This is a follow-up post to my last post on whether the church has been too political lately, especially in light of two recent statements published by our Bishops criticizing the President's travel restriction on people from 7 Muslim-majority countries.
So, you are thinking, Pastor, I can't take this anymore. There's too much rancor on both sides, and I just don't want to think about it. Well, I agree with you on that score. All these issues are cutting to the core of our values as citizens. And we can get very emotional thinking about it all. But I encourage you to take heart! These issues are also questioning our values as Christians, and the clarification we gain from thinking about these issues should help us in living out our baptismal covenants with God.
So, at the risk of turning off more people by addressing the church's criticism of the travel ban, I venture into one more side of it. Some have wondered if it's true, as President Trump said, that the executive order is basically the same thing as an executive order by then President Obama in 2011. If so, then the church is really showing it's partisan colors when it criticizes one order, but not the other, right?
Well, "basically the same as" is too imprecise to disqualify the church's response. Reports have indicated that Trump's order is different from Obama's. I'm not going to go into the details, but you can read a tidy review of the distinctions from this fact-checking website. The bottom line is that Obama's order was in response to credible threats, and simply slowed down the vetting process for Iraqi refugees alone. Plus, the public didn't find out that Obama had done this until 2013. Trump's order closes our border to all people, with exceptions for religious minorities, from the 7 countries, and is not based on any direct evidence that there may be past or future terrorists among those wanting to enter the US. Also, in the case of Trump's travel ban, people have lost their visas, presumably for good. And all of this with no warning to anybody that these changes in policy were about to take effect.
Bottom line: Obama's order caused some Iraqi refugees inconvenience, perhaps even frustration. Trump's order turns people away, and doesn't give any indication of what will happen to those turned away when (or if) the ban is lifted in three months. It's pretty inhospitable. Think of all the ways the administration could have mitigated the effects of such a temporary ban for those who already have received permission to enter the country. That would have taken the wind out of all criticism. But the church doesn't want refugees to suffer unfairly, and it believes that given the details of the case, the new order causes unjust suffering. Our respectful care for foreigners is a command from God in the Bible, as in Exodus 22:21; "You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were resident aliens in Egypt." And yes, a 'resident alien' would be someone who has been through our vetting process and received a visa. Hence the Bishops' letters.
If you've read this far, I honor your willingness to listen to your church, even if you disagree with its actions in this case. I add here that even evangelical church leaders, (whose interpretations of the Bible are often different from ours) have recently voiced their concern over Trump's order. That makes for a pretty comprehensive condemnation of the order from our country's religious leaders.
Other questions might be floating in your minds, such as whether the church fears enough for the safety of the country, or whether the church is gullible with regard to the threat of Islamic terrorism. These are good questions, and the answers to these questions lie at the heart of our political disagreements right now. Maybe these questions would be good topics for further blog posts. I invite you to ask questions you have in the comments below.
Finally, you may be thinking that I don't seem to have a problem with the church's position on this. Well, that may be true, but I've been trained in the same theological tradition that the church's leaders have been trained. Needless to say there is a lot of agreement among Lutheran pastors on this issue. Nevertheless, I humbly ask you to separate in your mind what you know of my politics from the facts of the case as the church sees it. The church feels called to stand up for those whom God looks out for, period. I'm trying to represent this prophetic stand to you in a way that you will at least wrestle with it in your heart. Thanks for reading!
February 9, 2017
February 2, 2017
Church as political organization?!
The church tries to do the right thing. On the one hand, we have what we think is God's will, and on the other, we have the world to contend with. Trying to correctly interpret the former is difficult, but not as difficult as trying to predict the latter.
Case in point. After President Trump's executive order stopping refugees and travelers for different periods of time from 7 Muslim-majority countries, several religious organizations wrote letters in protest of the move. I tried to describe the rationale for such public protest from the perspective of the Lutheran church in my last blog post. I tried to address my post to the concerns of those who might feel that such protest by the church is inappropriate, a violation of church/state boundaries, or simply political meddling. I explained that the church tries not to participate in political posturing, but does reserve the right to publicly testify to its vision of God's will for the world, especially as it pertains to the treatment of other, more vulnerable people. This is the church's "prophetic voice" that it is obligated to heed. And it tries to keep that voice unsullied by overt partisan affiliations.
Then President Trump did this. At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, he vowed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment, which prevents religious organizations that receive tax-free status from publicly endorsing politicians. That's right. Such a move would give churches more leeway to work on behalf of political parties and politicians, while keeping their tax-free status. (Some would argue that all churches should lose their tax-exempt status, but that's a topic for another post.) Moreover, as Steve Waldman writes, Americans' tax dollars could be spent to support churches, synagogues or mosques that support political candidates that they would never support themselves.
