The best thing I ever did in politics—but I can’t recommend it as regular work for pastors—was get a street light up for some folks. This was when I was appointed to fill an unexpired term on a small town city council. The mayor made me the south ward alderman—sounds pleasantly Chicagoish, doesn’t it—and that put me in charge of streets, snow removal, and other interesting duties. 
He had asked me once before when a previous vacancy had opened, but I begged off. My wife really did not want me messing in city business; I was in enough trouble, she said, messing with parish business. But this time I took him up on it. South ward, I found, was hard on aldermen—something to do with city street conditions. Were it not for crumbling asphalt and strategically placed potholes, most of our streets would not have had a surface. From what I later gathered a number of constituents kept the south ward alderman’s phone number on speed dial.
The mayor appointed me because he doped out that in my background I had previous, um, let’s be generous and call it civic work. I had been a congressman’s whore but the actual job title was press secretary; same difference in my experience. I didn’t think that qualified me to sit on a city council. No, that was good said the mayor and he wouldn’t tell anyone if I didn’t. There were thirteen months left in the term; the job paid $50 a month; and, the mayor said, I wouldn’t have any real work to do except attend council meetings, figure a budget, and keep the seat warm until the next election. Being then the underpaid pastor of a small town parish, fifty dollars a month is what I heard.
It was an eventful year. That was the year I got to buy a brand new city dump truck. This is like every little boy’s best Tonka fantasy, a big, big truck, huh? This truck had everything and it was employed for everything that needed a truck, most crucially snow removal. I wanted to drive it just once but the equipment guy kept talking about needing a special class license, insurance liability, silly things like that. We also needed a new salt and cinder spreader that attached on the back of the truck for road treatment in the winter. I wasn’t nearly as interested in that but, I learned, if the truck wasn’t out plowing and putting down salt, the speed dialers went to work.
And along came the request for a street light. It wasn’t hard. I got the street light by simply plugging the figures into the total department budget. My fellow aldermen weren’t picky about what went into the budget, just so long as city revenues matched city expenditures. The entire city budget rarely amounted to more than $400,000. The budget was adopted unanimously and by the end of the next week, thanks to the city clerk making the necessary phone calls to the utility company, there was a street light where none had ever been before. I felt pretty good about it, but then I was focused just on getting a street light. Other facets did not occur to me until afterward.
The people who wanted a street light were parishioners. The city clerk was a parishioner. The local newspaper editor covering the budget meeting was a parishioner. Small towns are like that. Gee, if I needed a plumber at the parsonage I called the mayor; he was the town plumber. Thinking it over I do not believe parish pastors should serve on small town city boards or on big city boards either, not on any board where real decisions get made that involve real money and real people.
How would my parishioners have reacted if in my judgment the street really did not need an additional light? What if they had wanted just a really big yard light? What if the street light, while needed, simply could not be forced into the department budget? What if someone suggested I was trying to take care of my parishioners while making the city pay for it? What if, oh gosh, the street light amounted to nothing more than what we now call an earmark? I admit none of these questions came to mind at the time. All I wanted was that street light.
The street light was an objective need and the budget did prove cooperative. But even with all those elements in place, in a less trusting atmosphere it might have concluded pretty badly.
It was a small dilemma? Sure. But it might have pitted pastor against parishioners on an issue of some civic consequence, and that raises larger questions of a cleric’s role in public life. I am reminded of a time when the former presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Herbert Chilstrom, defended church lobbying and verdicts on political choices as the church’s “reverent best guess” on any given issue. These “best guesses,” reverent or not, always seemed to lean, and still do, toward a certain point on the political spectrum. Such a “guess” once included encouraging a boycott of a major oil company because it did some business with South Africa in the Apartheid years. I had parishioners who owned one of the stations being targeted. They read about it in the denominational magazine. They were not pleased.
But the church must speak, we’re told. And the church does. There are Christians who vote, hold public office, serve on city councils and school boards; they argue politics and take sides on issues. Salt and yeast, someone said; the “priesthood of all believers” as most churches dress it up, working out their baptismal vocation as citizens.
