The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

December 24, 2010 by Jason Hood

SAET Interviews in Politics and Theology #12: Arthur Simon

But first a word about the makeup of our interviews in this series.  We expected a few more interviews to trickle in:  being unfashionable, we did not want the election to be a firm boundary as we would rather have the interaction late than not at all.  (Simon’s interview would have been a great pairing with two of the interviews that never matriculated.)  Additionally, we attempted to get more theological and ethnic diversity and to interview more women.  What has been included in our series is simply the result of who said “yes.”

Simon was a Lutheran pastor who founded this major international organization which focuses chiefly on pubic policy initiatives.  He founded and led Bread for the World for many years and is now President Emeritus of this organization, which is dedicated to mobilizing citizens to lobby on behalf of the poor and hungry at home and abroad.  His brother Paul Simon was for many years U. S. Senator from the state of Illinois (D).  Simon’s comments have a more practical focus than some of the theological or philosophical concerns dominant in the responses of other interviewees, particularly as he addresses the role individual believers might play in the political arena.

1. For those who are not familiar with your work, can you describe your contribution to the question of how the individual Christian and the Church relates to the State?

I am a retired Lutheran (LCMS) pastor. In 1961 I began serving a parish on New York City’s Lower East Side, a densely populated and poverty-plagued area. My ministry there of nourishing people on the good news of Jesus Christ exposed our congregation to the struggles of many impoverished people. We responded with emergency assistance, but the limitations of such assistance soon became apparent. So we began wrestling with what, in addition, might be done to deal with some of the structural causes of hunger and poverty. Churches everywhere were engaged, directly or indirectly, in assistance; but almost nothing was being done to challenge Christians as citizens to urge the nation’s elected leaders to take action against hunger. So I gathered a group of seven Catholics and seven Protestants to see how we might mobilize a non-partisan, faith-based outcry of citizens against hunger.  The result was Bread for the World, launched nationally in May of 1974.

Our idea was to enlist Christians across political and denominational lines to contact their U.S. representative and U.S. senators, in a timely fashion, on issues chosen because of the impact they could have on hungry people here and abroad.  The idea caught on quickly and each year since then, Bread for the World has been able to influence congressional action on such issues as U.S. food policy, tax reform, farm policy, foreign aid, and trade.  We are a “citizens lobby” or, more precisely, advocates for poor and hungry people.

Bread for the World is independent, but church-related in the sense that we are an explicitly Christian group and have positive ties with most church denominations, including financial support from many denominational agencies. This relationship allows churches and church leaders to encourage their members to participate in an unusual ministry to hungry people through Bread for the World.  We have 70,000 members and supporters, plus several thousand churches that support Bread. In addition a much wider group of friends connect with Bread via the web. We are able to generate up to 200,000 letters to Congress on major campaigns, a lot of them through an “Offering of Letters” that many churches sponsor once a year.

I have described our successes and setbacks in The Rising of Bread for the World: An Outcry of Citizens Against Hunger, Paulist Press, 2009.  On October 14 of this year, my successor at Bread, David Beckmann, was co-recipient of the World Food Prize, the Nobel Prize equivalent for food and agriculture. This award is, for the first time, going to CEOs of two private non-profit organizations in the U.S. (Jo Luck of Heifer Project is a co-recipient.) Beckmann was chosen in recognition of his exceptional leadership and the impact Bread for the World has as one of the organizations in “leading the charge to end hunger and poverty for millions of people around the world.”

2. Richard Mouw and Carl F. H. Henry have suggested that the Church’s role is not coterminous with the responsibility possessed by individual believers.  Do you agree or disagree?

I agree, with a qualification or two. I would not draw the line quite as tightly as they (or at least Carl Henry) might in restricting the church (as congregation or national body) from speaking out on public policies. But in the main I agree with them for three reasons. First, the church’s mission is to proclaim the gospel and make disciples. Public issues are related to discipleship, but great care must be taken in doing so. There’s a minefield out there. Good intentions are not enough.

