When I taught a freshman course called, “Justice and the Good Society,” I used an equilateral triangle to describe the relationship between church, state, and individuals. My point was that historically speaking, whenever there was not a healthy tension between the three, society suffered. When two of these conspired, the third was in trouble. For example, if one individual became in effect the state – in other words, a dictator – the church and indeed all other individuals fell under tyranny – much like the USSR under Stalin. Examples abound of times when the church and state formed an unholy alliance – religious leaders crowning kings or kings sanctioning religions. Then, generally speaking, individuals did not have guaranteed rights, especially if they didn’t happen to practice the dominant religion.
The idea of “separation of church and state” stems from the tendency of a dominant religion to try to control all aspects of life, with the state acting as its enforcer. Several of the founding fathers warned us about the dangers of a state religion and the resulting conflicts that had plagued European countries. My take was simplistic, but it still seems to me that the church, the state, and the individual all have a role to play in a good society. As the state strives for justice – fair laws and equal protection under the law – the church (in a comprehensive sense) must provide moral guidance so the state might follow the principles of justice rather than the whims of a few men. If individual rights are to be secured, religion is obligated to comment even as the state is obligated to remain strong – “to secure Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
I would argue that as the triangle collapses, the nation weakens, and as the nation weakens, it runs the risk of failure. Dictatorships and holy empires have come and gone. Human rights have been trampled under the boots of narcissistic, power-hungry men. But sometimes the human spirit triumphs. If the triangle is in balance, all individuals can participate in both their governance and the fruits of their labor. There is no triangle when the many are exploited, and the few are allowed to extract most of the economic resources. Further, if only one or a select few call all the shots, many are discouraged from contributing to the strength of the enterprise. For lack of interest, great civilizations have fallen.
Recently, a Bishop has come under fire for making a gospel-centered plea for mercy and compassion. Yet, this is the role of religion. Someone must make such an appeal. Otherwise, what will stop an officer of the state from disregarding the needs of the many, especially the needs of those who are less fortunate than those who find themselves in positions of wealth and power? Religions must remind us of the problems of power and disenfranchisement. Priests and other clerics are obligated to call our attention to the needs of the poor, the infirm, the downtrodden, the marginalized, the outsiders, the strangers, in short, those who need help.
In a recent sermon, I was reminded of how the Jewish people repeatedly faced exile for religious, economic, or political reasons. Basically, their “crime” was being where they were not wanted. When we speak of deportation these days, are we not really talking about exile? Does this mean those who are in the USA without a particular piece of paper? Or those we fear or just don’t like? I recall that in Jesus’ time, geographical borders were not conceived as they are now. Checkpoints and demands to “show me your papers” weren’t thought of yet. The expectation was that if one went from one country to another, one would agree to follow the laws and customs of the new country (and would be smart enough not to enter enemy territory). And, in Jesus’ world, there were certain expectations of hospitality towards visitors. I don’t recall reading about “illegal” immigrants in the Bible.
None of the above is an argument for open borders. However, whatever we think should be done about immigration, the state must pursue justice while the church must pursue compassion. Otherwise, a lot of individuals – dispossessed, frightened, men, women, children, the elderly, the innocent – could be harmed. There are many who seek safety, liberty, livelihood, or community. This includes those who are trying to be who they really are in a country founded on the principles of freedom and justice for all. I see no reason for any member of the clergy to apologize for saying words like these:
“Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you and, as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and Independent families, some who fear for their lives. The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in poultry farms and meat packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They…may not be citizens or have the proper documentation. But the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, gurudwaras and temples. I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. And that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were all once strangers in this land. May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love and walk humbly with each other and our God for the good of all people…in this nation and the world. Amen.” – Rev. Mariann Budde
MurrayWorks 