Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Pastoral Letter from the Episcopal House of Bishops
Message-ID: <1123@shark.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 23:06:28 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1123
Posted: Mon Oct 29 23:06:28 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Oct-84 06:36:09 EST
Sender: hutch@shark.UUCP
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 151

<Please restrict followups to a single newsgroup>

We recieved the following letter today, which is relevant both to net.politics
as regards separation of church and state, and net.religion as regards the
religious responsibilities of Christians in America.  I am copying it as a
service to those who are interested in either of these topics.

  Hutch
(\_____/)
 \*\ /*/
 |\_=_/|
  \`_'/

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America

Reference: III title, Canon 21, Sec.2(f)

    Whenever the House of Bishops shall put forth a Pastoral
    Letter, it shall be the duty of every minister having a
    pastoral charge to read it to his congregation on some
    occasion of public worship on a Lord's Day, or to cause
    copies of the same to be distributed to the members of
    his parish or congregation, not later than one month
    after the receipt of the same.

       A Pastoral Letter from the House of Bishops
		Jackson, Mississippi
		  October 4, 1984

As bishops of the Episcopal Church we have gathered in the early
Fall of an historic anniversary year.  The bicentenary of the consecration
of our first American bishop, Samuel Seabury, in 1784 will be
celebrated this November 14th.  That historical note helps shed light,
we believe, on a complex issue which has a renewed prominence in the
national election campaign going on at this time -- that is the relationship
of religion and politics in the United States of America.  This is
an issue of deep concern to all persons whether church members or not.

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, new institutions were forged
for the governance of both church and state.  Freed from allegiance to
the British Crown, American Episcopalians revised their Prayer Book,
organized themselves into dioceses, and provided for the consecration of
bishops, of whom Seabury was only the first.  One of the founding principles
of the Episcopalians in the Philadelphia Convention of 1784 was that their
church would be a free church, not beholden to any civil authority.  In
no sense would or should its bishops, as their English counterparts were,
be part of the state.

That principle of separation of church and state found its governmental
reflection in the decisions which shaped the Constitution of the United
States of America.  The First Amendment provided that no system of
church organization should be established by the government, no religion
imposed on the people, and no prohibition made on the free exercise of
religion.  Joseph Story, the successor of John Marshall as Chief Justice,
put it strongly.  The non-establishment clause has as its object
"to cut off forever every pretense of any alliance between church and
state in the national government."

Despite the rhetoric of some political candidates and church leaders
today, our trust in our system leads us to believe that the principle
of the separation of church and state is in no serious jeapordy. The
pluralism of contemporary American religious life serves as a guarantee
against the establishment, or indeed even the preeminence of one body
of believers over others for very long.  In that regard we must
welcome -- not condemn -- the fact that voices are being heard on religion
in the society today even when they are the voices of those with whom
we may disagree or even of those whose methods are demagogic and seem
to violate the very freedom which permits them to speak.

From our perspective, the Church has a prophetic role to play, settled long
ago in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  The moral imperatives of our faith
compel us to address the pressing issues of the day.  Biblical religion can
never separate creation into realms in which God is present, and others
in which He is not.  If in some sense a "wall of separation" is seen to
be drawn between the institutions of the church and those of the state,
there is no legitimate separation between religious belief and the shaping
of public policy.  To separate religion from politics is to impoverish both.
The prophetic voice adds a vital perspective in the shaping of public policy.
Religion serves its proper function when it seeks to speak on behalf of
the voiceless the voice of God among the powers of any society.  That is an
essential element of the people's free expression of religion, no matter
how much controversy may be generated by it.  And it is a right guaranteed
by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Justice Brennan put the matter
squarely in an opinion written in 1978: the fact "that public debate of
religious ideas, like any other, may arouse emotion, may incite, may
foment religious divisiveness and strife does not rob it of constitutional
protection."

The right of the church to speak freely carries with it the obligation to
speak responsibly.  This responsibility is in part protecting the right
of others to speak.  Clearly there are disagreements on issues and candidates.
But, at a deeper level of truth, both religious and political, we of the
Christian faith are bound by standards of truth-telling and fairness.  The
American political experiment is young, and although it has proven resilient
at times of its testing, the present climate calls us to listen carefully to
the various voices in light of our national history.  That is a demanding
task, far more difficult than one of accepting simple answers to complex
issues, or of accepting the reduction of the search for the common good to
slogans and one issue politics.

It is often difficult to determine exactly what the role of the Church
should be.  It is easier to point to what it should not be.  We do, however,
call the attention of church members to what we consider to be unacceptable
ways of injecting religion into the political process, such as:

    o	Using the political process to advance a particular
	denominational point of view

    o	Coercion of candidates by the threat of single-issue voting
	no matter what the issue may be, rather than weighing the
	candidate's total record.

    o	appeals to bigotry, prejudice, or intolerance

    o	misrepresenting, ridiculing, or demeaning the seriously
	held religious views of candidates or the electorate

Abuses such as these need to be pointed out and resisted in the name of
justice and the common good.  But the role of the believing community goes
beyond that.  From the time of the Hebrew prophets, that role has been
one of summoning the nation to God's peace, shalom.
The debate about issues of church and state in the present campaign deflects
the attention of the nation away from those questions which are central to
human survival itself.  Instead of talking about the religion of various
candidates, we should be considering how they address such issues as the
growing number of refugees, hunger at home and abroad, and the widening
gap between rich and poor among the nation and within this country.
Overlooking these issues which deeply affect human welfare and even human
life has the effect of trivializing both faith and political process.

During our meeting of the House of Bishops, those of us who minister in the
United States of America have had in our midst as an integral part of this
body colleagues from a variety of nations whose present circumstances vary
considerably from our own.  Some live with the reality of desperate poverty,
the lack of political and religious freedom, the daily possibility of death
from civil war, terrorism, or governmental oppression.  Our solidarity with
these our colleagues is rooted in our shared faith in Jesus Christ.  But,
we and they both know that not a single day passes in their nations which is
unaffected positively and negatively by the actions of the Government of
the United States.  Let the religious commitments of the candidates be
measured by their stands and actions on the questions where human survival
and the possibilities of international justice and peace are at stake.

As Christians in these United States we thank God for our rich political
heritage which allows us the exercise of religious faith, free from the
constraint of government and free equally to help shape the way that
government serves the common good.  We claim that heritage best when we are
true to our Christian calling to be a people of service in Christ's love;
when we are couragous in conviction and tolerant of diversity;  and when
most of all we are committed to declare, in all that we do and say, that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God Almighty.