Some of you may recall Heidi Worthen Gamble, who we hosted as a guest preacher on July 3rd. Heidi is the Mission Catalyst in the Presbytery of the Pacific and, as such, works with churches and nonprofit agencies on issues of justice. Recently, Heidi shared the good news that a California State Senate bill, which she and others have been working on for the last year-and-a-half, has passed the Assembly and the Senate and is now onto Governor Newsom’s desk. The bill is SB 679, which creates an Affordable Housing Solutions Agency for Los Angeles County. The lack of affordable housing one of the root causes of homelessness in LA County, as it is in Orange County, and this agency will provide ways to help meet the need of providing more affordable homes. The Pacific Presbytery endorsed the bill an expression of being a “Matthew 25” presbytery.
Similarly, some St. Mark members have been using their voices this week to encourage Governor Newsom to sign AB 2183, the Agricultural Labor Relations Voting Choice Act, which would give California’s agricultural workers greater opportunity to organize and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Our congregation has long been sympathetic to the plight of Farm Workers. But sympathy is more than soft feelings. It is about educating ourselves to the manifold ways that Farm Workers are exploited, knowing what their rights are, listening to their needs and demands, and using our voices to ensure that they are treated with the same kind of dignity and respect that we want for ourselves. The Governor has some concerns about some aspects of the bill and has been reluctant to sign, so some St. Mark members have been calling (916-445-2841) and encouraging him to do so.
I wonder how advocacy of this sort – in the name of the church – feels to you. Most of us have grown up in a context where there has been a “wall” between the church and the state, based on the non-establishment clause in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” As a constitutional amendment, this clause is concerned with the reach and limits of the state when it comes to the free expression of religion. From the other side of the equation, many people of faith have theological convictions that make it ill-advised for a church to use its voice in a partisan political way. First, not everyone in a congregation agrees on issues, particularly as they are often named through the political process. Second, churches – at least Reformed churches – have a long history of embracing the freedom of conscience. The Westminster Confession articulated this principle before the US Constitution did, and was a key influence on the language of the Constitution. Even if one can convince oneself that it is constitutionally valid for churches to engage in partisan politics, there is still the more important question of whether it is theologically valid.
Even if we all agree that churches should be cautious about or refrain entirely from engaging in partisan politics, we still have some sticky questions to ask. First, some matters are about justice, but there comes a point at which that justice issue is being taken up in the political process. Are churches not to address a matter of justice when it reaches a point of a political vote? Second, the political process tends to be messy. “Mr. Smith” may go to Washington or Sacramento with the purest of motives and the best of intentions. But unless he’s willing to compromise, agree to things that are not his passion in order to obtain support for things that are, etc., then he will get nothing done. And so, expedience often wins out over idealism. Mario Cuomo once said that politicians campaign with poetry but govern with prose. The question for the church is whether the messiness of the political process is a challenge to our values, as well as our call to be holy by not conforming to “the world.” John Calvin argued that the call to governance was among the highest callings, because of the effects on the common good. Reinhold Niebuhr was forthright in arguing that absolute purity is a myth when it comes to human history. At best, he would argue, we aim for “proximate goods” rather than “absolute goods.” That’s why courage and forgiveness are key for us.
So, we have lots of important, challenging interpretive questions facing us whenever we engage in matters of justice, peacemaking, and environmental sustainability. Can we embrace a bill or a practice that is imperfect, yet offers a more just or verdant possibility? Can we express our passion in the name of our faith, even if others in our faith tradition feel keenly different? On the other side of the equation is this: Can we afford to wait and refuse to act on our convictions only when there is no ambiguity, no mixed motives, or no political compromises involved? That is a form of quietism that often feels the most holy, but I wonder if is ultimately the least faithful of all options when justice is at stake.
It’s complicated, yet I find myself rooting for those who are willing to take risks for the sake of justice, even the risk of getting one’s hands dirty.
Mark of St. Mark, who is speaking for himself on this matter
No comments:
Post a Comment