LONDON LECTURES - October 2001
MORAL LEADERSHIP
2. The Moral Maze and the Kingdom
In the first lecture I wandered through some of the avenues of the moral maze in search of today's moral leader. It was, I admit, a pretty inconclusive journey although some of the hedges were note-worthy! I want to begin to explore how the church might make connections with our culture, the moral landscape of which is changing before our eyes.
I have often said that the church has before it at least two vocations - the prophetic and the pastoral. By the way she orders her life in relationships internally and by what she proclaims publicly of God's Kingdom to the world she discharges the prophetic task of pointing up the commandments of God. Similarly, also by the way she orders her life in relationships internally and by what she does in acts of justice and mercy in the wider community she discharges the pastoral task of demonstrating the compassion of God.
The media, especially television, who present and interpret the world to us not only is dogged by the binary construction referred to last week but also is surprisingly one-dimensional in that they lack subtlety and can hold only one image at a time about any given subject. Thus the church is either prophetic and pointing up the commandments of God and out of touch with the modern world or pastoral and demonstrating the compassion of God and therefore compromising its traditional values.
However, not withstanding the challenges of the media, the church has for centuries agonised over how she relates her faith to the world - the theme is explored by the four evangelists, by St Paul, by Aquinas, by Augustine, by Luther, by Reinhold Neibuhr and by William Temple to name a short-list! They would all be candidates for nomination to a list of 100 most influential moral thinkers and leaders. A few words about Aquinas, Augustine and Luther!
Aquinas following Aristotle stressed that all people are possessed of a rational ability to reflect on our human nature and discern what is required of us to live a good life. This capacity to understand God's plan which is built into our nature he called natural law. Through cultivating the virtues of prudence (the ability to reason), of temperance (the ability to moderate our emotions), of courage (the ability to endure troubles) and of justice (the ability to will and to do good to others) all had the potential to aspire to a good life. This natural law is derived from God's eternal law which is disclosed to Christians more fully through Scripture and Christian tradition. Although he drew on Aristotle he is able to go further than the Greek philosopher for God has revealed his reason and his love most fully in the mercy and forgiveness of Jesus Christ. The Thomist position is that human reason in everyone is met by divine revelation through the witness of the church which both undergirds and complements the natural law perceived by the world.
Augustine believed that all human action arises from the search for happiness. Because only God alone can make human beings happy, happiness can come about only through faith and obedience to God's commands. "Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee". If the end is happiness, then the motivation is love. Yet there are right and wrong loves which can only be distinguished by the quality or character of the object of the love. This provided Augustine with his definition of community, "a people is the association of a multitude of rational beings united by a common agreement on the objects of their love." What communities love is peace.
Augustine famously contrasted two communities, the City of God constituting the elect and the Earthly City. The former is bound for salvation and the latter for destruction. Yet whereas the Earthly City cannot benefit from the eternal destiny and peace of the City of God, the elect nevertheless are beneficiaries of the 'unequal peace' on offer by the Earthly City. The Augustinian position is that the church lives side by side with the secular state whereby as Oliver O'Donovan has noted 'provisional(?) goods may be possessed in common, without prejudice to the contrasting final destinies of two irreconcilable moral communities'.
Luther also distinguished the two arenas with his emphasis on the two Realms of Creation and Redemption. A Christian was at one and the same time a subject of both Kingdoms. All live in the Realm of Creation where the Creator God's laws are imposed by the state and all are called to live under them in civil justice and obedience. But in the Realm of Redemption the Redeeming God rules all regenerate believers through the grace and Spirit of Jesus Christ so that they respond in love and faithful obedience. Luther maintained that whereas these two Kingdoms needed always to be distinguished they should never be separated.