Second, the church is not primarily its officials or its organized leadership, but rather its members gathered around Word and Sacrament, and scattered in the world, acting as salt and light. There, in the daily responsibilities of life, is the arena for the church’s witness and service, and it is carried out overwhelmingly by lay Christians. Their ministry must be enhanced.

Third, statements issued by church leaders usually don’t make much difference. Members of Congress are not sitting on the edge of their seats waiting to hear what a pastor or a national church body says about an issue. Before Bread for the World’s birth, economist Barbara Ward, fresh from a meeting of a pontifical commission on peace and justice, told Senator Walter Mondale that the churches in the United States were about to build broad public support for development in poor countries. Mondale replied, “I’ll call you when I get the first letter.” Later he commented, “I haven’t had to make that call yet.”

Members of Congress may ignore church commissions, but they will pay attention to what voters in their own district or state care about. The best thing a pastor or church leader can do is to urge their members as citizens and because of Christ to (1) get serious about biblical love and justice (fairness) in public life; and (2) register their concerns to elected officials on specific issues. Discipleship does include these things, and the church can offer encouragement and guidance without becoming partisan, ideological or offensively “political.” Bread for the World is a vehicle for doing it that way with respect to hunger.

Sometimes public pronouncements are justified and necessary. Slavery and the civil rights movement begged for courageous, compassionate church leadership, and eventually enough of it emerged to make a huge difference. But that required swimming against the stream, which often meant costly discipleship. Today hunger is such an issue, though the problem is not that Christians are in favor of hunger, but that, even if most of us contribute time or money to alleviate it, very few of us have discovered how crucial a role we can play as citizens in helping to bring this scourge to an end. Our silence is locking people into hunger.

3.  Please identify for our readers two influential thinkers or political concepts to which you often respond (perhaps one positive, one negative)?

Love and justice are the key biblical terms that shape my political thinking—God’s love and justice toward us, and ours toward others. Love, the foremost of the two, also includes justice, because justice is the form love takes in the matter of governance. They are, therefore, one not two virtues, yet distinguishable. Justice is love that tries to reflect, however dimly, the “do unto others” dictum on a broad scale. If my neighbor is hungry, love may prompt me to bring some groceries. If a million or a hundred million are hungry, love should prompt not merely a material gift, but efforts to arouse more effective public justice.

The ethic of the Kingdom is the standard by which all efforts are judged, which is to admit that in our fallen world attempts to move toward it are often frustrated and always flawed. Still, we have received the love and justice of God, who calls us to show love and justice toward others. So we do not lose heart. Besides, during my own lifetime the world has seen a remarkable exodus from hunger for most of its people. That is a work of God, and I believe God wants us to help complete that exodus.

On the negative side, the most formidable obstacle we face in gathering advocates from the churches is the reluctance of Christians to touch anything “political.” No doubt much of this reluctance stems from old-fashioned complacency, some from complexity, and a lot because of a feeling that “what I do won’t make any difference.” But it also reflects a privatized faith. Believers tend to confuse the separation of church and state with the separation of faith from life, and fence off huge areas of life having to do with politics and economics. But if Christ is Lord, then he is Lord of our entire life, not just segmented parts, so we dare not think aspects of life that deeply affect the well-being of others are off limits to faith. Bread for the World’s challenge is to persuade Christians that advocacy for justice is an important way of expressing our faith in love, and showing them—documenting—what a difference such advocacy has made, and how it has had a remarkable leveraging affect in helping hungry people. A dollar’s worth of advocacy goes a long, long way.

4. How would you summarize the political responsibilities of the average American in the pew—that is, someone with voting rights, but little political capital, and little or no economic capital for political action?