Will it happen? I've stopped trying to predict what will happen in our country right now. But it would certainly be a bad idea. Letting churches become defacto political organizations would certainly jeopardize the separation of church and state, and confuse the public even more about what we believe is the proper distinction between what the world does and how God sees it. The Lutheran church would definitely be against such a move. Not because it wouldn't want to help create political change. On the contrary, the church is called to get involved in the messiness of the world. Christians are called to pay attention, to pray, to participate, to vote, to picket, to protest, whatever the Holy Spirit seems to be inspiring in their hearts. And yes, the church is willing to do this, even if it risks the impression of inappropriate meddling, so that it might bear prophetic witness to its interpretation of God's will for this messed up world. We can't keep the church out of politics totally because it has a God-given role to play, but we can and should keep politics out of the church. Thanks for reading.
Case in point. After President Trump's executive order stopping refugees and travelers for different periods of time from 7 Muslim-majority countries, several religious organizations wrote letters in protest of the move. I tried to describe the rationale for such public protest from the perspective of the Lutheran church in my last blog post. I tried to address my post to the concerns of those who might feel that such protest by the church is inappropriate, a violation of church/state boundaries, or simply political meddling. I explained that the church tries not to participate in political posturing, but does reserve the right to publicly testify to its vision of God's will for the world, especially as it pertains to the treatment of other, more vulnerable people. This is the church's "prophetic voice" that it is obligated to heed. And it tries to keep that voice unsullied by overt partisan affiliations.
Then President Trump did this. At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, he vowed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment, which prevents religious organizations that receive tax-free status from publicly endorsing politicians. That's right. Such a move would give churches more leeway to work on behalf of political parties and politicians, while keeping their tax-free status. (Some would argue that all churches should lose their tax-exempt status, but that's a topic for another post.) Moreover, as Steve Waldman writes, Americans' tax dollars could be spent to support churches, synagogues or mosques that support political candidates that they would never support themselves.
Will it happen? I've stopped trying to predict what will happen in our country right now. But it would certainly be a bad idea. Letting churches become defacto political organizations would certainly jeopardize the separation of church and state, and confuse the public even more about what we believe is the proper distinction between what the world does and how God sees it. The Lutheran church would definitely be against such a move. Not because it wouldn't want to help create political change. On the contrary, the church is called to get involved in the messiness of the world. Christians are called to pay attention, to pray, to participate, to vote, to picket, to protest, whatever the Holy Spirit seems to be inspiring in their hearts. And yes, the church is willing to do this, even if it risks the impression of inappropriate meddling, so that it might bear prophetic witness to its interpretation of God's will for this messed up world. We can't keep the church out of politics totally because it has a God-given role to play, but we can and should keep politics out of the church. Thanks for reading.
February 1, 2017
Politics: Does the church have something to say?
So, many are wondering lately why the church seems to be sticking its nose into politics. After all, Jesus didn't come to start a literal kingdom, but spoke about the Kingdom of God, right?! What about separation of church and state?
This issue is hot right now because of President Trump's January 27, 2017, executive order on people coming from 7 middle Eastern countries. The order keeps refugees out for 120 days, and visitors from the 7 countries out for 90 days. Plus, there is an indefinite halt on entry of Syrian refugees. On behalf of the Lutheran churches in the US, the Bishop of the ELCA wrote a public letter condemning the move, and our local New Jersey Lutheran Bishop wrote a similar letter, together with the two Episcopal Bishops in New Jersey. Other Christian leaders and leaders of other faiths have written similarly, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here's a link to an article that provides an overview of the response (both for and against) of many religious leaders and organizations to Trump's ban. Basically, response to the ban from most religious organizations has been negative.
But this blog post is trying to help you understand why the Lutheran church responded the way it did. First, why is the church critical of the ban? Bottom line, because of the impact of the ban on people who are from those places. Whatever the case, the church takes into account how vulnerable people are. Are they protected by their citizen status, or does their status in their home country endanger them? Are they part of a social majority, or a social minority? Orphans, widows, strangers, and guests are all seen as more vulnerable, and therefore privileged in God's eyes. The Bible is pretty clear that in a toss-up, God sides with the vulnerable over those who are more secure. The bishops' letters referred to above provide plenty of biblical examples. If this situation makes anything clearer, it is that for the church, the issue of refugees cuts to the heart of our faith in God.
You might ask, what about how vulnerable we are? Where does the Church get off condemning a policy when the security of the US is at stake? Answer: again, because of the impact on people. The church wants security for all people, not just the US, so it advocates policies that best promote that security while at the same time honoring God's intention for a just and fair society.