What the church does not need, I contend, are church officials speaking officially on behalf of us who are not officials who then claim to be making the Christian witness. Many of the pronouncements—especially from what is left of the Protestant mainline—can be dismissively read as cultural accommodation. Oh, sure, no doubt. There are some issues where Christians must declare their faith and doctrine: defense of human life, human rights, and regard for the poor to name but three. But otherwise a cleric as a cleric running around “Christianizing” one side or another of opposing partisanships isn’t in anyone’s interest.
I am still glad I got the street light. But I have often reflected in the time since, it sure would have been better if those folks had been Methodists.
Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
Comments:
A Christianity above politics is merely a vague “spirituality.” Christianity articulates the values that we must apply to every decision, including political ones, even if they only concern street lights. Nonetheless, Christians should distinguish between “certain” pronouncements and “reverent best guesses.” The former are very, very few while the latter are legion, and I really like the language of “guess.”
To take the example of the boycott of apartheid, the fact that the church’s “guess” caused pain to other Christians, including one of Saltzman’s parishioners, doesn’t argue against the church taking specific stands, but it does mean that the guess must be taken seriously, prayerfully, and with full acceptance of the consequences, both intended and unintended. Above all, the guess must be understood as provisional, fallible, and likely to be changed. There is no other way to live in a broken world.
I mostly agree - with especially, your cautions about frequent failures, mistakes, in religious attempts to be "relevant" on the street.
I think in fact that the last 50 years or so, could be used as a case study of what kinds of mistakes are made, when we try to use a rather equivocal Bibles, as a map for action in the real world. And when we let religious ideas intermix uncritically, with political philosophies, be they "liberal" or "conservative," or whateever.
One of the cases that struck me most vividly, was what I saw, when I went to live in Post War Germany, as a military dependant ... and noticed all kinds of Nazi propogranda, quoting the Bible for its justification; the military belt buckle or coins that said (as I recall, from my childhood German), "Gott Mit Uns" ("Eins"); or "God with us."
Every political group, apparently, likes to claim that God is with it; even the Nazis did this . And many of these even extreme groups, find support, reinforcement, from misguided pastors, too.
I like your idea of expressing provisionality, in all such efforts. Probably we should insist on ministers and priests very carefully, repeatedly, explicitly qualifying all such efforts, as "experimental" or "provisional"; rather than ministers declaring such attempts, instantly, to be absolutely sacred.
I agree. Let's demand provisionality from our clergy.
Lincoln's brief meditation in his second inaugural on invoking God in politics is wisdom itself:
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
Provisionality, more humility before the complexity of God's words, would be useful 1) in our pastors. And 2) provisonality would be even more useful in the new deadly breed of non-pastors, who now presume to speak for God and the Church: in the new a) religious talk show hosts that are not even priests; and in b) political think-tank laymen who presume to take the place of priests ... like George Weigle.
Worse than priests in their presumptuous rashness before God, are the new "lay" advisors, lay Catholics like George Weigel. Who are not even priests; and who do not even have the minimal pastoral modesty and gentleness of priests. And who unhesitatingly therefore intermix religion in with their own political philosophies, and present them to the unsuspecting masses, as if they were one and the same. Thus fulfilling apocalyptic prophesies that in the End, people would be replacing religion, and speaking falsely for God, with their own opinions, the "traditions of men."
In particular, the offense of Neo Conservative Catholics like Weigel, I would say, has been to follow only the severe, warlike Old Testament, at best; while ignoring and disobeying the gentleness of Jesus. In their warlike "patriotism," and exaggerated support for the military. Which would mean our neo con hawks are really, the foretold "wolves in sheeps' clothing."
No doubt we need a religion that is not just "spiritual," but that can do good works, in the real world. But there has always been a way to do that: working for charities and so forth. Without getting into Politics, per se. Or getting into blustering, aggressive, warlike jigoism. As Neo Cons do.
