Christ and Culture, Church and State; where are we going?
Archbishop Andrew S. Hutchison,
former Primate of the Anglican Church of CanadaFebruary 13,2008
In one sense I feel as if I am preaching to the choir when I speak to you at St. John’s, Quadra on matters of Christ & Culture and Church & State. For since first coming here I have told your story across the land; that is, I have used St. John’s as an example of an appropriate engagement of a church with the community and its governance. This address, then may serve to place that engagement in a wider context.
Christianity, of course, developed in a particular culture at a particular time. In those early days it was strongly influenced by the culture of First Century Judaism. But at the same time it was not limited by that culture. Very soon it found the need to adapt as Gentiles embraced the faith of Christ. All that was normative for Jewish Christians was not required of Gentile Christians. Over the centuries Christianity has been expressed in an increasing variety of cultures, and at the same time has shaped many of those cultures. The enculturation of the Gospel can be a very good thing in that it can reach to the very core of who we are and allow us to express our faith with an integrity and fullness whether we be Asian, African, European or indigenous Canadian. The power of Pentecost was possible because people of a variety of nationalities gathered in Jerusalem could hear and receive the Gospel in their own language and culture. It is a wonderful thing to experience your life in Christ in your own language and culture.
The enculturation of the Gospel, however, runs the risk of adapting to the culture to such an extent that it loses its critical function and compromises the essence of the Christian message.
There is always the challenge of distinguishing between what is of the essence of the Gospel, and what is but a cultural application of it. Too often in our 19th Century missionary endeavours did we fail to make that distinction, and found ourselves accused of cultural imperialism. Recently it was my privilege to lead an ecumenical visit to China. Following the Cultural Revolution, Chinese church leaders deliberated on how the church would live into the new Chinese reality. They decided that while missionary initiatives from the west had brought many good things to China, Christianity had presented itself as arrogant, triumphalist and judgmental. As they searched the Scriptures they rediscovered the centrality of the servant Jesus, who lived among the poor, came not to be served, but to serve, and taught his disciples that whoever would be great among them must be their servant. That struck them as Chinese, and became central to their life and mission, rather than images of power, might, majesty and judgment. The Gospel had found an authentic enculturation, and the Church has consequently prospered, with the approval and support of the government. There are now more than 20 million Chinese Christians, and the number is growing. This year Amity Press, run by the Church printed its 50 millionth copy of the Old and New Testaments in Chinese.
Church and State have had a very checkered history through the ages. More that 1700 years ago Christianity became an official state religion in Armenia. And in the 4th Century Constantine declared it the religion of the Roman Empire. That too has been fraught with risk as the record of history shows all too plainly. The state gave the Church status and power, and the Church in return gave the state legitimacy that was taken to be absolute in too many instances.
At the other extreme, of course, are examples of outright confrontation between Church and State, and the persecution of Christians by the State. Those examples are too numerous to name, and some persist into our own time.
Where are we going now, you ask. As Anglicans, we owe our distinctive origins to the Church of England. In the Elizabethan Settlement the Church of England was established as a religion for all English citizens – an accommodation between Puritans on the one hand and Episcopalians on the other – the Monarch being Head of the Church. The Church was therefore quite intentionally and necessarily inclusive and tolerant of a wide range of spirituality and practice. Both the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and an authorized English translation of Scripture (the King James Version) were made official by Act of Parliament as the standards of English religion.
As Anglicanism spread with the rise of the British Empire, while it did not succeed in becoming established as the state religion in the colonies, it retained its ethos of inclusiveness, and openness to all citizens. The Church assumed that it had a role to fulfill for the whole society, and not only for its members. Here in Canada, as elsewhere, the Church was instrumental in the establishment of hospitals, schools, universities and social services, with the support and collaboration of governments. As recently as the first half of this century it could be assumed that Canada was a Christian country and that most of its citizens had some level of affiliation with a Christian church. Christianity was routinely taught in schools, and virtually all public assemblies, government councils and legislatures began with prayer. In such a context, the voice of the Church was significant, and could be heard clearly by governments.
