Popular Opinion and Social Ethics

"Honoring the inherent dignity of every human being" Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde

I offer you a moral dilemma

It’s 1940 in London the army has been pushed out of France at Dunkirk, the Germans are bombing the cities — should we arrange a ceasefire with the enemy. Save lives and head off invasion?

or

It’s 1944, the Allies have invaded France and are pushing the Germans back. There is mass bombing of German cities and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died. There’s the possibility that the Germans would enter into a peace agreement. The Allies would have needed to step away from their demand for unconditional surrender and allowed the Nazis to remain in power. But many lives would be saved.

The New Politics of Immigration

David Leonhardt does possibly the best reporting of difficult issues that the New York Times offers. “The New Politics of Immigration” is a good example. He is aware that in the current climate people are very resistant to facts that don’t fit their political narrative. He offers this caution in today’s article, “As you follow this story, I encourage you to avoid committing a common mistake: imagining that public opinion is closer to your own views than it is. Many Americans have strong views on immigration, either supportive or skeptical. And the conflicting signals in public opinion will tempt those on both sides to ignore inconvenient poll results and convince themselves that the public’s true views match their own. But the public’s views really are complicated. Most Americans support both a meaningful number of deportations and meaningful limits to them.”

It’s a journalist’s call to humility.

Mercy

The Bishop of Washington looked him in the eyes and asked that he show mercy. Progressives, religious and “nones”, were delighted. She’s a hero. President Trump’s base — lots of nasty stuff said, but it all amounts to “just what we would expect from someone like her, she’s part of the elite that we just removed from power.” The polarization, the lack of unity, continues. All sides unable to accept that “unity at times is sacrificial.”

[A side note: one of the best listens on how to understand the vibes in this election may be “Trump’s Populism Isn’t a Sideshow. It’s as American as Apple Pie.”]

The practitioners and the thinkers

I’m most interested in two groups of people as I consider my stance on social ethics. The practitioners and the thinkers. I’ll take note of the advocates on one side or the other. I’ll even listen to bishops. But how the baptized, in positions of authority in government, law enforcement and the military, think through policy and practice is the front line when we’re discussion matters of war and peace, immigration and crime. How has Marco Rubio's or Joe Biden’s Christian faith entered into their decision making. What is it like when you’re making the kind of choices that are too often bad or very bad, when it’s all ambiguous and movement in any direction will cause pain and even death.

For me the “thinkers” are rarely church leaders. They are the people that I hope church and political leaders study. We know that Reinhold Niebuhr was a major influence on Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, and Martin Luther King. In the Roman Catholic tradition you have Pope Leo XIII in "Rerum Novarum", Jacques Maritain, and a number of papal encyclicals. In the evangelical tradition you have Niebuhr and David Gushee. We Anglicans have Kenneth Kirk’s The Vision of God and William Temple’s Christianity and Social Order. And many more. In the Eastern tradition For the Life of the World, a special commission document that offers principles for the Church and Orthodox Christians today and with the same title For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemann.

Honoring the inherent dignity of every human being is a common basis of most Christian approaches to social ethics.

The practitioners and the thinkers are worshippers who know what David Leonhardt has written and work from the depths of our Scriptures and Tradition. Public opinion doesn’t determine our ethics but must be a factor in our acting and thinking.

Public opinion and ethics

Leonhardt’s report tells us that:

• Most of us support mass deportations, especially of those in the country illegally

• We are not comfortable in many of the ways the President wants to go about it, e.g., use of the military and deporting those who came as children

• We strongly support deporting those who came illegally and have criminal records

When the bishop calls for mercy does she mean “let all of them in, deport none” or “I understand that the nation may justly deport those engaged in crime but please show mercy to those who came as children” or something else.?

How does the actual public discussion/debate on an issue play into what church leaders say? Have the church leaders had significant conversations with the baptized Christians who must make and carry out these decisions, not to argue a case but to listen to the wisdom of the baptized decision makers? Have they consulted with the thinkers who have spent their professional life working through the implications of such decisions?

Intention and Impact

What did Bishop Budde think the impact would be of her statement?

I doubt that she believed that the President would do as asked. But what did she imagine she was setting loose by doing what she did? Did Bishop Budde think she was Nathan speaking to David? Certainly not a response like David’s, “I have sinned against the Lord.” David was devout, Mr. Trump, well, not so much.

But what? From the President? What impact would it have on the national conversation? Might the administration be more merciful or is it more likely that the response would be fury and doubling down? Or what?

When is it the right thing to be the prophet - “then they shall know that a prophet has been among them” - and when is a more subtle approach called for?

I think it’s a far guess that the bishop didn’t intend to set off rage and fury. So, what was her intent? Or maybe she’s just like all of us. At times we act without a clear intent. When we act without clear intent, what moral responsibility to we have for the actual impact?

A word of caution. If you’re thinking Brother Robert is attacking the bishop or he is rationalizing away her possible mistakes — consider for a moment that in this article I’m doing neither. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Let’s close this for the moment with more of Bishop Budde’s sermon

The consequences of our deeds, which always in the end matter more than the words we pray

This abides,

Brother Robert, OA

On the Feast of Phillips Brooks, Bishop of Massachusetts, 1893