Yes, I’d prefer more provisionality by all, though I don’t think people like Weigel are exactly new. I like about 11% of what Weigel writes. He too often presents as doctrinal certainty what is really a reverent guess. He seems sincere in his faith to me, though I understand faith far differently.
“In particular, the offense of Neo Conservative Catholics like Weigel, I would say, has been to follow only the severe, warlike Old Testament, at best; while ignoring and disobeying the gentleness of Jesus. In their warlike "patriotism," and exaggerated support for the military.”
I wouldn’t make the distinctions you do here, either between the Old and New Testaments or between severity and gentleness. Jesus was often quite severe, and he fulfills and clarifies the meaning of the Tanakh. It’s true, however, that my application of gospel values leads me away from the kind of patriotism and militarism Weigel loves. Although I think of Weigel as the political opposition, I am, with Lincoln, quite sure that God will not fully answer either my prayers or Weigel’s. I’m pretty sure my political positions are less wrong than Weigel’s, but I can’t be certain.
“But there has always been a way to do that: working for charities and so forth. Without getting into Politics, per se.”
No, I can’t limit my activity in this way. Faith and gospel values have to inform every decision, including when I’m holding my nose and pulling the lever in the ballot booth. In another column on this site, someone was explaining that Christians must vote Republican in order to be pro-life. Others argued that both parties are wrong. I respect both positions and vote Democratic instead, but I appreciate the way all three positions recognize that faith can’t be compartmentalized away from politics.
Given precisely that problem, Modern pastors decided that the solution to often violently conflicting theologies, was to emphasize the gentler, more tolerant side of especially Jesus and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, there was a death penalty for everything; in the New, Jesus declines to prosecute or throw stones at an accused adultress. While Paul and others advance a "new convenant" of "Grace" and forgiveness.
And in fact, the (one?) good thing about preachers, is that they emphasize this gentler theology. As you can see not just in their sermons and homilies, but also in their personal behavior: priests are generally not enclined toward violence, especially. When was the last time you saw two priests physically duking it out, to resolve their differences? Or jumping up to the lecturn, shaking their fist and demanding "war" with our enemies?
Granted, there is a "time for everything" - even violent self-defense at least. But I'd suggest that there have been some good reasons for favoring the non-violent reading of Biblical theology. And the "tolerance" that conservatives often hate. Indeed, it is the essence of being civilized, to learn to talk out differences whenever possible; rather than resorting right away, to blows, to warfare.
And that is where the Conservative theology took made a fatal misstep; it abandoned priests, and their gentleness too much ... and started following talk show hosts and think tank militarists, who were eager for confrontation and violence.
At times, I'm a bit of an anti-clericalist. But here, I'd prefer a more priestlike gentleness; a preference for Philosophy, seemingly beyond politics. I'd prefer a priestly gentleness, to the simplistic, agnoistic, jingoistic bloodlust, of conservatives. Jesus had his moments; but so far as I know, he never killed anyone, or advocated it either. Whereas? Conservatives are always eager to "support the troops." And their many wars.
Or finally, if the Bible itself is ambiguous? Then perhaps none of us should be acting VERY strongly in any way at all, in any alleged enactment or fulfillment of its desires; the final nature of those desires, being uncertain and unknown. So that ANY very firm action, is likely to be a misstep.
“Jesus had his moments; but so far as I know, he never killed anyone, or advocated it either. Whereas? Conservatives are always eager to "support the troops." And their many wars.”
I agree that conservatives are far too eager to go to war, as are many liberals. The just war theory is one of the most abused ideas we have. Many of the early church fathers were quite convinced that Christianity included a rejection of war.
Even after the Apostolic era, many Christians continued to understand the gospel message to include nonviolence. St. Martin of Tours (died 397) was a soldier and the son of a soldier in the Roman army, which was now Christianized after the conversion of Constantine. Still, once St. Martin converted to Christianity, he immediately quit the army saying, “I am a soldier of Christ. I cannot fight.” St. Martin was imprisoned for cowardice and offered to go to the front unarmed. Peace came before he could be taken to the front, and he was released from jail.