Luther had such a developed social conscience. He envisaged extensive social change through Christians being involved in transforming society either inspired by Christ in faith-activated love or compelled by the state in law-abiding reason. Either way the Christian as both saint and citizen was called to live not for self but for the benefit of others. Whereas Luther countenanced no dualistic division between the two kingdoms of creation and redemption he was equally clear about the different roles and responsibilities therein. "On the one side, the church should not impose its will on the civil community by usurping the power of enforcement that rightly falls within the domain of government. On the other side, the state ought not to interfere with the church's prophetic role in holding public life accountable to the sovereign law of God."
Aquinas, Augustine and Luther may not have classed themselves as moral leaders but they have exerted a huge influence down the centuries on Christian social ethics. There are echoes in William Temple. "There is a general knowledge of good and evil acquired through human reason and recognised by human conscience independent of Christian revelation. The Bible itself endorsees this conclusion.. The image of God in man persists after the fall. The gentiles know certain moral mores in their conscience without Christian revelation."
(William Temple by Alan Suggate p 218).
But given the delineation of the two cities, the two realms, the two kingdoms to what extent can Christians or ought Christians to bring to bear on others who do not believe in God the values of the Kingdom of God? Modern social commentators who see themselves as not-Christians are often outspoken and antagonistic towards those Christians who seek to shape public policy with Christian values. One example shows where the battle-lines are drawn. The proposal that the state should reinforce both the institution of marriage and the value of the family to social cohesion by restructuring the tax and benefit system in favour of the married couple has incurred the wrath of social commentators who resent imposing of Christian values and the implied discrimination against those parents who do not marry.
Whereas there are always those outside the church who want to retain the rigid separation of church and state there are also siren voices within the church that go way beyond Augustine's two cities and Luther's two Kingdoms and question the appropriateness of applying the ethics of the Christian community to the life of the wider world. A division has been made by some between "the ethics of the Kingdom" and "the ethics of creation". But Oliver O'Donovan in his seminal work 'Resurrection and the Moral Order' disputes such a division, "At its root there would have to be a hidden dualism which interpreted the progress of history to its completion not as a fulfilment, but as a denial of its beginnings" (p.17) Can you really divide the two?
What God has revealed in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit and by the New Testament is consonant with what he has revealed in Creation and through the Law given to Moses and by the prophets in the Old Testament. The values explicit in the New Covenant are implicit in the Old Covenant. There is a moral continuum between the two. Jesus did not abolish the law - neither the natural nor the Mosaic. He embodied and personified it. He radicalised it. He applied it to the heart as well as to the word and the deed. Then he dispensed mercy and forgiveness to all who fall short. There is no division between the values of creation and the values of redemption. Indeed, to imagine such a division is to suggest that creation happened once upon a time, stopped, and is now superseded by redemption. The truth - the biblical truth - is that creation has never stopped and continues to this very moment.
Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 see the world sustained in this very moment by the Word through whom everything that exists has come into being. The values of creation are today's values because creation has never ceased. Thus O'Donovan continues, "Christian moral judgements in principle address every man . In this assertion we can find a point of agreement with the classical ethics of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics which treated ethics as a close correlate of metaphysics. The way the universe is , determines how man ought to behave himself in it" (p.17)
I would rather approach the issue by asking the old question: "What is the Kingdom of God?" Is it the church or the world? The answer Jesus gave to Nicodemus in John 3 suggests that the Kingdom is the church, the body of believers whose eyes have been opened to see the Kingdom and who have been born from above to enter it. On the other hand, the Bible makes clear that the whole earth is the Lord's and everything within it. On that reading it seems that the Kingdom is the world. I believe it is not paradoxical to conclude that the Kingdom of God is at least two-dimensional and that it is both the church and the world. Because God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings there is not one square centimetre that can be withdrawn from his sovereignty. The earth is indeed the Lord's. The rule of his Kingdom extends over the face of it. The world is his Kingdom whose ethical principles which are undivided and universal are binding on all who inhabit the earth regardless of culture or era.
Within the world there are those who by grace have been given insight through the Spirit to see and believe this truth that the whole world is God's Kingdom. This spiritual experience is like a new birth and brings the believer into a consciously personal relationship with the ruler of the Kingdom. That relationship is marked by faith and obedience on behalf of the believer and expressed in the central petition of the Lord's Prayer "Your Kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven ."
