Bishops representing 200,000 Episcopalians from Maine to California made the case for health care and immigration reform, and stricter environmental protection on Capitol Hill Sept. 16.
Together as “Bishops Working for a Just World” and organized by the Episcopal Public Policy Network’s capitol-based Office of Government Relations, the seven bishops, guided by General Convention resolutions, made their annual trip to Washington, D.C., Sept. 14-16 to lobby Congress, meeting with more than 30 elected officials and/or their legislative staffs, on behalf of the Episcopal Church.
“Our involvement says that it’s appropriate for Christians to be involved in conversation about social issues and bring an informed, theological perspective to the discussion,” said Diocese of Connecticut Bishop James E. Curry, the group’s convener. “We [bishops] model that, and I could make the case that that is more important than taking a stand [on a specific issue].”
How the Republican Party at Prayer became the Green Party or Socialist Party at Prayer in just over a generation has got to be an interesting book. Someone on the inside should write it.
Because, as Jesus taught us, social justice is best defined as forcing some people to pay for things that other people get, then congratulating yourself on how wonderfully progressive and broad-minded you are.
If ENS thinks that’s impressive, then it’s only fair to point out (again) that bishops representing tens of millions of Anglicans around the world have not made, but reiterated the Christian standard for sexual morality. ECUSA having loudly rejected that standard, I hope it gets a similar reaction from the Hill to its own sophistry.
Ah, these bishops are a legend in their own minds! Well, I guess if you can’t present the Gospel in such a manner as to tranform lives, and have those transformed lives make the world a better place on their own, using the government to enforce your own, hubristic agenda is a good second choice.
What absolute cruelty these bishops display toward all the immigrants that have gone through and are going through the legal process to become legal citizens! The bishops want to reward all those that have broken the law, entered illegally, taken illegal identities through identity fraud (or that are evading paying their taxes because the have no identity), and that have illegally taken jobs from US citizens…while we have a 10% unemployment rate!!!
What OUTRAGEOUS cruelty and brutality they are engaged in by their support of criminal activity! The working mom holding down two or three jobs to make a better future for her kids deserves better than to have her taxes increased to pay for the medical care of foreign nationals that are committing criminal acts in our nation. Naturalized citizens that have waited and studied and worked hard to become US citizens deserve better than to have their sacrifices treated so callously by these bishops that are calling for cheats and criminals to get citizenship!
As a father of two (soon to be three), I strongly protest against these bishops that desire to take money away from my family in order to pay benefits to foreign criminals on our soil. My kids do not deserve to have money stolen from them through coercive taxation in order to let these bishops feel better about themselves. Let them pay for their own ego gratification and quit trying to forcibly take money away from my family through coercive government policies!
By the way, it is a federal felony to encourage foreigners that have entered the country illegally to remain. It is also a federal felony to support them. If prosecuted, those encouraging or supporting illegal aliens face a five year prison sentence…would to God that these “bishops” were prosecuted!
Refer to the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A). Incidentally, their property can be forfeit as well. Perhaps some enterprising lawyers for the reasserters could take advantage of that particular point of law!
I may have finally figured out why I feel somewhat irritated at trendy leftist Episcopalians who talk about the Baptismal Covenant.
We don’t make a covenant with God at Baptism, God makes a covenant with us. God adopts us as His children. We respond to the “Unspeakable goodness of God†by faith. When we are faithful, God counts it as righteousness. But we are not – cannot be – righteous, no matter what we do. We only benefit from God’s righteousness imputed to us by His grace.
What disturbs me about the Episcopal Church’s emphasis on the Baptismal Covenant is that too often it sounds to me like Episcopalians forget the order of things.
It could be my old Calvinist sensibilities flaring up, but I think too often today’s Episcopal clergy deny the sovereignty of God and preach salvation by works. Instead of teaching us to be faithful they urge us to be righteous. If we only include more people, feed more people, push for the right political causes on Capitol Hill, then we can build the Kingdom of God here on Earth – that seems to be their teaching. It’s (at least) semi-Pelagian sounding to me and I think that’s why I find it distasteful.
