But as I understood the story that started this thread, there is a partnership with a specific Russian political party and the Russian Church and Patriarch. I want Orthodox hierarchs and priests in all countries making moral arguments, including about policy, in the public square. Where I think a line is crossed, and I believe it hurts the church with people of different political persuasions, is if there is a partnership, even if informal, with a specific party, particularly a party in power.
]]>in this sense, it is perfectly acceptable for the Orthodox Church in Russia to condemn the culture of death/secularism/homsexuality/etc. These views may be congruent with those of a particular political party and there is certainly danger there. But it cannot shy away from its prophetic message or be timid when moral outrage and/or righteous anger is called for. Neither do we in America have that luxury.
I know it’s tempting to side with the Right here in America and be accused by the Left of being “in bed” with the GOP, but just because the conservatives in America are in the GOP does not mean we should be silent for fear of the Left’s opprobriation. Just because Hitler hated tobacco doesn’t mean that non-smokers are Nazis. Likewise the Church in America should not be shy about displaying its moral witness, loudly and forthrightly. If this moral witness is congruent with those who are conservative politically, so be it.
]]>Suppose that endorsing the party to whom one has tied one’s fortunes should alienate those in his flock who support the other party or platform. Even if he and the party are broadly popular and successful, does he want to be in a position of needing to support the part? Of having his influence and the fortunes of the Church tied to that party’s? What if they go through a period of disfavor? Will the Church be denigrated because of this parties failures?
Part of my reaction reflects an unpleasant experience with a priest whom I had previously deeply respected, but who made a point of promoting a particular political position with which I vehemently disagreed. What was corrosive, however, was not the difference of opinion, but that he spent precious moral capital on what appeared to me to be very shallow, clearly partisan and unfortunately ill-considered and incoherent arguments. Without going into details, I was shocked. At first I thought, “stick to what you know.” Over time, I began to question his moral judgment. (The argument was that bad.) Not a good thing. (On the other hand, as Father Hans would say, we should not put our trust in anyone but God. Still, you’ve got to start somewhere.)
It is important to note that I have dealt with lots of clergy who hold positions that differ from mine without it creating a problem. (Most who were educated in the 60s, for example.) At issue is the purpose and character of the pronouncement: is it to illumine a principle, promote holiness, or promulgate a particular partisan position. That is, is it to educate us, transform us or just get our votes? Is it to bless us or use us?
Only rarely does a specific party occupy a position of privilege relative to other parties. Perhaps such a rare example might be the party (or parties) supporting Greek independence during the period of Turkish domination. Another, ironically, was pre-Revolutionary Russia. St. John of Kronstadt became increasingly identifies with the conservatives in the latter part of his life. But of course the Church could not rationally support the Bolsheviks. (After all, they hadn’t even invented Liberation Theology yet.) Either way, it must be done with care. If the leadership becomes actively partisan, it risks compromising its priorities, and its mission. In the process it will lose the very thing it must work so hard to build and preserve: its credibility. (Though – snide remark warning – certain Bishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs seem intent on destroying it on their own by “going to the mat” to promote a transparently self-serving agenda.)
Despite these qualifications, faith MUST speak to the public square. Some of the best sermons I have heard provided a wonderfully prophetic view on modern political and economic issues. What set these apart was their character and focus. Generally, the clergy took great care to build a coherent, compelling theological basis for their perspective and applied it to reveal the implications of it. (Which is really what happens with any exegetical sermon.) Far more important, though, was that they addressed particular policies, practices or issues in order to show us what it means to live a holy life. And THAT focus/purpose transformed the sermon from political commentary to prophetic witness.
When done properly, it can reveal, deepen and extend the claims of holiness on our lives; it can be illuminating and liberating. St. John Chrysostom was an outstanding example who used a powerfully prophetic (and, interestingly, exegetical) approach to such issues. To do this effectively, though, the priest must occupy a position that transcends MERE partisanship or “vested interests.” I hope the Patriarch is very, very careful. As I said above, I don’t see much long-term upside if this is true.
]]>