As that prayer is being prayed and answered then the Kingship of God is being realised and actualised in a personal dimension with social consequences. The values of the Kingdom are being recognised and consciously lived out. In that sense we are seeing a manifestation of the Kingship of God. Instead of seeing two kingdoms, two realms, two cities, two separate acts of God one in creation the other in redemption we see one Kingdom, one Lord and one act of continuous creation in which redemption is an integral and not a separate theme and activity of God. The values of the Kingdom are true and applicable to all peoples at all times. It is the calling of the church to help the world trace back from its moral and spiritual intuitions and intentions to the God who speaks in creation, in history, in the Scriptures and supremely in the person, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - which is the method Paul seemed to be adopting with the moral and philosophical leaders in the Areopgaus in Athens in Acts 17.
St Paul's understanding of the Kingdom of God is found on the hinges that bind together the end of Romans 12 and the beginning of Romans 13. John Robinson in his commentary 'Wrestling with Romans' points out that the wrath of God in 12 19 is not so much God's final judgement but the punishment meted out by the state on wrong-doers as described by Paul in 13 1 - 5.
What is significant in this passage is that Paul describes these state officials as 'God's deacons'. Their authority comes from God (13 1 ), they have been instituted and appointed by God (13 2 ), to resist them is to resist God and incur his judgement, they exercise moral leadership to deter bad conduct and encourage good behaviour (13 3 ), they are God's servants for our good (13 4 ). Now I know this passage raises more questions than it settles! The one point, however, which is incontrovertible and influential is that these officials, who are not characterised by Christian faith and, moreover, were in the service of a corrupt empire, were seen by Paul as 'Deacons of God', doing the will of God in applying the moral law to all citizens.
There is no suggestion of two realms, two cities, two kingdoms. There is one kingdom over which God rules and within which he establishes systems of governance. That is why Christians must play their full part in paying taxes, deferring to civil authority and praying for its leaders.. Clearly there will be and have been times when the values promulgated by the state will be at variance with the moral law of God. On those occasions Christians and others whose conscience will not yield will resist and take the consequences as Peter said defiantly. "Whether it is right in God's sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4 19-20 ).
Throughout the early chapters of Acts it describes the tension between the apostles and the authorities although it is significant that the first Christians were popular with ordinary people who saw the moral quality of their lives: "See how they love one another". Yet when the authorities sought to silence the apostles we're told that they 'spoke the world of God with boldness'. 'Boldness' does not do justice to the meaning for the word comes from classical Greek Paresh and translates more faithfully as 'freedom of speech'. Whatever the authorities, Jewish or Roman, imposed they could not usurp their freedom of speech and their God-given calling and human right to speak about what they had 'seen and heard'.
Within the moral law of God freedom of speech is both a human right and a human duty. The state should ensure such freedom, both as a right and as a duty, although, as in Augustine's understanding of love, this freedom also has to be qualified by the nature, character and quality of what is spoken as in the outlawing of slander, libel and racism. Even though Paul himself suffered at the hands of the state, both Jewish and Roman, he nevertheless held a high view of the state within the sovereign purposes of God. Furthermore, he was neither reserved nor apologetic in claiming the benefits of the state to advance his own cause. 'Civis Romanus Sum' ('I am a Roman Citizen') gave him access to the highest civil authority. He claimed the advantages of citizenship and there is no suggestion that he saw this in contradistinction to being in Christ or that there was any inconsistency for a person who called Jesus 'Lord' to acknowledge the authority of the state and appeal to Caesar's authority - even when it was persecuting Christians. In a sentence, there was no theological or moral objection to a Christian acknowledging the lordship of Caesar so long as he confessed Jesus as Lord of all lords (1 Timothy 6 15 )
It is not an exaggeration to say with Alan Suggate (Whither Anglican Social Ethics?) that although the Bible "can be critical of culture, it is certainly not counter-cultural, and it aspires to a positive relation with the State." This view of the State as integral to and not separate from the Kingdom of God is essential to the debate about moral leadership in Britain today. We are at a cross-roads. There are those beyond the church who want to sever all historic links between church and state and reduce the influence of Christian principles in public policy. My own personal view is that were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister and several key Cabinet Ministers have their own political philosophy seriously informed by Christianity the disentangling of these threads would be happening rapidly. What is more surprising is that voices external to the church find the walls of the church echoing with similar dissent from voices inside with calls for disestablishment and a separation of powers of church and state.