That would seem to describe most of us—with one outstanding exception: Each of us has a lot more political capital than we think. It is true that in politics money talks, and talks too much. But money isn’t the only thing or even the main thing that talks. Elected officials listen to the voters. Bread for the World finds, year after year, that letters to members of Congress have real impact. Sometimes they stave off proposals that would do great harm to poor and hungry people, and often they bring big, even dramatic improvements to them. But that happens when advocates work together. Lone rangers do not usually have much influence. That’s where Bread for the World comes in. We enlist members and keep them informed, so they can act in concert. They (1) know the issues being targeted; (2) and they can send a clear message to their members of Congress at the right time.

For example, during the last ten years poverty-focused humanitarian and development aid in the U.S. foreign aid program has tripled, from roughly $7 billion a year to about $21 billion (this number could go up in the lame-duck session of Congress), and has included reforms that, among other things, enable small-scale farmers abroad to produce more food, millions more children to attend school, and small businesses to start or expand. In addition the current administration has gotten the main donor countries to greatly expand efforts to improve agriculture and food production in some of the poorest countries. These changes came about in part because of the dogged advocacy of Bread for the World members and our coalition partners in the churches and in other faith and secular groups. These citizen advocates are making a huge difference for millions of hungry people.

5.  How does Romans 13 help us understand the limits placed on the church and/or the individual believer in our engagement with political matters?

Paul used his Roman citizenship to obtain justice—or at least the nearest semblance of it that he could—for himself and his own ministry. But Paul was acutely aware of its limits, because imperial justice had crucified his Lord; and eventually it was to execute him as well. The governmental authority he knew would not have tolerated an advocacy group such as Bread for the World. Obviously the circumstances differ sharply for U.S. citizens. With democracy goes both a greatly enlarged responsibility and a greatly enlarged opportunity to seek justice and influence the practice of it.

Romans 13 nevertheless gives us some underlying principles that still hold. (1) We are to be subject to governing authorities. (2) Those in authority are God’s servants for good (that’s God’s intent and their obligation). (3) They have been given power to enforce law and order. (4) We are duty-bound to do what is right and to pay taxes—not just to avoid punishment, but because it is the right thing to do. (5) We are to give those in authority respect and honor. The clear biblical exception to the first of these five principles is that “we must obey God rather than man.”  And the second principle implies an ethical dilemma: at what point do governing authorities so flagrantly violate the good—the public justice—for which God instituted them that disobedience is permissible or even an obligation?  Think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Or the plight of North Koreans today.  What is right?  What is possible?

What intrigues me about Romans 13 is Paul’s admonition to pay taxes, also for the sake of conscience, and (by inference) for the public good. Occasionally I hear someone argue that taxing citizens to support programs that assist poor people is morally objectionable, because it is coercing us to do what people should be doing voluntarily as private charity.  I do not get the impression that those who make this argument are lavish charitable givers, though, of course, I could be wrong.  In any case, Paul has already answered them.  That’s one point of interest.

The other point is that we are part of a government of, by, and for the people.  We have a voice in deciding tax policy. The question then is, what is driving our response? Is it our pocket book? Personal bias? Careful analysis? Or principles guided by the profound biblical concern of justice for the poor? A combination of the last two would seem most consistent with Christian faith.

6.  How do biblical books such as Deuteronomy and Proverbs help us to understand God’s perspective on politics?  Does the fact that they share political and ethical insights with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures (or that they offer critiques of those cultures and their political systems) influence your view of their relevance?

Besides Deuteronomy and Proverbs, I would include especially the prophets and their critique of the governing elite and society as a whole, especially people of wealth and privilege. People whose hearts were set on their own prosperity and pleasure were crushing the poor, and so religious rituals were often an abomination to God. Think of the prophet Nathan, who confronted King David for abusing his power by having Uriah the Hittite killed and taking his wife, Bathsheba. Nathan told him about a rich man who stole his poor neighbor’s only lamb. “That man deserves to die!” said David angrily. “You are the man,” replied Nathan.

