Of the various resolutions adopted at our Diocesan Convention this past October at Emmanuel Church, Rapid City, Resolution 018(S) (support for the implementation of the treaty rights of the Sioux Nation) has been the source of some confusion and misunderstanding.
As a result of the adoption of this resolution, certain issues and questions have been raised with regard to the meaning of the resolution. The Very Rev. James Gundrum has provided a helpful summary regarding the background of R. 018(S) (see below).
Since most of these concerns came from persons in the Black Hills Deanery, on Nov. 8th I met with Black Hills Deanery members along with members of the resolutions committee in an attempt to clarify what the resolution said and did not say. As a part of that meeting, I promised members of Black Hills Deanery that I would address the questions raised after having an opportunity to talk with our Presiding Bishop and members of the Presiding Bishop’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Indian Affairs.
On Nov. 18th I attended a meeting of the Presiding Bishop’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Indian Affairs in Washington, DC. At the meeting the committee received, unanimously endorsed and commended to General Convention the adoption of Resolution 018(S).
Blue Ribbon Committee Chairperson, Bp. William Wantland of Eau Claire, stated:
When one deals with sensitive and controversial issues, the results can either open the door to better understanding, or can become confrontational. We wish to commend you and the Diocese of South Dakota for your compassionate, balanced and pastoral handling of a potentially divisive matter.
From the resolution passed by your Convention, and the call for diocesan chancellors to assist in the issues springing from General Convention Resolution B007, you have contributed to better understanding between Indian and non-Indian Episcopalians, not only in South Dakota, but beyond your boundaries as well.
Please express to the leadership of the Diocese of South Dakota the thanks and appreciation of the Presiding Bishop’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Indian Affairs.
In a conversation with the Presiding Bishop, I expressed the concern of some of the members of the Black Hills Deanery regarding their opposition to R 018(S). He acknowledged the concern and pledged his support in helping the Diocese of South Dakota in any way that would be helpful and appropriate.
The following issues and questions have been raised in letters that I have received since our Diocesan Convention.
- Does Resolution 018(S) endorse or oppose the Bradley Bill?
- What is the role of the Church with regard to the state?
- What is the relationship of the Church and politics?
- How does the Church exercise its responsibility as a moral agent in holding up matters of justice and civil and legal rights for all persons?
As a way of addressing some of the concerns raised above I thought it might be helpful to share the following with the entire diocesan family, even though the request for clarification came from the Black Hills Deanery. To that end, let us turn our attention to the four questions that have been raised since the adoption of the resolution.
- Does Resolution 018(S) endorse or oppose the Bradley Bill?
The answer to this question is no. The Black Hills Bill, commonly known as the Bradley Bill, has been a source of controversy and some division through out the state of South Dakota both within and outside the Church. The question addressed in Resolution 018(S) is not the Bradley Bill per se, but the necessity for legislation to redress or to address treaty rights.
Of equal importance, the resolution attempts to move beyond or perhaps more accurately beneath the Bradley Bill to the real issues that are a part of the problems that confront our Native American brothers and sisters within the state and within the Church. Specifically, they are the needs for more adequate education, employment and health care services.
Furthermore, the resolution calls for self-determination on the part of South Dakotans, Indian and non-Indian, in drafting legislation for South Dakota by South Dakotans. This brings us to our second question.
- What is the relationship of the Church and the state?
We are all aware of the need for separation of Church and the state. We recognize this both in terms of our understanding of our role as citizens as well as our understanding of our identity as members of the Church.
Stated simply, as Christians we live in two “kingdoms” simultaneously. On the one hand we are members of a state and nation (worldly kingdom, secular state, etc.), while at the same time professing and participating in the kingdom of God (Church and worldwide Anglican Communion).
As Christians we are called to be responsible citizens of the state and the nation. However, our final and ultimate allegiance is to the kingdom of God, the Church. As members of the Church community, we are called to live by certain ethical, moral and religious standards and norms which govern our behavior, including our behavior as citizens of the state.
When there is conflict in the form of tension, as Christians we are called to bring the resources of Holy Scriptures, the tradition of the Church, and moral reason to bear in calling all worldly governmental structures to repentance and reconciliation when and where necessary. This means that the Church has the role of advocacy and mediation. It does not mean that the Church is called to dictate or write legislation for the state at the local or national level. Rather the Church is called to provide a voice of conscience for those persons elected to draft such legislation.
To illustrate, during my recent trip to Washington, D.C., for the Presiding Bishop’s Committee on Indian Affairs, I visited with Senators Daschle and Pressler and Congressman Johnson about Resolution 018(S). Next month I will be meeting with our governor and his Committee on Indian Affairs. Resolution 018(S) calls our local, tribal, state and federal legislators to act responsibly and justly in the exercise of their power in fulfilling obligations and promises with justice for all persons.
Resolution 018(S) is an example of the Church calling on our legislators to “respect the dignity of every human being” (baptismal promise in the Baptismal Service on p. 305 of the Book of Common Prayer).
- What is the relationship of religion and politics?
