On the first full day of U.S.
President Trump’s second term, the president and vice president attended a multi-faith
prayer service at the National Cathedral. Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde
delivered the sermon on what is necessary for imperfect political unity in a
country such as the United States. I contend that in trying to influence the
president on immigration policy in a partisan way, she undercut the credibility
of her message that there is strength in loving rather than retaliating against
one’s detractors and even political enemies. The sacrifice of which she spoke
concerning being kind in reaching out in humanity to people we dislike could be
applied to herself in resisting the temptation to be partisan. That she lapsed
at the expense of Jesus’ most important message is particularly striking.
Rev. Budde claimed that recognizing
the dignity of even one’s enemies as being worthy of respect is one of three
elements in achieving an admittedly imperfect (for we are imperfect beings) political
unity, which in turn can be understood as “a way of being with one
another.” To hold different perspectives or opinions as “valid and worthy of
respect” does not require agreeing with them, and it is indeed permissible to
proffer corrections on faulty reasoning. Such differences can exist within a
deeper political unity if there is also compassion with another person’s humanity,
as in the context of natural disasters.
Helping another person even
though dislike exists in either or both directions involves sacrificial love as
we give of ourselves for the sake of others, regardless of whom they voted for
in the last election. In his Sermon on the Mount, the priest said, Jesus advocates
loving not just our neighbors, but to love our enemies. Such love can seem vague,
and the term “enemies” can easily be dismissed as too extreme to apply as the
term does not include people who simply don’t like us or whom we don’t like.
Being willing to be compassionate and kind in not just sympathizing, but also helping
even people whom we regard as assholes is none other than the content of the kingdom
of God, according to Samuel Hopkins, an American theologian who followed his
relative, Jonathan Edwards, in the First Great Awakening. God is incarnate in
our world in the interpersonal dynamic that only exists when a person
disregards dislike in choosing to respond in kindness to another person’s needs
when doing so is inconvenient interpersonally. Valuing
this divine presence in the world and enabling it to manifest by helping out in
humaneness is something that anyone can value without necessarily believing in
a god-man. Indeed, the litmus test in Christianity could be changed in line
with this focus on the kingdom of God, whose mysteries Jesus says in the
Gospels he came to discuss. Put another way, were actual acts of kindness to
people who have been rude or even mean the focus for Christian intention,
interpersonal peace might just break out as from a mustard seed. The world
would change dramatically, and a president could lead the way by example.
Had the priest left her message
at that, the impact would have been greater than it was, but she went on to
bring up Jesus’ position on societal outcastes in order to beg President Trump
to have mercy on people in the United States who have entered illegally. Reminding
the president of Jesus welcoming outcastes in the Gospels, she pleaded for
mercy on the hard-working people in the U.S. who don’t “have the proper documentation”
to be in the country but “are not criminals.” I submit that not having the
proper documents is a function of having broken U.S. law, and thus being
criminals by entering the U.S. illegally. The problem lies not with documents,
but with the willful decision to enter another country without permission, which,
I submit is rather presumptuous. To label this as not criminal is not only
incorrect factually, but glosses over the sheer presumption in sneaking into
another country. I submit that the attitude of “laws don’t apply to me” is
indeed presumptuous, and in fact is inconsistent with being in a society at
all. For it is only in a Hobbesian state of nature that laws do not apply.
So, I submit that by “getting
political” in a misleading or artful way, the priest undercut the immense credibility
that lies in the strength of forgiveness by helping out people who have been
most unkind—a kind of strength that is often dismissed in the political world,
as it is by the Romans in the Gospels. In his writings, Nietzsche argues that
this sort of strength is actually weakness. He even points out how it is
preached as a means of gaining power over the politically strong. This is
exactly what the priest was doing in trying to make the president feel guilty
for objecting to people whose first act in the U.S. was to break its laws by
entering illegally. That they have no right to be in the U.S. does not undercut
their dignity, for they have done that themselves in audaciously sneaking into a
country (or staying beyond a court date). The priest herself said that honesty
is a major element of political unity.
Unfortunately, the focus was not on whether serving the humanity of even political adversaries in acts of kindness rather than seeking retribution constitutes strength or weakness. Christianity stands for the former, whereas Nietzsche provides a counter-argument wherein the religion is useful for the weak who are not strong enough to be politically powerful. It could be that valuing not only turning the other cheek, but responding to the humanity of detractors in acts of kindness is the or ought to be the definitive litmus test by which a person can decide in the privacy of one’s own heart whether one is a Christian. Were this the focus of the religion, then the earthly city might really change. Being opportunistic in seeking political influence, on the other hand, is unfortunately already well-ensconced, and is thus easily recognizable.