But God’s Kingdom is at hand whether we like it or not; whether we do anything or not. What God wants from humanity is faithfulness. And yes, faith without works is in fact dead. The faithful will back up their faith with good works. They will feed the hungry, house the homeless, preach the Gospel to everybody, no matter how evil and sinful – remembering that Our Lord said that the well do not need a doctor, but the sick.
But the faithful don’t take their guidance from human sources. They must look to God’s will as revealed in Jesus Christ. We know about Jesus through the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit. Faithful people must not be moved by conforming to the ever-shifting social mores of secular society. When the Baptismal Covenant becomes simply cover for the latest in progressive social engineering, that’s when I bristle.
At last: The number of Episcopalians in the US is reported CORRECTLY at 200,000!
Actually Christ taught us to have absolutely no concern about earthly wealth. So I suspect he would be for whatever helps the largest number of the poor.
If we truly followed the teachings of Christ, we would clearly not need to worry about how much of our wealth was being epended on social programs, tanks, and roads. “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.”
And in this corner of the kingdom, we’re giving thanks for bishops who “walk their talk” and actually are doing something to follow the One who will one day ask us what we’ve done in response to “the least of these.”
[i]”When I was sick and you lobbied to make sure there was health care available, you did it to me.”[/i]
What we’ve done in response to “the least of theseâ€? Some of us will have imposed damaging penalties on both their employers, such that they lose their jobs, and the least of these themselves – crippling fines if they choose not to purchase gold-plated, abortion-covering insurance coverage. And some of us will also have ensured we have a structure such that some of the “least of these,” especially the elderly and very sick, are quietly put down like mongrels for the greater glory of the federal budget.
There is a thought that religious bodies (the Catholic Church and the Mormons, specifically) should lose their tax-exempt status for speaking out against, say, same-sex marriage. Now that TEC is formally in the fray, will they give up their tax exemption, as well?
Oh, and btw, there is health care available to the poor in my community as is, I suspect, true of Los Angeles County as well. We have an excellent public hospital, system of neighborhood clinics, and a couple of free-standing speciality sites (women’s health, oncology, and, I think, a heart care clinic, plus speciality clinics at the main hospital).
Now, if the religious left could get honest enough to admit that, we could have a reasoned discussion of how to best provide basic health care.
Dear Elves–Susan Russell’s comments concern me, because they seem to reflect what has become typical both with the self-procalimaed elite in TEC, and in our government (and sadly, that includes not just Democrats, but Republicans as well). There is an attitude of superiority; that those people out there in the “flyover” believe things that the elite have already decided are bad for them, and they must be reminded until they stop. My third grade teacher, in east Texas 1958, defined “prejudice” in a way I have never heard done better. Prejudice is ascribing a certain set of negative characteristics to a whole group, without reguard to the fact that the group you are maligning is made up of individuals who do not have those characteristics. Simply because I disagree with her on the best method, does not mean I do not care for “the least of these”. I think I speak for most of the people who read this blog. Because I don’t trust my government in general and Obama in particular does not mean I do not care for the poor. Jesus, afterall, is not political. If he were, you wouldn’t be worshiping him; you would only have heard of him as the obscure 1st century man who over threw Roman rule in Judea. To assume we need to be admonished about our attitude toward the “least” because we are orthodox and conservative and reside in the “flyover” is the ultimate expression of Mrs. Denton’s definition of prejudice.
[blockquote]“When I was sick and you lobbied to make sure there was health care available, you did it to me.â€[/blockquote]
Is that from the same Gospel where Jesus says, “I was hungry, and you appealed to Caesar to take other people’s money to feed me rather than doing it yourself”?
Mitchell,
The operative phrase is “give it to the poor,” not “get in bed” with Caesar to take it from everybody and then enhance your power base by handing out to those you deem needy. What you are advocating is more in line with Matthew and the tax collectors of his day than with what Christ said.
Remember, liberalism= compassion. Conservatism= bad. It is those compassionate liberals like Susan Russell who brought us the War on Poverty and the Great Society. The legacy of these programs was the destruction of black family structure. As Susan talks about the “least of these”, can anyone recall her oft stated positions on Abortion?
So, Jesus will judge me on whether I supported another massive Federal Government takeover of the kingdom? Which Messiah is Susan worshipping here?
#9, Susan, I am flabbergasted! How a priest of our church (or any church) can think, ““When I was sick and you lobbied to make sure there was health care available, you did it to me,” is in anyway a good thing or a proper thing to say is beyond me. Nos. 13 & 14 are so right. Do you not see that our faith calls us, individully and in the community of the church, to heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the widows and orphans, visit those in prison. It doesn’t call on us to get the government to do those things. Do you not see that you and these bishops have crossed the line of being servants of the Lord to being servants of the emperor? Please think about this sort of political activism in connection with your calling. Is it true to your calling? Don’t base your answer on your internal feelings – read scripture and look at church tradition (over the centuries – not the last 40 years). See what you find. I am truly still just amazed at your statement.
Susan seems to be referencing Hezekiah 1:1 – Where thou art, there thou shalt also be. I quote, of course, The GREATS Bible, shorthand for the “Great in their own estimation of themselves” Bible. Your version, whatever it says, must be inferior.
[blockquote]The operative phrase is “give it to the poor,†not “get in bed†with Caesar to take it from everybody and then enhance your power base by handing out to those you deem needy. What you are advocating is more in line with Matthew and the tax collectors of his day than with what Christ said.[/blockquote]
I was advocating nothing. I was addressing the statements about stealing money from my family, my kids, etc. My point was that Christ made it clear that earthly treasure for or your family should be of no concern. Most of us do not follow the teachings of Christ when it comes to the poor. I think we all think about the poor, worry about the poor, and wish there were no poor. But, are not willing to do a lot about it. At least not if it requires too much of our earthly treasure. Sure we all say we do what we can, but we know that is not true when we say it. The simple fact is if you did as Christ advised there would be noting for the government to take and give to those they deem needy. Unless of course you believe there are no poor people left to help.
I simply don’t think Christ is very concerned about how much tax we pay. Especially since most of us would not use it to help the poor anyway.
In the end you can’t have it both ways. Either Christians should be involved with the government or they should not. You can’t argue they should attempt to use government to promote conservative causes, but not for helping the poor. If Christians are going to use government for anything they should try to use it to help the poor. It’s what Christ said to do. If they are not going to use it to help the poor, they should have no involvement with it at all, and should advocate separation of church and state.
In Rome Caesar was the state. In America we are the state.
Mitchell, #18, it’s one thing to be involved on an individual basis, as many are, with supporting measures in the government. It is quite another thing to involve oneself as a “church community” to lobby for certain measures. I agree that “We, the people” are our government. I don’t agree that “We, the church” are our government or that “We, our government” are the church. And that is what you appear to be saying and what these lobbying bishops appear to be saying and doing.
There are honest differences of opinion as to what to do about healthcare and what is the best way to help the poor. There are ways to help the provide fish and other ways that teach fishing. These bishops who are lobbying Congress don’t necessarily know the best or “right” way, anymore than you or I do. But they are lobbying in their clerical uniforms with their big crosses out front, and they are lobbying not as individuals, but as Bishops of our church, as if our whole church supports what they are lobbying for. That is not right and it is not what a church community is to be about. The money our church has spent to lobby could have much better spent on the things you are saying we Christions should do. Our church can leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s and we can do God’s work directly. As you say, if we can do that, there might not be much left for the government to do – though the poor will always be with us, Jesus even acknowledged that. (And as an addendum, if the government would let us keep a little more of what is rightfully ours, we might be able to do more for the poor with it.)
[blockquote]In America, we are the state.[/blockquote]
Actually, it’s more accurate to say that we are the [i]governed[/i], from whose consent government derives its just powers; we are not the state in any sense that Caesar or Louis XIV were or considered themselves to be.
I wonder, though, do you view poverty as a condition that can be remedied by purely material means, and is poverty in 21st-century America really the same as poverty in 1st-century Palestine? It seems we’ve spent enormous amounts through government programs, and, while we’ve ameliorated the material problems of poverty, we’ve managed create a permanently dependent underclass. How does continuing that demonstrate love or respect for those made in God’s image?
[blockquote]“When I was sick and you lobbied to make sure there was health care available, you did it to me.†[/blockquote]
The episcoport-siders descend yet further into self-parody. I read that and thought it had to be a quote from PJ O’Rourke, but no, it’s serious.
[blockquote]And in this corner of the kingdom, we’re giving thanks for bishops who “walk their talk†and actually are doing something to follow the One who will one day ask us what we’ve done in response to “the least of these.†[/blockquote]
Uh, no. Walking the walk would entail these fine folks giving of their own time, their own money, their own goods to help those whom they purport to speak for. When we stand before Christ, I don’t see an accounting of our deeds being fulfilled by a “hey, I paid my taxes” response.
So, when are they going to march to get the government to reverse their decision to protect the Delta Smelt at the expense of the farms in the area, putting 150,000 out of work, and jeopardizing our food supply? At last estimate, this will affect over 38 million Valley residents, more than the President’s number of uninsured (as per his speech to the joint houses). So, why are the Bishops not concerned with these 30 million, but only the 30 million (depending on who you listen to) uninsured? Why is one group more important than the other?
#20 you are making mistake of believing I am advocating for government action. I am not. However, when Christians in the United States start complaining their taxes are too high because of social programs for the poor, I think its time for a little truth session.
First, to answer your specific question. Of course poverty can be eliminated purely by material means; Provided you have enough material. For example if we can obtain nuclear fusion, energy could become virtually free. No one need ever suffer from cold or heat again. If we develop ways to farm the ocean, we could produce enough food so that no one on earth would have to go hungry. Nonetheless, that was not my point.
Christ said sell all you have and give to the poor. The primary complaint here is that the government is taking too much of our earthly treasure to help people the government believes to be poor. But the income taxes that support all of these hated programs are largely voluntary. If you give all of your assets and income to charity, you will not have to pay taxes, and you can select how you want to help the poor without government interference. But if you have a nice home, drive a nice car, have a retirement nest egg, and spend summers at the beach while children are starving and people are sick and dying from lack of care, you cannot in your heart believe you are following the teachings of Christ; and you can’t really believe Christ would be even remotely concerned with the amount of taxes you are paying.
Hey Mitchell,
Have you ever worked a minimum wage job…part time, while completely supporting yourself? I have. While I was working that minimum wage job, part time, I was paying 7% of my income for social security, as well as paying 4% state income tax and a 7% state sales tax (including on food), and another 10% in federal income tax. My money was going to support others, while I was paying $190 a month for my apartment and eating a lot of mac & cheese and ramaan noodles.
While I was paying all those taxes, there were folks in my apartment complex only paying $50 a month for thier rent. They also got food stamps, a welfare check, and free training at hair dressing school. So, there I was, earning a llittle over $600 a month and having over 1/4th of my money stolen from me by the government and given to other people that were not working and that were living in my apartment complex. Did I mention that they were doing drugs, too? Good thing they had my tax money in the form of welfare checks so they could go buy thier pot.
So, before you get all holier-than-thou on me with “I was addressing the statements about stealing money from my family, my kids, etc.”, I would like to hear your answer to my question.
Have you ever had to completely support yourself on minimum wage, part time?
If you haven’t, I would advise you to think long and hard about telling others how to spend their money when it comes to taking care of their children. Didn’t you know that the Scriptures teach that:
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8
Where was it written in Scripture that “Christ made it clear that earthly treasure for or your family should be of no concern.”
Do you have a family that looks to you for their food, shelter, heat, clothing, medical care, etc.? I do. I am commanded to provide for them. I also give generously to my Church and to many fine charitable organizations. In fact, as an Evangelical Christian, I and others like me generally give away many orders of magnitude more to charity than liberals do. Yet, we are admonished by the Left to give more to the tax man so that he can “help the poor” with it. That’s very interesting. How much of the over $700,000,000,000 that the government just gave away to AIG, et al, went to help the poor? My kids children will be paying taxes on that debt. They have been involuntarily placed in servitude to the federal government for their entire lives…and they aren’t even in High School yet. I think that Jesus does care about my kids and my family and the efforts of others to steal money from them to forcibly re-distribute wealth to others that do not work and are not even citizens of our country.
If you are intellectually honest, give it a think about how the proposed increase in taxes affects folks like me and folks like the working single mom holding down two or three jobs. If not, I just waisted a lot of electrons trying to reach you.
[Although informative please ensure your comment addresses the thread issues without becoming overpersonalised in addressing other commenters – we do not wish to see this thread overheat – Elf]
RE: ““When I was sick and you lobbied to make sure there was health care available, you did it to me.â€
Just priceless.
I was sick and the sweet kind liberals made the State take other people’s money to give to me. What kind Samaritans these folks are for making other people give money to me.
Just a perfect — deliciously perfect — line that demonstrates their theology.
Wowzer, so many false statements by Mitchell — hard to know where to begin.
RE: “My point was that Christ made it clear that earthly treasure for or your family should be of no concern.”
No He didn’t.
RE: “Most of us do not follow the teachings of Christ when it comes to the poor.”
Speak for yourself.
RE: “The simple fact is if you did as Christ advised there would be noting for the government to take and give to those they deem needy.”
No it’s not.
RE: “I simply don’t think Christ is very concerned about how much tax we pay.”
I’m sure you don’t. But I’m confident that Christ is deeply concerned with how human beings govern themselves on earth — Christ was not a pietistic gnostic who cared nothing about human government. And certainly He cares that people keep their vows and adhere to the constitutional structure we have all agreed to in this country as long as it is moral.
RE: “Either Christians should be involved with the government or they should not.”
They should be.
RE: “You can’t argue they should attempt to use government to promote conservative causes, but not for helping the poor.”
Well sure you can, if one grants that the role of the State should not be to help the poor because they are neither competent nor responsible to do so.
RE: “If Christians are going to use government for anything they should try to use it to help the poor.”
No they shouldn’t.
RE: “It’s what Christ said to do.”
No He didn’t.
RE: “Christ said sell all you have and give to the poor.”
No He didn’t.
RE: “The primary complaint here is that the government is taking too much of our earthly treasure to help people the government believes to be poor.”
The primary complaint is that the State does not have the authority, the responsibility, nor the competence to in any way give money to the poor.
RE: “But if you have a nice home, drive a nice car, have a retirement nest egg, and spend summers at the beach while children are starving and people are sick and dying from lack of care, you cannot in your heart believe you are following the teachings of Christ . . . ”
Yes we can.
The reason why I patiently go through and point out the falsehood of practically every sentence that Mitchell said is not of course because I hope to convince Mitchell of anything. He and I don’t share enough of the same foundational worldview to really have a conversation about the role of the State, private property, individual liberty, or capital.
The reason why I went through his various assertions and asserted differently where I disagreed is merely to note just how completely opposing and antithetical the two worldviews regarding secular politics are, as represented on this thread and so many other threads.
That is why the “conversation” [sic] in this nation is so “polarized” — and properly so. When two groups of people have such opposing beliefs about important — and theoretically already decided — issues, there will be polarization.
And the more conservatives like me recognize the existence of such opposing worldviews as represented by Mitchell, the more polarization — thankfully — will occur.
It will be quite a battle, one that I am eager for. What an interesting next score of years we shall have in this nation.
I believe that Christ’s “sell all you have and give it to the poor” statement was specific to the rich young man and not necessarily a general admonition. The man had kept all the laws but in his heart he put his money before God. Money is the master of probably the majority of wealthy people, hence the warning that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, etc. Personally I like Wesley’s saying to make all that you can and then give away all that you can.
Similarly, if a purple bishop’s shirt, or a fine clerical position that allows you to push your social agenda has become your life’s goal, you need to give it up because it is coming between you and God.
I have been at more than a few dinner parties where sanctimonious liberals whine about those mean right wing conservatives who won’t help the poor, while we dined on expensive food, drinking $50 per bottle wine and sitting around the table in a $750,000 house. It’s ever so convenient to lament the state of the world and tell other people how to live their lives via government dictates, taxes and laws when it’s not going to affect your lifestyle very much.
If you want the shining example of this, just watch the parade of thugs, tyrants, lobbying clerics and corrupt bureaucrats as they descend on the U.N. in New York next week to criticize the evil people in the U.S., Israel and the rest of the free world, between calls to their Swiss bankers to see if the latest funds they have looted from their countries have been deposited in their numbered accounts yet.
Mitchell (#23), I’ll admit there is a difference between advocating government action and taking people to task for objecting that people claiming to represent them are advocating more government action, but it’s a pretty fine distinction. If we were Caesar, we could simply prevent government from taking action contrary to our will. Since we’re not, we can at least take a stand for our beliefs, and complain loudly when they’re misrepresented.
As to Christ’s saying, “[url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:16-26&version=ESV]sell all you have and give to the poor[/url],” in concurrence with Sarah1 (#26) and Daniel (#27), that certainly is [i]not[/i] the heart of the gospel. Jesus knew what the rich young man loved, and He explained to his disciples both why it was hard, and how it was [i]possible[/i] for a rich person to enter heaven.
But furthermore, we’re called to be good stewards of the gifts that we’ve been given: [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12:48&version=ESV]Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required[/url]. I don’t see how that equates to delegating our charge to a third party with a record of fiscal profligacy. In fact, that seems like the opposite of good stewardship.
The so-called Episcopal church has become purely a left-wing political action organization. While I can point to several places where the Episcopal organization departs from Christian orthodoxy, can anyone identify a single instance where it departs from left-wing orthodoxy?
It is fascinating that the radical liberal left is trying to take our government down the same looney rat hole that The Episcopal Church has gone and that leftie reformers are trying to take the Roman Church and other protestant denominations.
Meanwhile most folks get up everyday, go to work, work hard for their money, follow the rules, and watch more of their money being siphoned off by a parasitic government to support a persistant and permanent class of victims who wallow in self-pity and are constantly encouraged to maintain that status.
As Margaret Thatcher once said “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”
Ms. Russell’s comment wasn’t based on “sell all you have”, but on Matt. 25, which, arguably is closer to the heart of the gospel. Moreover, her riff on it is not outside the pale (sp?). Personally, I believe that a decent community has basic health care available. I don’t believe the national government is best equipped to provide it; specifically, the proposed “reforms” are, in my opinion likely to make a mess that will cause a net decrease in health care access. I say this because I talked to too many rural folks who lost their hospitals, partly due to medicaid and medicare. Which hospitals, it should be noted, provided a fair amount of charity care. But the principle remains that a decent community has basic health care available.
As to taxation and all that, Christians should remember that avarice is a sin as deadly as lust, and the Lord has made us some promises:
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Words Matter (#31), actually it was Mitchell who kept referring to the parable of the rich young man (see comments 8 & 23). In fairness to all, there seems to be a general agreement that we are commanded to help the poor. It seems like the disagreement is over how best to obey, not just whether we get to keep all of our stuff.
I certainly agree with everything you’ve said (including the provenance of Ms. Russell’s comment). I would add, though, that while I hear a lot from mainline clergy about the sin of greed, I hear little about the sin of envy, which, from my perspective, constitutes a large part of the impulse for redistributionist policies.
Hello Elves,
Thank you for your kind and gentle reminder. I have been away from my PC and did not see your comment until a few minutes ago, so please forgive this delayed response. I also apologize for becoming overly personal in my remarks. I was attempting to provide context for them. I am not a heartless rich man trying to cling to my treasure. Rather, I am one that has come from difficult circumstances and remember how taxation and the good intentions of others were at my expense, when I could least afford to pay it. There are many folk living today as I lived. They are just barely getting by right now; often working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet. The proposed tax increases associated with addressing the “social injustices” being championed by the good bishops may have a disasterous impact on millions of people and may utterly dash their hopes for a better future for themselves and their children.
Again, thank you for your gentle correction. My sincere apologies to any that I may have offended. I will attempt to amend future posts in keeping with the letter and spirit of T19. Thank you for letting me participate in the conversation.
[Thank you and God bless you – Elf]