Politics

But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.(1 Cor 2:7-8)

The Anglican Church has a chequered social history. Its origins are, of course, in the established Church in England, the Church of England, whose name Anglican churches around the world bore until as late as 1973 in Australia! Whilst the Church in the former colonies does not enjoy the same privileged position that the Church of England continues to enjoy in the UK, there is privilege enough to have a produced a Church which was often firmly aligned with the powers that be. Landed squatters, judges, merchants and politicians have mostly attended the Anglican Churches in their areas, whilst their labourers attended the local Free Church chapels or the Roman Catholic church. The Church of England was once called 'the Conservative Party at prayer', and, what was said of the Church of England could also have been said of the Anglican Church throughout the world:

The gentleman goes to church at regular intervals with his wife and children. This is not because he feels in need of spiritual guidance, but to set a good example to those whose chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven is less certain.
                        -- The English Gentleman: An Etiquette Guide (1912)

This well suited those who said that religion and politics should never mix. What they meant was that a politics which accepted the status quo was the only one they could countenance in Church. Much of this has changed now, and the Anglican Church is as concerned with social justice and the excluded as any other church. As we grow more aware of our responsibilities to our neighbours, we discover that despite our privileged past, there is also a strong tradition of concern for social justice in Anglicanism. Most famously perhaps this is embodied in those priests, who inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Social Gospel Movement, devoted themselves to the care of England's most poorest citizens in the East End of London. They saw a direct link between Christ's concern for the poor and the duty of a Christian to witness to that in word and deed. One priest took his parish on a procession through the streets of the town, parading the host, the consecrated body of Christ, at the front of the procession, convinced that this symbol of Christ's death at the hands of the unjust rulers of this world was a condemnation on the continuing injustices of his own time.

Few of us are as brave, or as convinced, as that. In matters of politics, Anglicans, by and large, adopt the middle way. They are not sectarians like the Amish in America, or some modern Christian cults, who opt out of society, and seek to life lives of purity apart from the world. Nor today are they totally identified with the secular order. The bible includes both testimony to both of these options. The Book of Revelation, with its stinging denunciation of the Roman Empire (see Rev 13) is in complete contrast to Paul's meek submission to the secular authorities (Rom 13). Anglicans have sought to balance these political traditions. They often seek to work in creative tension with the government of the day, trying to discern what in their policies accords with the words of the Good News, and seeking to work towards a change in what does not. As always, Anglicans discern these things differently, and so disagree. We are rightly fearful of the temptation to reduce God's Good News of salvation to a political agenda, or even to a passion solely for social justice. Political concern and involvement are an appropriate part of Christian discipleship because God is concerned with our bodies as well as our souls, and souls need basic rights and material provision for their bodies in order to flourish. But it is the flourishing of the soul which remains the final goal.

How do you feel about Anglican bishops speaking out on social issues? Proud? Angry? What do you consider to be the Church's responsibility to those who are disadvantaged in society? Do Australian Christians, for example, owe a debt of responsibility to the Koori population? If so, what is it?

Consider your own thoughts about God and the church. Are they formed by one of these sources more than any other? What might there be to learn from the other sources? Have your thoughts on something theological changed over the years? What, or which of the four sources, prompted the change?