What I am about to say I say self-consciously as a Church of England Bishop! But I believe it is relevant to finding connections between the current moral maze of our culture and a biblical vision of the Kingdom of God. One of these points of connectedness has been historically the established position of the Church of England. The argument about its future has to be had on two fronts - within the church and within society. As I have indicated elsewhere, notably the Annual CMS Sermon 2000, my support is not because I believe that the Prime Minister should be involved in the appointment of Bishops (I can hear you thinking: you would say that, wouldn't you!) although it is a curious theology that denies that God can work beyond the boundaries of the church; neither is it because I believe that Bishops along with the leaders of other denominations and faith-communities should have a seat in the House of Lords (I say this as one who is not yet a member) for it signals that there is an important spiritual and moral dimension to public policy. My support arises out of a theological conviction deduced from Scripture that there is no such thing in reality as secularism! However many people may deny God, resist his rule, disobey his commandments God was, is and always will be and his Kingdom reigns forever and ever. (I'm tempted to sing "Amen" - with chords from Handel!)
To separate out the church from the state is a concession to an illusion that God is confined only to the affairs of the church and that the state can free itself from the sovereign rule of God. However much the state may see themselves as simply public servants, Christians declare with Paul and with the eyes of faith that they are in fact 'God's Deacons'. Now it maybe uncomfortable for the church to 'hang-in' there as a sign of these things - but discomfort was never a reason for a prophet to pack up his symbols, swallow his words and to withdraw from the public arena.
Now I know my good friend and antidisestablishmentarian Bishop Colin Buchanan has ridiculed this position by saying that Paul's recognition of state officials as 'God's Deacons' would never have led him to accept their participation in the appointment of elders in the church! But in a sense Paul's appeal to the emperor through 'Civis Romanus Sum' was an involvement of the state not only to protect him and exonerate him from false charges but also to legitimise his ministry and mission throughout the Roman Empire. The Acts of the Apostles closes with Paul living in his own rented house under the protection of the state (28 16 'when we came to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.') He welcomed all-comers and proclaimed the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. He was able to do this 'without hindrance' because of the protection of the state. The closing words of Acts tell us he did so 'with boldness', 'with freedom of speech', a right that he claimed from the state and a right the state safe-guarded. Far from being embarrassed by this engagement with and even indebtedness to undemocratic and morally flawed authorities Paul relished the opportunities that it gave him. Thus when King Agrippa felt that he was succumbing to Paul's persuasion "Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?" Paul replied "Whether quickly or not, I pray to God that not only you but also all who are listening to me today might become such as I am - except for these chains." (26 28 ). I believe that establishment affords similar opportunities in our own time.
(In parenthesis I draw your attention to an important new book by Paul Avis "Church, State and the Establishment". In it there is the reminder that it was the Emperor Constantine who comes in for such a hard time from disestablishmentarians who actually convened the Council of Nicea which formulated succinctly Christian doctrine for the Western Church)!
Clearly there are temptations to compromise. Confidentiality inhibits me citing an example but there is one episode in my own preferment when I was aware of the potential for compromise which I resisted but that is all I can say. To those who say that we are essentially compromised by the state's involvement in appointments and that the prophetic voice of the church is silenced I have to record that the opposite is true. It is precisely because the state is involved in episcopal appointments that the media are forever seeking comments, especially critical ones, from Bishops! Far from the prophetic view being muted it is magnified. Although there are other religious leaders such as the Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Armagh who do not benefit from a position in the established church their contributions are sought not least because of their considerable personal charisma and authority.
