This is the first reflection on Temple's works. It comes from Christianity and Social Order, chapter 1: "What Right has the Church to Interfere?"

(it is a long blog post)

Temple begins his book titling the first chapter, “What Right has the Church to Interfere?” A resounding question of his day. He begins recounting how the question met with answer in the exclusion of the Church from other institutions, particularly government and economics. We see today, that the Church, or a voice of the Church has claimed this back in America. Politics buzzes with adherence to religious constituencies. After President Bush's first election, with a strong support from conservative Evangelicals, Democrats attempted to follow suit and painstakingly presented their own religious affiliation's. The Church in America does interfere, and works hard to claim the right to do so-both the right and the left participate in such ways (ex. James Dobson and Jim Wallis). Whatever you believe is the correct politic, it is without question that the Church holds considerable influence on our leaders, for the good and the bad.

The layout of this chapter revolves around four main arguments: 1. the claims of sympathy for those who suffer; 2. the educational influence of the social and economic system; 3. the challenge offered to our existing system in the name of justice; 4. the duty of conformity to the “Natural Order” in which is to be found the purpose of God (13). To illustrate these for points, Temple uses unemployment as an example. I will mention the noteworthy thoughts in each section and provide my own reflections.

Temple boldly claims, “The suffering caused by existing evils makes a claim upon our sympathy which the Christian heart and conscience cannot ignore,” (13). Such structures include bad housing, ignorance (uneducated), and unemployment. These are systemic structures that effect the Church's sympathy for those who fall under abuse. He touches on the aspect of unemployment and states that Christian sympathy must call for employment, the only combatant for unemployment.
It is here that maybe the efficiency of many corporations fails society. Not one to knock efficiency, I do think that the more we technologically advance in certain ways, relieving people of the mundane jobs to pursue a higher American Dream (this dream is sought not just here, but globally), the more vacancies for labor we lose. Some villages in Africa farm with hand tools still. A pull-cart plow is new technology for these people. The product lacks in volume, but the many who partake, partake together, sharing in the work and sharing in the reward. Certainly there is are costs to be accounted for. A small, inefficient crop base, could spell large disaster for the community, however this is situational and not systemic. Smaller in terms of community employment may indeed be better.
(Side Note) At one point, reflecting on seasonal employment (not a systemic evil, but rather one that can be counted on), Temple discusses the possibility, “seasonal unemployment can be converted into valuable leisure,” (15) such as education or much needed rest. This is an idea that I highly embrace for industries that yield seasonal unemployment.

Temple concludes his discourse on point two (see above) by saying “the Church must do its utmost to secure a change in the economic system to that it may find in that system an ally and not an enemy,” (19).
It is here that I relate more closely to the call of Jim Wallis and others, yet I must not forget that those discussing a more conservative economic policy are exercising the same principal that Temple gives above. It may just be these differences help to keep in check a wantonness on either side of a political scheme. It is easy for one to get wrapped up into partisan politics, a pride and priority that often results in higher loyalty than the Church. Nonetheless, neither conservative or liberal side of the Church must give into their partisanship, but remain strongly convicted and a strong advocate for an allied economic system. This Christian ally, then intends a system that does not put out or discount the lowly and all possible means should be sought to structure these systems that the poor are not put out. One can work within either party to effect change, but as soon as either party (assuming a typical two party politic) desires a system that diverts from the Church's concern, the Church must dissent in such a way as to bring the system in as an ally and not an enemy.

Section Three asks the question of injustice within a system. Temple says that jealousy is not the issue (as jealousy would constitute a notion of self-seeking), but it is an issue of justice verses injustice that the Church is concerned. He asks, “Why should some be in the position to dispense and others to need that kind of charity?” (19).
It is an issue of human greed and self-seeking that brings people to need charity (most of the time). Sometimes this greed, pride or self-seeking is the poor person's ownership, resulting in demise. Drug addiction, sexual promiscuity or something else in this nature can attest to this. Other times it is the “bid dog” who is greedy, prideful or self-seeking that inevitably (directly or indirectly) causes for another to want. It is here that the example of those at the Simple Way (www.thesimpleway.org) provides great teaching. People, “the haves” come to relate to the “have nots”. A remedy to injustice is compassion. A chasm between these “haves” and “have nots” does not foster an situation of compassion, therefore the chasm must be filled. It is more likely for the “haves” to take responsibility in moving into the “have nots” arena, not for exploitation (as some have done), but to bring and learn compassion. This may result in a personal loss in material equity for the “haves”, but it will limit the need for charity to be distributed or received. Charity can then exist, not as a need, but as an act of love.

All of the above could be said without any mention of the Church. The last section however requires the Church as the fulfiller of the purpose of God. Here Temple preaches to the Church, “The members of the Church do not, or should not, belong to it for what they can get in this world or in any other world; they – we – should belong to it in order to take our share in the great work, the fulfillment of God's purpose in the world and beyond it,”
The Church should thus not be self-serving. The early Church example is one of survival, but not defensiveness. The Church made disciples, changed communities and kept provocatively proclaiming the Gospel of the Good News of Jesus Christ at the risk of their demise, at the risk of the demise of the Body. Many went to meet their deaths in order to proclaim Jesus. This is not self-serving, survival. The Early Church met with their challenges in the faith of God, with reckless abandon, causing an “Irresistible Revolution” (plug for Shane Claiborne's new book). The Church now is self-seeking, attempting to contain itself and advance its own desires and not the Good News. I address the American Church above as political partakers, and for sure they are, however, it appears that they are assuming their own doctrine of salvation. Jesus truly did charge his disciples to “take up your cross”. The political Western Church faces no cross. Persecution is not the removal of the 10 Commandments from a building. Persecution is not teaching evolution in schools. Persecution is death, for following God and possibly for creating a new community that lives in reconciliation with people and the earth. Persecution is longed for by disciples and asked for by Jesus. Blessed are they that are persecuted, not blessed are they that are outraged because their mythology is questioned.

Temple concludes the chapter saying that, “It [the Church] is bound to “interfere” because it is by vocation the agent of God's purpose, outside the scope of which no human interest or activity can fall.”

We are not to dissent from our system, but rather to interfere, i.e. interact. Justice does not come about by evading the courtrooms, but comes about by becoming lawyers who advocate for the unadvocatable. Economic equality does not come about by abandoning work, or production, but by being an employer who seeks employee and resource well-being above the profit. To disengage is to lack interaction, is to avoid interfering. The Church cannot be a people who separates. It must, regardless of self, engage to help the poor-the unemployed, the uneducated, the homeless, the sick, the weary and all those that deserve rejection. The Church is to be the transformer of the World, not an agent of opposition.

William Temple. Christianity and Social Order, (London: SCM Press, LTD) 1950.

Leave a comment | Permalink