The story of St. Victrius (died 407) is similar. He, too, served in the Roman army but quit after he converted. He was whipped and sentenced to execution. He later became Bishop of Rouen.
St. Paulinus of Nola was a friend of both St. Martin and St. Victrius. He was a Roman governor who converted and established a monastery, becoming famous for his tender care of the poor. He was also a friend of St. Augustine. When the Roman soldier Crispinianus wrote and told him of his desire to convert, St. Paulinus encouraged him to quit the army, saying, “Therefore, no longer love this world or its military service, for Scripture’s authority declares that ‘whoever is a friend of this world is an enemy of God.’ Whoever serves as a soldier with the sword is the servant of death, and whenever he sheds his own blood or that of another, this will be his reward: he will be regarded as guilty either because he caused his own death or because of his sin.”
But what happened when Catholics recently, stopped following priests? But instead followed conservative ideologue lay persons, like Weigel and the other aptly-named Neo "Cons"? That is when things went seriously wrong, in the Church.
It is high time to re-examine the authority of the new breed of Catholic non-priests, who have recently come to presume to speak for the church - even without priestly qualifications and training. It is time to call attention to the new, violent false priests, that all too many Catholics have accepted and followed, all too blindly.
In recent years, to be sure, elements of the Church proposed experimentally activating elements of the laity, to replace or augment the small number of priests; since our small number of priests were unable to keep up with the growing population. Yet at the time this new activation of the laity was initiated, many reservations were properly expressed, by real priests and bishops, about the new "deacons," and other new lay helpers.
And indeed, four decades of experience with self-appointed lay Catholic Conservatives, and their all-too-easy conflation of religion with their own violent, right-wing political opinions, confirms that there has been an extremely serious problem, with this new experiment. With the new lay workers. Particularly, "conservative" ones. Particularly, with their violent nature.
Must all good people, be pacifists? The BIble overall does not quite firmly suggest that there are no good or just wars at all. Yet? It seems clear that the very strong preference of Jesus himself, and of the new covenant of the New Testament, was for the rather pacifistic, peace-loving priest.
When soldiers came to arrest and execute Jesus? St. Peter drew a sword, and cut off the ear of one of them. But what did Jesus do? Jesus himself told Peter to stop; and Jesus healed the ear.
Even of his enemy.
"For centuries, for millennia, the persons most identifiable as the very heart of Christianity - our priests - have been famous, for their kindness, and gentleness, and non-violence"
I'd love to agree with this sentiment that priests have been famous for their kindness and gentleness, but I'm just not sure that has been true for all ages. It is certainly true that this is the way it was supposed to be!
But I'm intrigued by your proposal that there's been a shift recently in leadership from clergy to lay members. I've been too long out of the Catholic Church to say.
But all that began to change in the 1970's and 80's. In the 1970's, the number of people entering the Catholic priesthood began to decline precipitously. In America we once had about 50,000 priests, in the 1950's. But some estimates have that down today, to 30,000 - augmented by 20,000 lay workers. While in that same time frame, the population doubled.
The number of real priests has declined therefore. So that questionable lay people were given more authority in the Church. And worse? The rise of conservative "Catholic" lay radio and TV - EWTN/RN, Relevant Radio - and thousands of lay anti-abortion organizations, etc., radically extended the reach of secular ideas, political opinions, deep into the Church. Especially, right-wing ideas.
Worse, our conservatives tied their willingness to go to war, to a radically nationalist/militarist ideology. Rather like their precessors in Italy and Germany, c. 1933-45.
No doubt now and then we need an army; but one serving in the interest of international cooperation. Not provincial national interests, or nationalism.
Indeed, in the book of Daniel, the Lord seems to thank a "Michael." For being the only prince "contending" for the Lord in battle (Dan. 10.13&21).
For more on this? See Brettongarcia's Blog. Which offers up a 700-page working paper, on the "Conservative and Pro Life Heresies."
I don't think pastors or religious publications, should be baptising and "sanctifying" only Liberal ideas - or only Conservative ideas, either.
Religion should be above politics. As it once was.