. One didn't need to agree with Obamacare to be a Christian, then or now! But one cannot be a faithful Christian and say, "let 'em eat cake!"
I want to say one more thing and then I'll let this first post go. As I say, it may lead to some others but at this point I don't have that all planned out. In the Trump era the stakes have gone up and polarization is high. It's not personal. Rather, it's about a president who is not focused, so far as I can tell, on any of the values stated above. I believe "America first" is a heresy. It's not what Christians proclaim when we say every human being is created in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect, from Canada to North Korea.
"America first" is also, in my political and theological opinion, a short-sighted and unhelpful way to be among the league of nations. I could hold my political opinions to myself if I didn't believe it so violates what I believe as a person of faith, that a child coming to our borders from Central America with a mother looking for political asylum should not be put in a cage. It has disgusted me to read the defenses of this policy especially when the Bible is quoted to defend them. It is, therefore, as a Christian leader that I affirm the need to reclaim Jesus. That means that I cannot be silent in the face of a path that I believe leads away from the Reign of God.
For more about the Reclaiming Jesus movement, see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment