Bishop Jim Curry of Connecticut, convener of Bishops Working for a Just World, spoke about the group which is a coalition of active and retired bishops gathered to support each other and other members of HOB to claim a public voice, leadership and advocacy for the church and the world. The bishops meet for training, legislative processes, and trying to demystify the process. They work with the Episcopal Church’s Office of Government Relations. A “go-to” group when legislation is at a critical point such as issues on the Farm Bill.
Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana advocated contacting legislators. “They may not like to hear from us, but if we don’t, someone else will do it for us. It is not unexpected or unwelcome.”
The bishops were briefed by the staff of the Office of Government Relations (OGR) on the MDGs, the Farm Bill and the Jubilee Act for Debt Consolidation. Maureen Shea, OGR’s director, announced there are approximately 22,000 members of the Episcopal Public Policy Network. She presented questions for small group discussion: What are the public policy issues (local, national, and international) most important in your diocese? What obstacles do you face in being involved with public policy issues? What could the Office of Government Relations do to help you get past those obstacles?
Thus making the Episcopal Church a subsidiary of the Democratic Party. I have no problem with individual Christians’ deciding that Democratic policies are the best, although I disagree in general. What I have problem with is the idea that God is a left-winger, or a socialist, or however we could characterize this. Does this not strike them as just as presumptuous as it would be for me to say that God is a free-market advocate? No, apparently it doesn’t.
It is really hopeful to me that these leaders are talking about how best to claim a public voice, leadership and advocacy for the church and the world.
From the protests of Burmese monks to the millions who have invested in Kiva.org, on mission trips to New Orleans, Africa or Thailand, in service learning projects to neighboring slums or community gardens, all around us is the unmistakable recognition that we are in a time of people living AWAKE, choosing not to be numb. This emerging world of advocacy and activism resembles what might be called “small pieces, loosely joinedâ€, a stark contrast to the leader-focused broadcast model of the late 20th century in the West. Legacy institutions, from faith communities to NGOs to governments, are being pushed to respond to this changing landscape or risk a scenario where they lose their own place in the ongoing conversation of influence and action.
How wonderful to hear that the bishops are discussing this.
Another blurb from the press release makes such an egregious claim that it requires no comment: “Title IV: Of Accountability and Ecclesiastical Discipline: An Overview of Disciplinary Structures and Proceedings,” presented by members of the Title IV Task Force: Steve Hutchinson, Duncan Bayne and Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina. They outlined the process and a theology for keeping the church safe.” I just shake my head in bewilderment.
Bob,
And what expertise does TEC as an organization bring to the Farm Bill? Where is the clear moral, theological guidance provided by the Bible on the proper level of price supports for grains? Should they be higher, to support the poor struggling farmer, or lower, to support the poor struggling consumer?
The point is that farm supports, Global warming, drilling in Anwar, tax rates, etc etc etc are temporal secular issues that TEC has no expertise in, beyond its own secular political views, just like the rest of us.
TEC today has quit preachin’ and gone to meddlin’, as the old joke goes, and does not have the foggiest understanding of any of the issues as an institution. The Church should help each of us find and follow Christ, and then let each of us as individuals pursue our economic and political fortunes as we each feel called.
BillS,
For some reason, this passage in Matthew’s Gospel comes to mind:
And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.”
Well Bob, Jesus is calling sinners into the Kingdom of God. So you didn’t answer BillS question. You just approve because the HOB’s politics agree with yours, but as for me if I wanted to join the Decocratic Party I would have done so.
Bob,
And what information does this passage provide that tells you whether sugar price supports should be $.18 per pound, $.21 per pound, or eliminated altogether?
Prohibit drilling in Anwar, save the environment, but force poor people to pay more for gas than they otherwise would. Impose carbon caps in a vain hope to reduce Global warming, but reduction in energy usage ( an unavoidable consequence of carbon caps) will reduce our standard of living, affecting poor people more than wealthier people.
You and I likely disagree on each of these economic and political choices. Where does the Bible give specific guidance? It does not.
#5
The passage from Matthew you cited has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread or even with your first comment at #2, though in truth, I found #2 incomprehensible gibberish, so I suppose there could conceivably be a connection somewhere.
[i]This is too focused on another commenter. Please focus on the thread.[/i]
“Bishop Bruce Caldwell of Wyoming addressed Theological Education, calling the current times an opportunity. He said the Presiding Bishop appointed a steering committee to serve HOB in this area…”
I think we should all be thankful that the presiding bishop recognizes that the HoB is in dire need of theological education. Hopefully, she will read some of the materials herself.
I would prefer that the Church stop meddling with government altogether, and stick to doing what it knows best…….preaching and teaching the Gospel of Christ, and saving people’s souls. The Episcopal Church is doing neither these days.
I guess a Pharisee is someone who does not agree with the leadership of TEC. If so, count me in.
People who follow Jesus have almost always played critical roles in civic settings – from Paul through Christendom all the way to leaders in our own time. While there are some exceptions to this in our history as a faith, it is really hard for me to imagine how the church could ever ignore what is going on in the civic or cultural realm.
I think we all have threads of Pharisees, tax collectors and sinners within us. My point in bringing that passage was that Christ is a liberating King, God made flesh who brought mercy and righteousness.
Jesus calls us to be the salt of the earth. In the first century it was hard to find anything more important to living than salt. Indeed, salt was so valuable you could even buy stuff with salt. Salt then would be like gasoline to the people fleeing the hurricanes in the gulf coast. Why? Because it was essential for survival.
In a hot, dry desert world where there was no refrigeration, no ice, and no airtight packaging, salt was considered a necessity of life. Salt kept things from going bad. Salt kept things from spoiling. It was a preservative, a purifier, it added taste, it cleansed wounds, it killed germs, it promoted healing.
Everybody that day on the mountain understood what Jesus meant when he said to his disciples “You are the salt of the earth†(Mt 5:13). He was referring to that which was essential for the world, necessary for the world, absolutely irreplaceable for the world. He was referring to the “element†that would preserve the world from decay, literally the very ingredient that would save the world.
Bob,
I am delighted that we are on the same team. I enlist your support to lower tax rates to invigorate the economy, providing jobs for poor people, defeating the mindless bleating about Global Warming, so that we do not intentionally reduce our standards of living, support our efforts in Iraq to defeat terrorism and provide freedom for Iraqi’s, support military intervention in Iran if necessary to prevent Iran from launching a nuclear attack against Israel and the West, drilling in Anwar to increase our domestic supplies of oil to reduce the price of gasoline for poor people, opposing abortion, and supporting traditional marriage between one man and one woman to strengthen the family. I look forward to working with you on this important issues of our time.
BillS,
We are truly on the same team – that of Jesus Christ, who came to change the world and herald the Kingdom of God.
On your list, there are things I agree with and things I do not. That is NOT the point – is it ? There is no Christian political party or orthodoxy. There are millions of Christians who are actively living out their faith by working within the empire we live in. To do anything less seems to me to be shirking our call as followers of Jesus.
Instead, we are called to work and act for justice, mercy & peace.
Actually, Bob, that IS the point. TEC does not speak for all within the church, as there are members who have very real diasgreements with how and what needs to be done about the points mentioned. How, then, can the TEC make recommendations — nay, DEMANDS — of the Government purporting to speak AS A CHURCH? Yes we need to work for Justice, mercy and peace, that is what Jesus calls US to do. Strangely, He calls US to do this, not a governmental agency, although it is nice when the Government’s mission coincides with ours, however, there again is the struggle against Government support of ‘faith based agencies’.
And, by the way, speaking of ‘faith-based agencies, if Pat Robertson did this, or the late Jerry Falwell, wouldn’t these same people be up in arms shouting them down for violating the ‘separation of Church and State’ and yelling “God is not a Republican”?
Jim Elliott
Bob, if we agree on the need for Christians to be salt and light in the world with regard to the way things are run, that is, that we should strive to make improvements in the effective government of this world, but yet we disagree on what changes and policies should be implemented, how can the church say anything on this other than to point to the need to do good and to the broad moral principles that should guide us, principles upon which we are agreed while still being in disagreement over their application?
How ironic that this church rejects the authority of morl and theological precepts that have been accepted by the church for almost two millenia while at the same time it seeks to make authoritative judgments on political policies.
Bob,
My point exactly. There are things that you and I can agree on and things that we will disagree on in the secular economic and political realm. We may disagree on our views of what Government actions constitute justice, mercy, and peace.
This is exactly why TEC should not presume to take a position as an organization on tax rates, farm policy, Global Warming, etc.
I want to be able to share communion with you, united in following Jesus Christ, regardless of where we each might fall on the secular political/economic issues of the day. We might work side by side in a soup kitchen, or rehabilitating housing in New Orleans.
When TEC takes an official position Government policy, whether liberal or conservative, this creates a point of division between us within the Church.
We are on the same team as followers and believer in Christ.
Peace,
Bill
Thy kingdom come through commissions, lobbying, PACs, and democratic voting on earth as it is in heaven? Saints, preserve us!
13: of course – I’ll be glad to join the ranks of those trying to encourage our demise by ruining God’s creation, even though we have the highest standard of living in the world, so that we can preserve our indulgent lifestyles. I’ll be happy to work for lower tax rates so that we not longer take care of the poor, elderly, sick, and those in prison. Of course, I’ll hop right on to support war against Iran to provoke World War III with Iran’s well connected and militarily powerful allies. We can drill in ANWAR, with no regard to the dramatic cost to the land and God’s other creatures.
Here is the point: Isaiah prophesied that the government would be on Christ’s shoulders. He did not hesitate to challenge and involve himself in political disputes of the day (Matthew 22/Mark 12 for instance). In being people in the world, but not of the world, we are obliged to engage ourselves in all facets of our life, so as to show forth Christ’s glory. Whether we agree on the various political topics listed above is irrelevant – Christ did not lay out his eternal plan for macroeconomics. He did however provide us with a framework of compassion, love, and forgiveness to live by, while challenging those around us to see his plan for their lives. Ridiculing each other’s political beliefs on baseless grounds is certainly not in this spirit.
Ridiculing each other’s political beliefs on baseless grounds is certainly not in this spirit.
Do you not see the contradiction between this statement and your fisrt paragraph? Or do you think that paragraph highlights the kind of thing done in #13? Yet it seems to me you miss an important difference. BillS was articulating what ge was trying to achieve by his policy preferences. He wasn’t mischaracterizing the political beliefs of the opposition. Your example was the opposite. The failure to admit the idealism of the opposition is what so often polutes political discourse. But I find liberals often accuse us of conservatives of not caring about the poor because they think our policies are worse for them. Our argument against liberals is exactly that their policies don’t work, not that they don’t care.
But when you elevate politics into the area of revealed religion then disagreements become rebellion against divine Truth and are treated like acts of heresy and wickedness.
I think of it like this:
Should Christians be actively involved in the political issues of the day, working with or if necessary against the civil authorities in order to achieve social ends they believe to be in line with God’s will? Absolutely.
Should the Church be actively involved the political issues of the day? Here I become much less comfortable. The Church, as an institutional body, tends to suffer when it becomes too caught up in temporal issues. Besides, as others have pointed out above, Christians do not all agree on what social ends are in line with God’s will.
There are grey areas… the Church has a very long history of helping the poor through food programs, shelter programs, etc. and so on; and these are not completely apolitical acts. But this is one of the cases where there is a clear mandate from HQ.
So I would argue that the Church, as a body, should (a) continue to serve the poor in direct and immediate ways, as it has always done, and (b) equip its members, as individuals, to go out and strive for social justice in broader ways — even if that means that those individuals will often be working at cross-purposes about ways and means.
#20: no, I didn’t miss what BillS was trying to do. He was trying to twist bill carlton’s statement then spit out a bunch of inciting political stances. I was simply attempting to point out what I perceive as to be the flaws with these stances. Furthermore, while you are entitled to your stance that these policies don’t work, I believe that many examples of structured welfare states in Europe, states that have lower poverty rates, but more balanced budgets, are a testament that these policies CAN work.
I do not wish to elevate politics to the level of religion – goodness knows the Church tried that before with much damage during the Middle Ages. However, given that BillS was discussing politics in the context of being a Christian, I felt that it was necessary to respond from the vantage point of being another Christian – discussing politics. I don’t believe for a moment that BillS is a heretic or wicked. I am sure that he has come to his political conclusions through many years of careful reflection and study. However, I too have studied and tested my beliefs over years. In the context of my conclusions and Christ’s teachings, I find them to be compatible with my life as a Christian. That’s all. There are no stake burning for those who oppose me. Nonetheless, I find it important to let folks know where I stand – there should be no attempt to comment without admitting on what side of the fence one stands.
#21, thank you for this insightful post.
the church is not an “xpert,” but that should not inhibit it from speaking out. It need not be always right.
In fact, it is precisely because it is not an “expert” it should be speaking out. Experts also have interests, after all. They have people who pay them. There are oil economists and individuals funded by the powerful who get them to find ways to ask, “what is truth.”
but BillS Clearly subscribes to the religion of tax cuts. This is, in my view, modern idolatry, that worships and idealizes the individual, assuming that individuals somehow, in their depraved nature, would willingly give what is necessary. This is not the historically Christian view (it is certainly not Augustinian). As sinners we do not give enough nor do we care enough. Thus, to some extent, we have to be pushed to give more. Alas, given that we have a government that can’t add (the 3 trillion in Iraq would probably save the lives of thousands of Americans here). BillS without any evidence seems to believe that tax-cuts will stimulate the economy. But the evidence seems to be the opposite. In fact, what is clear is that it did not in any way save us from our current situation.
Tax cuts may help – sometimes. They do not help all the time. Spending helps – and the largest spender of money is the government – one example is the military. What did help in the depression was intensive government spending which consequently resulted in the most important economic growth in human history from 1945-1972. This was done not with tax cuts.
And almost all our modern technology was due to inventions funded by the government through NASA and the Military. Often the inventions were made by people who had gone to State Universities or had funds by the GI bill. No – we shouldn’t have government waste. But then, we seem quite willing to turn the other eye when it comes to giving money away to wasteful war profiteers.
Here is one person who has studied the bible and taxes:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week648/interview4.html
As the Bishop of Nowhere I wish to rise to advocate for the full disclosure of expenditures from our Home Office at 815 Second Avenue. If I get a second, I’ll speak to it.
….nothing.
Rorymccorkle,
I do not see BillS as “twisting” Bob’s statement that the church should make the world better. He instead proposed what he, BillS, believed to be effective ways to do so, in order to highlight that similar intentions do not mean similar actions, because he of course knew that bob disagreed with those policies.
You, one the other hand, critiqued BillS’s policies, but in a way quite at variance to your statement that we shouldn’t ridicule other’s political beliefs. You may think you were simply opining on what you believe to be the effects of those policies, but look at your language. You accused BillS of “trying to encourage our demise” and of having “no regard to the dramatic cost”. This implies a knowledge of the intentions of the heart and denies a well intentioned disagreement about the nature of the problem and the effects of the proposed solution. I will take it for granted that that is not what you intended, but your rhetoric left little room for argument.
Well I wonder what mischief is afoot today?
Interesting comment from John Wilkins. He takes BillS to task for believing in tax cuts, but doesn’t seem to recognize his (Wilkins’) logic cuts both ways, viz.:
“ECUSA clearly subscribes to the religion of gay sex. This is, in my view, modern idolatry, that worships and idealizes the individual, assuming that individuals somehow, in their depraved nature, would naturally do what pleases God. This is not the historically Christian view …”
Hey, AMEN to that last sentence … by the way, John, I thought Episcopalianism required us to submit ourselves to “science” – economics has clearly shown that free trade, low taxes and low regulations produce the best standard of living for the most people. So, I think Episcopalians are required to edit out the parts of Scripture not in alignment with those findings.
BillS without any evidence seems to believe that tax-cuts will stimulate the economy. But the evidence seems to be the opposite.
What “evidence” are you talking about? I will tell you what evidence is on the side of tax cuts. It is the evidence of the Treasury. When tax rates are cut more money has flowed into the Treasury. That is a simple historical fact. Another fact, however, is that the Deficit and the Debt is controlled not just by how much money flows in but by how it relates to the money flowing out of the Treasury. When spending vastly overtakes the increase in revenue then it might seem like the tax cuts were ineffective while the reality was that they did what they were intended to achieve. Saying that tax cuts don’t hepl the economy is like saying that quitting cigarettes doesn’t improve your health, when you follow it by becoming a coalminer.
Actually, John, all the program spending of FDR’s administration did not help the US out of the depression. It masked some of the symptoms, for a time, but nothing helped end the depression except our entry into the War in Europe and Japan.
Glad to be of service in stimulating the discussion. My main point is that the Church as an organization should not be in the business of recommending government policy, liberal or conservative, because the Church as an institution does not have the knowledge to know what the correct policy is to achieve whatever outcome is deemed desirable.
Secondly, whatever policy prescription is chosen, liberal or conservative, half of the membership will disagree and be on the other side. As a result, this misguided effort to “do good” will serve only to further divide the Church over social and political policy, at a time when the Church is already divided over theological issues of SSB, God in a small box, and so forth.
Thirdly, very practically speaking, when the Church starts advocating economic policy and political preferences, it jeopardizes its tax standing.
And for John Wilkins, total Federal tax revenues increased after John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush cut the top marginal income tax rates. Evidence abounds if you care to look for it.
The US has had a more free market economy than European countries, with the result that the GDP per person in the US is around $40,000 per person compared to $25,000 to $35,000 per person for the major European countries.
The Communist countries (China, Russia, North Korea etc) have low GDP per person and the most pollution. Free market capitalism indisputably provides the highest standard of living for the most people.
I do not expect to convince the left wing socialists out there of this, but again, my main point is that advocating government policy of any kind is not the business of the Church, any Church.
I am so thankful for the diversity of political POVs represented here – it certainly is representative of the broader bdy of Christ, around the world today and in our shared history as a faith tradition. Just as there are many different paths of praxis and doctrine, there are many ways that people see their faith influencing their civic role.
For me, the core issue here is that Jesus’ message is not solely religious, but political. Jesus is a political figure (messiah = king), engaging his context with the message of the kingdom (= government) of God. Jesus, however, is not a political figure in the modern sense, nor does he represent a government that pursues power as the Roman and Herodian governments of his day. Jesus’ government reflects a different kind of politics, a politics governed by obedience and submission to God. Jesus also has different political principles and a different form of statecraft than that reflected at his time and throughout political history. His principles and statecraft include the equality of all people (Jew and Gentile), peace, truth, integrity, freedom, weakness, reconciliation, forgiveness, stewardship, compassion, love, political tolerance, servanthood, political office as accountable before God, submission to the law of God, justice, and mercy, rather than preference for the powerful and wealthy, war, popularity, power, control, ownership, compulsion, domination, and a ruler unaccountable to and above the law.
I am reminded of the quote that “God is personal, but never private.” Many people are now hungry for a faith that is powerful enough to change their lives, their relationships, their neighborhoods, their nation, and their world. Churches that just focus on doctrine or on principles will continue to lose people to churches that offer a personal faith that cares for the world. When faith is no longer restricted to just our private lives, but breaks out into the world, new things can happen. Like revival.
All around the country there seems to be so many of these revivals – for instance, a new evangelical agenda focusing on poverty, the environment and climate change, human rights, war and peace, and, yes, the sanctity of human life — but much more broadly applied to include places like Darfur and the 30,000 children who died again today globally of unnecessary poverty and disease. Why pit unborn children against poor children? Rather, let’s see them all in the category of the vulnerable that Jesus calls us to defend.
This is what clergy have become – people subsidized to do their hobbies.
The best thing you can do is write your legislators with the stats about TEC and your own diocese in particular – show that these “activists” represent few if any people beyond their own inflated egos.
Timothy,
Thanks for the great belly laugh. Re-asserters suggesting a group argue for the diminutive size of their voice.
Re-asserters in the Episcopal Church may be many things – statistically small, widely disbursed, heavily funded – but humble they are not.
HA !
Bob C,
what is your definition of humbleness? Allowing ones beliefs and vaules to be trampled without saying a word, acting as a doormat?
It’s funny when someone stands up for their values as Christians, all of a sudden we are not ‘humble’ enough anymore.
That’s like the bully who cries foul when the person they have been beating on for so long suddenly lands a good, solid punch, and then the bully goes crying to the principal that “Johnny hit me back! Punish him!”
LibraryJim,
Humility is the defining characteristic of an unpretentious and modest person, someone who does not think that he or she is better or more important than others. The term “humility” is derived from the Latin word “humilis”, which is translated not only as humble but also alternatively as “low”, or “from the earth”.
In Christian tradition, humility has been defined as, “A quality by which a person considering his own defects has a humble opinion of himself and willingly submits himself to God and to others for God’s sake.” St. Bernard defines it as, “A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself. Thomas Aquinas defines humility similarly as “the virtue of humility” that “consists in keeping oneself within one’s own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one’s superior”. Amongst the benefits of humility described in Scripture are honor, wisdom, eternal life, unity, rewards in heaven and others.
This virtue is rare in our modern life – even more so among folks in the churchianity world.
Yet was not Jesus Himself Humble? Yet as I read the Scriptures, stood up very solidly against the Pharasees, the Scribes, the moneychnagers in the temple.
Was Peter Humble?
Was Paul, even as he confronted Peter over matters of practice vs doctrine? Or when standing before Felix (or was it Festus?)
Was Philip?
Was Stephen?
Was Nicholas of Myra?
Humility does not mean being a doormat. Humility does not mean throwing out what we believe. Humility does not mean being silent when confronted with falsehood in the guise of truth.
I do not see many in this forum, other than a very few on either side, acting without humility.
PS., yes, we may submit ourselves to others for God’s sake, but not when those others are teaching error. That’s not humbleness, that’s foolishness, and condemned by Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.
Libraryjim, I would be wary of comparing ourselves to Jesus, although I see what you are saying. You are right that being humble does not mean being passive, or dissolving one’s integrity. But I guess we are both faced with the problem where we don’t want to throw out what we believe.
We might want to ask “who are the pharisees?” They are the ones who demand strict conduct, a literal adherence to the scriptures. They are the ones proud of their own religiosity and piety. As we’ve learned with Spitzer, the ones who are often the most intent on religious “belief” are the ones who most easily fall short.
I would add, of course, that humility does have the following characteristics: that our beliefs may be wrong; and that we are not offended (easily) by other people’s beliefs. It means recognizing that our beliefs are not automatically God’s.
As far as being a “doormat” there is a difference between being pushed around and acting with integrity. But one way we do act with integrity is to recognize that other people do not need to behave the way we want them to – they’ll have to deal with their own consequences. Your frustration and anger: that’s your problem. My frustration and anger: my problem. You are uncomfortable with our view of homosexuality. As we are of yours. But then, how do we move forward? Perhaps by recognizing that we don’t always know what God thinks might be one way to begin, respecting that we are both stumbling along with the God who knows us.
I did not come to my agnosticism about homosexuality instantaneously. Because I have no direct knowledge of it, I decided to trust Gay Christians. Whatever I believed – as I am a sinner, and imperfect – is challenged by their witness to Jesus Christ. Even if I did believe that gay people were condemned by their activity, I’m aware that I am still guilty myself (Romans 2:1), and that God will be the final judge, not myself. I can still believe what I believe, and live with the errors of others. Because I believe that it is all in God’s hands. And if there is a hell, we’re all going to go. Remembering that: well, that’s humility.
What an amazing thread — full of varied political stances. But how interesting — all the Democrats and other political liberals loved the HOB silliness, and the conservatives did not.
Which of course, is the point. The Episcopal House of Bishops should not be touting as a body their particular liberal political beliefs.
What a silly travesty. Thank God with each and every action of our church at the national level, it is exposed to further horrible publicity. Every month that goes by their antics make their other antics less and less interesting, substantive, or reputable to the general public.
Good.