The country has changed since the 1950’s, and yet vestiges of many of the features I have described remain. In an increasingly pluralistic country too many local churches cocoon and withdraw into a congregational mindset. The reality, however, is that there remain those in public life who welcome the constructive engagement of the Church in the advancement of a just society. As a bishop I have always advised priests appointed to a parish to spend the first weeks of their ministry introducing themselves to the mayor, the police chief, the fire chief, the member of parliament, the member of the legislature, the school principals, etc. in the communities they serve, asking each to describe the community as they see it. Then make clear the church’s intent to collaborate with such authorities for the benefit of the community. While this strikes many as a novel idea, clearly it is a modus vivendi for St. John’s, and it is no surprise to find your Rector is a member of the Commission on Homelessness in Victoria.
Nearly 30 years ago in Toronto, before food banks were common, the parish I was associated with launched a programme called the Deacon’s Cupboard, which attracted a good deal of media attention. The Government of Ontario called to offer support on a dollar for dollar basis. Their rationale was that to establish a system of its own, there would need to be a lengthy and costly process involving setting up a whole bureaucracy. The Church, on the other hand, was in the community on the ground – and that is one tremendous advantage we have – not only locally, but also internationally. We are a grassroots network including some of the most remote communities in 164 countries of the world. While our financial resources may be limited, our human resources are extensive. That is clearly recognized by CIDA (the Canadian International Development Agency) as it partners with the Primate’s World Relief & Development Fund all over the world.
In our baptism we are pledged to “Strive for justice and peace among all people” and to “respect the dignity of every human being.” It follows that advocacy for social justice is a priority for us. At the national level this priority is advanced by the PWRDF, by our national, international and inter-church partners programme, and by KAIROS an agency in which we partner with other churches so that we may speak with one voice, and act with a single resolve in matters of social justice.
Two years ago I attended a conference for world religious leaders, sponsored by our National Cathedral in Washington. With us, among others, were the President of the World Bank and the former Archbishop of Canterbury. We developed a statement on the Millennium Development Goals, and specifically poverty and took it to New York. 170 world leaders were gathered at the U.N. as we presented our brief first to the President of the General Assembly, and then to the Deputy Secretary General. That brief was generously quoted by the President of the Republic of South Africa in his address to the General Assembly. Of particular interest to the Deputy Secretary General was our offer to collaborate in monitoring the use of resources on the ground – again because we are there in the most needy and remote communities of the world. Being a worldwide Communion of more than 75 million people gives Anglicans a particular opportunity and responsibility. During the struggle for the elimination of apartheid in South Africa the whole Communion stood by Archbishop Tutu so that the State would know that to touch him was to touch us all. When I visited other countries where there is tension with the State – Cuba and the Seychelles come to mind – I made a point of meeting with government authorities for the same purpose.
Here in Canada in 1984 the National Executive Committee of our church passed a motion calling upon the Bishop and the Dean of Ottawa to provide two opportunities a year for the Primate to speak from the Cathedral on matters of Church and State. That resolved into an annual New Year’s Day address which both my predecessor and I took very seriously. It was an opportunity to speak to government on matters of social justice and human rights, with appreciation where we believe they were on track, and with clarity where we believe they were not. A copy of the address was sent to Cabinet Ministers and to leaders of the opposition parties. The matters addressed often involved issues on which we had been working with particular ministries.
- Residential Schools
- The Kelowna Accord
- The HIV/AIDS pandemic – Bill C-9
- 7% of GNP to eliminate world poverty
- Canadian mining operations violations abroad
- Canada voting against a UN Declaration of Aboriginal Rights
- The Kyoto Accord
- Canadian Immigration policies – implementation of merit based appeal
- Vigorous advocacy of human rights in Sudan & Columbia
- Elimination of child poverty in Canada
- Affordable housing programmes
- Clean water here and abroad
For 14 years I was Bishop of Montreal, and during that time 5 different premiers of various political stripes held office in Quebec. I made it a point to meet with each one to assure them that they would be prayed for regularly in churches throughout the diocese. I also assured them that Scripture gives no clear mandate for particular forms of political organization; the Church, therefore, took no stand for or against the government’s political aspirations. But should it ever try to advance its agenda at the cost of human rights, it would hear from us every time. In fact I did have to confront Lucien Bouchard on one occasion. The law in Quebec requires retail products to be labeled in French. Many Jewish specialty foods are imported from the U.S. and Israel, with labels in Hebrew and English only. Just before Passover one year the government ordered all such foods removed from retail shelves. This was an unconscionable blow against the Jewish community entirely without warning. M. Bouchard recognized that and said how unfortunate the move had been, but fell short of an apology.