An idea widely held is that religion is something between an individual and his/her God. Each person is free to worship the God of his/her choice. Religion is the business of the Church and home and has no place in the public square. Legally and politically these ideas are supported by the notion of the “separation of church and state” that is understood to mean the separation of religion and religiously based morality from the public realm.
A competing set of ideas is found on our coinage and in the minds of many in noting that America is in some significant sense a “Christian nation”. Christians in mainline Churches insist that the Christian faith is in some necessary way relevant for public policy and legislation. Christians as Christians, and not simply people of good will, have a responsibility to advance the kingdom of God in every aspect of their life.
A contemporary theologian writing on this subject notes that the question cannot be one of whether or not religion and politics should be mixed. He notes that they inescapably do mix, like it or not. The question is whether we can devise forms for interaction which can revive rather than destroy the democracy that is required by a society that would be pluralistic and free.
Resolution 018(S) attempts to exercise the “inescapable mix” by calling on the Church to assert
the public meaning of the biblical message without advocating specific or partisan legislation.
Said differently, the Church cannot exercise its prophetic voice and function in a partisan way. It is called to recognize its prophetic voice as the kingdom of God in calling into question all partisan politics.
A deeper issue with regard to this question is the question of the end or goal of the Christian community, i.e., salvation. Within the Church there are those who understand salvation in essentially private or in essentially public terms.
In the privatized version, salvation is primarily a matter of my getting into heaven, while the rest of the reality that we call history is incidental or unimportant. We see this brand of privatized religion in fundamentalism and literalism. In this version of the Christian message, the world is condemned, and the most urgent question, indeed the only question, is, “Are you saved?”
On the other hand, Christians outside the fundamentalist camp have been generally critical of this privatized understanding of salvation in insisting that the Gospel is of public significance, that it provides a context of meaning that illumines human experience within actual history.
Clearly the Episcopal Church along with other mainline denominations, while understanding salvation in personal terms, also calls for a broader. understanding of salvation in public, terms. We recognize in both scripture and tradition that salvation was primarily thought of in terms of the nation, Israel, and that there could be no individual salvation apart from the salvation of an entire people.
It is on this basis that we understand the command of the Gospel to call for justice and the exercise of righteousness. We note that as Christians there can be no love or righteousness without justice. This brings us to our final question.
- What is the role of the Church as moral agent?
The Church is called to raise ethical questions regarding human behavior in any and all societies and cultures. The most obvious and current example of how the Church functions as moral agent can be seen in Bp. Desmond Tutu’s advocating justice and human rights in the face of apartheid.
An example recently in the news and closer to home was the Department of Justice’s request of a Roman Catholic bishop to help mediate the release of hostages in a federal prison in Louisiana. We are called to do no less.
The Church, as a moral agent, serves as a mediating institution between powerless individuals and the sometimes impersonal and oppressive structures of larger government. As a mediating institution, the Church speaks on behalf of the poor, the needy and the helpless. This has been the case throughout the history of the Church in its identification with the poor and the oppressed.
As a moral agent, the Church is not concerned with that which is politically expedient or pragmatic in the governance of the state. It is concerned with what is morally right, good and just in the ways that human beings live their lives in relation to one another.
Again, we see the ‘kingdom of God” calling into question all “worldly kingdoms” and providing criteria and norms for judgment of the state. The Church can only do this if it is separate from the state. If the Church becomes involved at a partisan level, it relinquishes its right to call for judgment, repentance and reconciliation.
While separated, the Church must also be engaged. The Church cannot exercise a prophetic voice if I is not in dialogue with the culture, society and the government of which it is a part.
Resolution 018(S) calls for dialogue and discussion in an attempt to address human need
and suffering. Such dialogue needs to be ongoing and ecumenical in nature. I met with Bp. Eitrheim (Lutheran), Bp. Dudley and the late Bp. Dimmerling (Roman Catholic), and Barry Phelps and Edwin Mehlhaff. heads of the Baptist and the United Church of Christ respectively, to share the concerns outlined in Resolution 018(S)
In addition, the Executive Committee of the Association of Christian Churches (Episcopal,
Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Baptist, Christian and Reformed Church in America) unanimously voted to adopt, support and implement R
018(S) at its board meeting on Dec. 11:
The Executive Committee of the Association of Christian Churches of South Dakota, in response to the Diocese of South Dakota’s request for support and endorsement of Diocesan Resolution 018(S), affirms the initiative of the Diocese in bringing the concern of injustice done to and among Native American residents to South Dakota to our attention and hereby adopts the following statement:
1.That we help frame and support comprehensive federal legislation that effectively addresses A. education, B. unemployment and C. health services.
2. That appropriate denominational and ecumenical resources be brought to bear to educate and inform members of the Sioux Nation and members of ACC/SD Communions in order that they may assist the elected leaders of tribal, state, county and local governments to accomplish appropriate legislation that will best correct injustices.
3. We believe that both Indian and non-Indian persons resident in South Dakota should be included in consultative dialogues around issues of injustice that have been part of our state’s history. Our obligation is to search together as South Dakota Christians for appropriate redress of subjects such as have been noted in this resolution and that are part of our nation’s legal process.
In Christ,