Kathryn Lopez (click here for bio) has written an article for the National Review which has a troubling title: The Church Must Be The Conscience Of The State. The title is based on a statement that Martin Luther King Jr. said in a speech called A Knock At Midnight. In that speech, King said the following (click here for the source):
The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.
Though the title of the Lopez's article doesn't exactly match the quote, it it seems to represent what King said. So what should we do with both the quote and the title of the article?
We should first note why both are troublesome. They are troublesome because in a land where we have the freedom of religion, both give a place of supremacy to the Christian religion. If we were to promote the idea behind the statement and the quote, we would be promoting an ethnocracy over a democracy according to Jeff Halper, founder of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.1 Thus, we find ourselves at odds with the 1st Amendment and one of the foundational principles of our nation: the freedom of religion. That is because the Church would have a place of privilege and supremacy over those who do not believe what the Church believes. And in a conservative article, it just would not be the Church that would is being referenced here; it is the conservative Church in America.
Is it possible that Lopez is saying something different in the title of her article (click here for the article) from what King said? That is possible when we consider how the contexts of the two sources are different.
The context for King's quote is that it was an admonition to the Church to stop avoiding some basic needs of the people. Those needs included the reducing or eliminating injustices and threats in the world. For when people came to the Church for relief in King's day, much of the Church either supported the status quo or was silent. And so King is trying to awaken the Church to a calling it had abdicated. Rather than supporting the status quo or being silent, the Church is to speak out against injustices and threats as part of preaching the Gospel. And so if the Church doesn't change from its then preferred inertia, there would be no source of love and moral guidance left from which people could find help.
Some of that is part of Lopez's article, but it isn't the emphasis of her article. Rather, her article is a plea to President Joe Biden (click here for fun) to recognize religious freedom for the Church so it can make the contributions that are necessary for a strong society.
Thus, perhaps by emphasis, we could say that Lopez and King are not saying exactly the same thing. King is speaking to the Church. Lopez is speaking to the state. King is telling the Church to speak out and Lopez is telling the state to listen and allow the Church to have freedom of speech. So it might be possible that King also believed that the Church should contribute to the conscience to the state rather than to always be the conscience.
It is clear from the article by Lopez, however, that she means for the Church, especially the conservative Church, to be THE conscience of the state. And right there we have a problem because while we are suppose to have freedom of religion here, in fact Lopez calls on Biden to recognize religious freedom and pluralism, we can't have such freedom when the Church, in particular the conservative Church, is The conscience of the state..
In calling for both religious freedom and supremacy for the Church in this article, Lopez fails to see several things. First, unlike what was described but did exist in King's day, we have groups that are providing a moral guidance to our nation. Environmental groups, groups that oppose nuclear weapons, groups that oppose war, groups that oppose the growing wealth disparity and poverty and economic exploitation, and groups that oppose inequity and injustice as it pertains to race, religious, and LGBT concerns. Thus, unlike what was described in King's speech, we have non-church players who are providing moral guidance for the nation.
Second, we should note that some of what the conservative Church is seeking in the name of religious freedom is not religious freedom. Rather, what the Church is seeking is religious privilege. The difference between the two is that freedom equally applies to all while privilege only applies to some.
So does Lopez want President Biden to listen to the liberal Church or the conservative Church? Here she cites José H. Gomez, the Archbishop of Los Angeles. And it is unclear whether Gomez wants Biden to listen to the liberal Church too. It is unclear because he gives mixed signals. Gomez does want changes in the economic system that would support families. However, Gomez promotes, and rightfully so, the conservative opposition to abortion, and he sees marriage as being different from what the Democratic Party. That strongly suggests, if not implies, that Gomez does not support full equality for the LGBT community. Here, we might ask what about the religious freedom of those who don't see marriage as he and the conservative Church, do?
Based on what Gomez said, if we see the answer to the question of whether Lopez wants Biden to allow both the conservative and liberal Churches to contribute to the conscience of the state as being on a continuum, we could not say that the answer is always 'no,' it is 'no' most of the time
Third, we should note that having the Conservative Church be the conscience of the nation is to promote an ethnocracy where a people of a particular religious view have enough control over the state so that the state belongs more to than to others. In a democracy, the state belongs equally to all of its citizens. Again, this has been brought to light by Jeff Halper.
Finally, we should note that the conservative Church today is either opposing equality and justice for some of the nation's citizens or it is supporting the status quo, either explicitly or in silent complicity, that is unjust to some. The conservative Church's stance against abortion is a stand for justice and equality for the unborn. However, the conservative Church has a mixed record on racial equality and justice, a failing grade for economic justice, environmental justice, and in promoting peace and opposing militarism. And the conservative Church has failed miserably in promoting equality and justice for the LGBT community.
So how can a group with such a mixed record successfully serve as The Conscience of the nation? It cannot.
Thus, I would modify the title and message of Lopez's article. Instead of saying that the Church 'must' serve as the conscience of the state, we should say that the Church, along with others, must contribute to the conscience of the state.
1. Halper, Jeff, An Israeli In Palestine, Pluto Press, pg 74
references
- https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/the-church-must-be-the-conscience-of-the-state/
- https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/knock-midnight
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Jean_Lopez
No comments:
Post a Comment