The Rev. Peter Sipple | September 15, 2024

Preachers are well advised not to use sermon time to advocate for one or another political candidate, and I’ll stick to that policy.  However, I find no injunction in Scripture against discussing politics and religion in the same breath.  Quite the contrary; the Bible is full of stories and teaching about the use and abuse of power.  We know that Jesus threatened both the Jewish and Roman leadership because his teachings about the use and distribution of wealth and power in society were so radical.  Those teachings tell us how God’s Kingdom, based in love, will inevitably replace power-centers of our own making.  Jesus challenged the power-rich advocates of the status quo over issues of fairness, justice and compassion.  The ruling elite of Jesus’ day had constructed a self-preserving inside group where outsiders like the beggar Lazarus were literally stepped over on the way out the door.  The Good Samaritan’s life-saving gesture can be viewed, given his reduced status in Jewish society, as a political act, whereas the power-centered duo of priest and Levite abdicated their authority in favor of convenience.  We’re left in no doubt about where Jesus stood relative to the lopsided distribution of power and wealth.  The question for us is how to apply this teaching to issues of our own time—and ultimately, we pray, to the remaking of our own society.

We know that political forces helping to expedite social change do not work quickly.  One needs to take the long view on creating a just society and determine where time, effort and energy can be best spent. If our view finds its justification in the Gospel, then as people of faith we can work slowly and incrementally toward its realization.  Slavery flourished on this continent for hundreds of years, ending only when a more just view of society prevailed.  One outspoken abolitionist, the Rev. Phillips Brooks, at the time Rector of Holy Trinity Church in Philadelphia, found in Jesus’ teachings his determination to root out slavery, and he blasted the city fathers for being evasive and wishy-washy.  Yes, chipping away at social injustice by means of political change takes courage and stamina, but little chips count: a letter to the editor here, a phone call there, a conversation with a friend who doesn’t realize she can chip away too. 

For it’s the long view that counts.   Committed to a shorter view, Saint Peter rejects Jesus’ vision of a Christian future that necessitated suffering, rejection and sacrifice.  Who needs that?! we can almost hear him thinking.  But Jesus rebukes Peter for this more comfortable view of things, asserting that matters will be resolved only in God’s time.  You and I are heirs of that future which we are called on to try our best to bring to fruition.

This kind of persistent living out of the Gospel is what the writer of Second Timothy had in mind when he urged Christians to “continue in what you have learned, knowing from whom you learned it—the sacred writings that instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ….Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or unfavorable, to convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching.”  Convince and rebuke, with patience…  In other words, continue in our understanding of Jesus’ call to justice and compassion, convince and rebuke (two politically charged terms), and do so with patience.  Listen to and learn from divergent points of view, but keep working on what you believe to be right, based on your reading of the Gospels.

Then comes this admonition from the writer of Second Timothy: “For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires; they will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.”  If we didn’t know it before, we surely do now: a political election is a time when some find it tempting to put aside sound doctrine and demonstrate that their ears itch for comforting promises, like those St. Peter sought when he rejected Jesus’ take on the future. As informed members of the electorate, we owe it to ourselves and our country to ground ourselves in what we understand to be true. In the Anglican/Episcopal Church, we have tried to arrive at that truth by balancing the influences of Scripture, tradition and reason.

We know, however, that truth—even that truth that emerges from our faith—is not everyone’s understanding of what is true.  So we’re faced with a dilemma, one we can only approach with humility and patience.  We can persist in our understanding of what is just and good while recognizing that others hold divergent views.  The only way I can see to deal with this dilemma is to hold fast to a faith that is based in the Gospel of Jesus, and live consistently in that faith while remaining open to the shaping of our understanding by those who see the world differently.

In one of his recent essays, “How to create a society that prizes decency,” David Brooks writes that “to be a good citizen, it is necessary to be warmhearted, but it is also necessary to master the disciplines, methods and techniques required to live well together: how to listen well, how to ask for and offer forgiveness, how not to misunderstand one another, how to converse in a way that reduces inequalities of respect. In a society with so much loneliness and distrust, we are failing at these social and moral disciplines.”

As we gather this fall to elect the next round of political leaders, I pray that Americans can bear in mind these social and moral disciplines and find the truth that we hold in common.  For you and me as Christians, that truth will emerge from what we have learned about Jesus.  Meanwhile, let’s bear in mind that our religious faith does have a lot to teach us about politics.  AMEN.