Generally, however, our relationship with the Government of Quebec was good. The P.Q. Government launched a major Heritage Fund from our Cathedral, appointing our Dean as its first Treasurer. And in fact a number of government personnel called on the Church for our sacramental ministry, which included the marriage of one of Quebec’s premiers.
In 1984 I was appointed Dean of Montreal. Before moving from Toronto I wrote to Mayor Drapeau to tell him I looked forward to meeting him to present my credentials. Not only did he give us a royal welcome at City Hall, but he sat beside my wife in the front row of the cathedral for my installation, read the epistle in French, and received the sacrament, with tears in his eyes. That began an important relationship of collaboration that was of benefit both to the Church and to the city. That included a $180 million redevelopment of the cathedral block that would not have been possible without close collaboration with the city, and the mayor’s personal involvement and support. When Mayor Drapeau retired I was still Dean. He made an appointment to come and say farewell and to express appreciation for our collaboration in a number of projects in the City. The current Mayor of Montreal was new to his office shortly after the destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York. He invited me to come to New York with him and Cardinal Turcotte to lead prayers at ground zero for Canadians who had died there.
There are many good examples of mutually beneficial cooperation between Church and State. at every level. In the City of Dorval, the Mayor so valued the contribution of the churches to that city that he paved their parking lots, and cleared the snow from them in the wintertime.
In the 16th Century Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England referred to the four pillars of government as “religion, justice, counsel and treasure”. At the time, and indeed to this day in England, the Church is a part of the legislative process with designated seats as of right in the House of Lords. In protocol the Archbishop of Canterbury is second only to the Monarch, who is Head of the Church. The Archbishop crowns the Monarch, who in turns appoints the bishops and a number of other Church dignitaries. How to apply Bacon’s four pillars in a thoroughly multi-cultural society such as Canada is an interesting question. Where there is no clear religious consensus, how do those who take counsel for us in parliament take into account religion? One response is that of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien: “Even though I am a Roman Catholic, I wasn’t elected as a Roman Catholic, and in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, a Prime Minister has to leave his religion at home”. Dr. Reginald Stackhouse, an Anglican priest, former Principal of Wycliffe College in Toronto, and sometime Member of Parliament puts it this way: “The Law of the land must be for all Canadians; churches may then prescribe for their own members”. But is our only answer to banish religion from public life? After 9-11 there was a gathering of 100,000 Canadians on Parliament Hill for a memorial. We were the only civilized nation in the world that in its memorial included no prayers, no mention of God, and no appeal to religious faith. In an attempt not to offend any particular group, that exclusion, I believe, offended most Canadians. It is perhaps ironic that in the United States, where there is a legal doctrine of the separation of Church and State, national leaders gathered in the National Cathedral in Washington, for a multi-faith service of remembrance.
If the first of Bacon’s four pillars is to have any meaning, we must get much better at being inclusive in the expression of our collective spirituality. And it follows that relationships between Church and State will be increasingly ecumenical and inter-faith. For seven years I was Bishop Ordinary to the Canadian Forces and a member of the Inter Faith Committee on Military Chaplaincy, that meets regularly with the Minister of Defense. The Committee represents a single consensual voice for the major religious communities of Canada. We certify chaplains for the Canadian Forces, develop policy, and nominate the Chaplain General. Obviously a great deal of the ministry exercised by chaplains must be ecumenical and inter-faith, and the chaplaincy has become an outstanding example of inter-faith cooperation, highly valued by the Canadian Forces.
While it is important that the line separating Church from State must always be clear, it is equally certain that for either to fulfill its proper mandate there will inevitably be involvement one with the other. Collaboration is best facilitated, and criticism is best accepted where there is a relationship of mutual respect and understanding. So I would plead that Church leaders at every level do their part to secure and sustain such relationships.