The Bible is saturated with reminders of God’s determination to show mercy and bring justice to the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant. God’s desire was and is that “there will be no poor among you”(Deut.15:4). Deuteronomy is repeatedly insistent that God’s people are to desire the same, because when they were foreigners in the land of Egypt, God delivered them from slavery. This redemptive mercy of God was to be the source of their own mercy. Laws referring to property rights, gleaning, debt forgiveness, and treatment of others were intended to help people avoid poverty, but the underlying appeal is for love and justice: “[God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt”(Deut. 10:18).

Political and ethical insights that Israel shared with gentile cultures (like parallels to the Sermon on the Mount in other cultures) pose no problem. God works in many ways to give us understanding. In the end, it is not political uniqueness or superior ethical principles that lie at the heart of our faith, but God’s redemptive love for us in Christ. That is the saving, empowering hope that prompts us to love others and seek justice for them.

7.  Some political theologians note that Daniel simultaneously models service, critique, and a message of divine judgment.  Are all three of these to be implemented by believers?  Are they postures we should always exhibit, or are they more appropriate at some times than others?

The story of Daniel gives an example of service that anytime, anywhere, addresses all believers, though with special poignancy to those in public office. But it should remind all of us of our responsibility to work faithfully and courageously for the common good. “To whom much has been given of him will much be required,” and we have been given a lot.

As to critique, we should give thanks for the truly great blessings of our nation and democracy, while at the same time honestly face its faults and seek to eliminate injustices. True patriotism does both. Whining and griping don’t help, but neither does blind praise. Both are destructive.

Divine judgment is, by definition, out of our territory. We should be aware that all of our efforts, personally and as a nation, stand under the judgment of God.  For that reason, we have ample reason to live by repentance—but that is much easier to do individually than as a nation.  Self-righteousness comes instinctively, and we easily imagine ourselves to be more innocent than we are—yet another reason for both personal and corporate humility.

8.  If a young church planter says to you, “In my social and cultural context, I need to avoid political topics.  This enables me to address the gospel without any baggage and has helped our church create a community of diverse perspectives centered on Christ and his work.  But am I doing the right thing?  Should I be bolder?”  How would you respond?  Which passages would you use as a resource for guiding his or her thinking?

Yes, you are doing the right thing in uniting a diverse community around the person and work of Christ. Your assignment is not to be a political guide, but one who invites people to Christ and trains them in discipleship.  But should you be bolder?  Yes again, for the simple reason that whole-life discipleship includes addressing issues that deeply affect the well-being of others.  If you are a pastor, you need not and should not go at this in a politically partisan fashion (usually ill-disguised).  But you should help your people understand that, as Christians, they need to care about such issues out of love for Christ and others, and to approach the issues with a Christ-like desire for compassionate justice.

The pulpit is one place to do this, if done with great care.  An adult Bible class or forum, or other church group meetings, provide a way to engage people in thoughtful discussion, and that is often a better path.

Guiding biblical texts?  That depends on the issue.  On hunger and justice for the poor there is an abundance of possibilities.  The Gospel of Luke alone is loaded with truly powerful texts.  But do our people get it?

9.  What is the best article or essay a young pastor could read on politics, political interpretation of Scripture, or politicaltheology?  The best book?

My reading is limited and eclectic and, off the top of my head, doesn’t point to any one best article or book.  Much of my initial formation came by way of a variety of Lutheran theologians and discussions with my brother Paul, whose career in public service began early and eventually took him to the U.S. Senate.  Along the way books and articles by, among others, John Bennett, Martin Marty, John Courtney Murray, S.J., Chad Myers, Richard Neuhaus, Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr, James Skillen [editor's note: see our interview with Skillen], and Jim Wallis have been instructive.  The Center for Public Justice (founded by Skillen) is an impressive source of biblically serious and carefully balanced thinking in this area.  In 1987 I wrote a small paperback, Christian Faith and Public Policy: No Grounds for Divorce (Eerdmans) that covered some of the above topics in more detail.

Categories: General | Interviews on Politics and Theology | Jason Hood | Political Theology