Why doesn't the Church just let the government do its thing, in any and all cases? You know, go with the pros? Because of sin. Even well-formed, thriving institutions like law enforcement, the military, education, and health services--even the church itself--can and do make--intentionally or unintentionally--mistakes or enable bad practices. The church reserves the right to act like a conscience, chiding the social realm to clean up its act. There are numerous biblical models for this, such as Jesus, as well as the Old Testament prophets of Israel.
Why does the Church think it can comment on governmental policy at all? Shouldn't it stick to it's own spiritual realm, and leave the worldly realm to politicians? It's true, Lutherans teach that the two "kingdoms", worldly and spiritual, are distinct, and not to be confused, but they are still related to each other by God for the good of creation. Thus, the church puts its belief out there, in the form of statements, public messages, and letters from bishops and pastors. It calls this activity "witnessing" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The church wants to make the world better. It doesn't believe it can make the world perfect. That perfection lies in God's future for the world.
Well, this could go on and on. Maybe it's helped. Maybe not. If you are still struggling with how you see the church responding, know that you are not alone. The church is an imperfect vehicle for the articulation of the Gospel, and many voices within the church debate these things all the time. Still, in this case, we should take note of the number of other religious leaders and organizations that seem to agree with the Lutheran church here. Is there a consensus among people of faith that is being articulated in this political moment? The next question is, does this consensus reflect the will of God? If you are a believer, you are supposed to struggle with this question. My job as pastor is to make people aware of the church's positions, but I'm not here to convert you. In the future, I'll try to follow up with more posts that provide some more background on Lutheran thinking on the relation between church and state. Thanks for reading.
This issue is hot right now because of President Trump's January 27, 2017, executive order on people coming from 7 middle Eastern countries. The order keeps refugees out for 120 days, and visitors from the 7 countries out for 90 days. Plus, there is an indefinite halt on entry of Syrian refugees. On behalf of the Lutheran churches in the US, the Bishop of the ELCA wrote a public letter condemning the move, and our local New Jersey Lutheran Bishop wrote a similar letter, together with the two Episcopal Bishops in New Jersey. Other Christian leaders and leaders of other faiths have written similarly, including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here's a link to an article that provides an overview of the response (both for and against) of many religious leaders and organizations to Trump's ban. Basically, response to the ban from most religious organizations has been negative.
But this blog post is trying to help you understand why the Lutheran church responded the way it did. First, why is the church critical of the ban? Bottom line, because of the impact of the ban on people who are from those places. Whatever the case, the church takes into account how vulnerable people are. Are they protected by their citizen status, or does their status in their home country endanger them? Are they part of a social majority, or a social minority? Orphans, widows, strangers, and guests are all seen as more vulnerable, and therefore privileged in God's eyes. The Bible is pretty clear that in a toss-up, God sides with the vulnerable over those who are more secure. The bishops' letters referred to above provide plenty of biblical examples. If this situation makes anything clearer, it is that for the church, the issue of refugees cuts to the heart of our faith in God.
You might ask, what about how vulnerable we are? Where does the Church get off condemning a policy when the security of the US is at stake? Answer: again, because of the impact on people. The church wants security for all people, not just the US, so it advocates policies that best promote that security while at the same time honoring God's intention for a just and fair society.
Why doesn't the Church just let the government do its thing, in any and all cases? You know, go with the pros? Because of sin. Even well-formed, thriving institutions like law enforcement, the military, education, and health services--even the church itself--can and do make--intentionally or unintentionally--mistakes or enable bad practices. The church reserves the right to act like a conscience, chiding the social realm to clean up its act. There are numerous biblical models for this, such as Jesus, as well as the Old Testament prophets of Israel.
Why does the Church think it can comment on governmental policy at all? Shouldn't it stick to it's own spiritual realm, and leave the worldly realm to politicians? It's true, Lutherans teach that the two "kingdoms", worldly and spiritual, are distinct, and not to be confused, but they are still related to each other by God for the good of creation. Thus, the church puts its belief out there, in the form of statements, public messages, and letters from bishops and pastors. It calls this activity "witnessing" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The church wants to make the world better. It doesn't believe it can make the world perfect. That perfection lies in God's future for the world.
Well, this could go on and on. Maybe it's helped. Maybe not. If you are still struggling with how you see the church responding, know that you are not alone. The church is an imperfect vehicle for the articulation of the Gospel, and many voices within the church debate these things all the time. Still, in this case, we should take note of the number of other religious leaders and organizations that seem to agree with the Lutheran church here. Is there a consensus among people of faith that is being articulated in this political moment? The next question is, does this consensus reflect the will of God? If you are a believer, you are supposed to struggle with this question. My job as pastor is to make people aware of the church's positions, but I'm not here to convert you. In the future, I'll try to follow up with more posts that provide some more background on Lutheran thinking on the relation between church and state. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)