But the established status of the church is most important to me for what it expresses at a local level. The parish system expresses a particular theology of the Kingdom. The Vicar and the parish church serve not just the gathered congregation but the whole parish. The Vicar is not chaplain to a congregation but a pastor to all who live within the parish boundaries. In Anglican ecclesiology there is a continuum between pastoral care and evangelism. There is a weakness in this view of the parish if we fail to realise in the modern world that there are also invisible parishes and networks of relationships that transcend the boundaries of geographical parishes. Yet everyone lives in a particular place and each place falls within the boundary of an ecclesiastical parish. A church at the centre of every parish gives expression to the writ of God's Kingdom running beyond the walls of the church community up to and beyond the boundaries of the parish.
Of course, some Anglican clergy and parish churches do act as chaplains to eclectic congregations and deny that heritage. But the parish system, for all its faults, offers us a view of the Kingdom in which God through clergy and people shows his love to the whole community. Establishment is carved out of centuries of experience of the national church established in and serving every local community, rich and poor, urban and rural, suburban and inner-city and outer-estate. Establishment is a local phenomenon whereby the church locally has proved to be a trusted servant of the neighbourhood. I admit that the experience is now patchy but in many places it is a reality still. The role of the church in the countryside during the Foot and Mouth epidemic, the role of the church in urban regeneration, the role of Church schools which a million children attend bear witness to the virtues of a church that is locally established and trusted.
So, as a Bishop I see myself standing in a tradition whereby I am not simply an elder within the Christian Church on Merseyside but one of the pastors to the whole community. When at the enthronement I was greeted by the Lord Mayor he welcomed me to the city "as a pastor and teacher and advocate of the people". The leadership I exercise is along a continuum between church and community, which is why for example I accepted invitations to Chair the North West Constitutional Convention, the Board of the New Deal for Community, the Board of a new City Academy. It is a theology of the Kingdom which informs my conviction that the ethical values made explicit by Jesus Christ are relevant and appropriate to all people.
With Paul I pray that others might become Christians. With Paul I take the opportunities that the state offers for the advancement of the Gospel. With Paul I recognise those in public service as God's deacons whether or not they believe. I will work with them to encourage good conduct, to overturn injustice and to establish a society of justice and mercy. With Paul I recognise the reality of conflict and the inevitable clashes of values as we seek to apply God's standards to a world flawed by sin and clouded by sinister spiritual forces. With Paul I know that in this task of proclaiming the Kingdom we need the help of every alliance possible, with those of faith and with those of no faith at all. But especially are we dependant upon "the immeasurable greatness of the power at work in us who believe."
This dependency on the Spirit of Christ will lead us not to retreat into an alternative city, realm or kingdom but to engage with the world at large. As we journey through the moral maze perhaps we might hear these words of Lesslie Newbigin saying in our ears.
"The kingship of God, present in Jesus, concerns the whole of human life in its public as well as its private aspects., There is no basis in scripture for the withdrawal of the public aspect of human life from that obedience which the disciple owes to the Lord. The question, therefore, is not: 'What grounds can be shown for Christian involvement in public life?' It is: 'What grounds can be shown for the proposal to withdraw from the rule of Christ the public aspects of our human living?' The answer is: 'None.' " (The Other side of 1984: Lesslie Newbigin)
Then as we follow in the footsteps of the perfect moral leader through the moral maze of today's world pray we too may have this manifesto on our hearts
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour" (Luke 4 18-19 )
Here is a manifesto of moral and spiritual leadership.
The values of the Kingdom spoken in space and time in a synagogue in Nazareth for all the world. And when he told them that these values, like God's love, were for all the world even and especially for those they hated they blocked their ears and full of rage tried to throw him off the cliff. Such is the courage required by the moral leader who applies the values of the Kingdom to the Kingdom of God.