Integrity in the public life of the Church from Acts 4:15–20

Whom to obey?

When Peter and John were arrested and taken to the Sanhedrin for proclaiming the resurrection of the dead, the ethical dilemma of authority presented itself without delay. “By what power or by what name did you do this?” (Acts 4:7b; NRSV). The known authorities of the time were asking who was the authority who had commanded them to speak that way. When the disciples cited the authority of Jesus, the Sanhedrin felt threatened by these uneducated and ordinary men, and decided (only) to order them not to speak in the name of Jesus anymore. It was then when, with great boldness, Peter and John answered that the right thing to do was not to obey human authorities, but the authority of God.

The issue of human authority vs God’s authority is a difficult one. It is easy for us to determine that God’s authority supersedes that of human nature. But in the practice of public theology, things are not that clear. Who speaks for God? How can the Church claim the authority of God when historically it has committed so many mistakes? Secular laws are not perfect, but we have enough systems in place to be able to agree on its application; on the other hand, we assert that God’s law is perfect, but our interpretations have taken us through dark paths in the past. In his writings about secular authority, Martin Luther argues that the law and the sword are not established for the benefit of the Christian, but for the sake of the unrighteous. ¹ This was appropriate language and sentiment for his time, but can we uphold the argument today? Even the separation between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the World sounds odd, if not definitely wrong for our day. Although many churches still express themselves in this manner, Christians in general and those who have been in a setting of higher education in particular try to avoid the arrogant tone of this statement.

For all practical purposes, the authority of God cannot reside on one enlightened individual who claims to hear God’s voice, but rather in a community of faith that seeks revelation and practices love. When such community speaks, society will listen. Back in the 1940s and 50s the Church was a respected entity in the USA. Clergy were trustworthy, Christians were appreciated, and the Bible carried weight. The decade of the 1960s challenged that authority and the Church tried to hold on to it. As a result, the more the Church pounded on the table to make its voice heard, the smaller its place at the table became. The Church became a joke for many and it lost all authority.

With the advent of postmodernity, new attitudes emerged, especially in the realm of spirituality. The table became larger and the Church was again invited to sit at it. But this time, the Church was not allowed to raise its voice and claim to be the owner of all truth; this time, the Church was invited to be just one more voice in the concert of many voices. The authority of the Church today is not based on its claims on the Bible, or its connection with God, but rather on its integrity.

Margaret A. Farley, President of the Catholic Theological Society of America, stated in her presidential address of 2013 that there is a legitimate role for the Church in public life: this role includes the support of certain positions on issues of policy; religious arguments can be offered in the public forum in broad and accessible fashion; and religious arguments can be presented as long as they are meaningful to people outside of the religious traditions they represent. ² These tenets of public participation of the Church in society set the course in defense of integrity as the prevailing value in this conversation.

What we have seen

The Church of Jesus Christ in the twenty-first century must speak with integrity about the things it has seen. As children of God, we have seen his mercy and compassion in the lives of those who are marginalized and downtrodden. We have seen their plight and felt their sorrow. We have seen the preferential option of Jesus for the poor and disenfranchised. We have seen the horrors of war and the devastation of oppression.

When Moses asked God to see his glory, God showed him all his goodness, grace and mercy. ³ When we see the goodness of God represented by the bounty of creation, when we can observe the magnificence of new life and the splendor of a new day, when we witness the generosity of the human spirit displayed in random acts of kindness, we are seeing the glory of God.

When grace is the common currency in human interaction, when forgiveness is offered and received, and when humanity is celebrated and not just tolerated, we are seeing the glory of God. In every good deed, act of selfless love, and demonstration of solidarity, God is showing us his face. When the balm of God’s mercy is applied to the worst of human suffering, when the face of despair is countered by solace and support, when at the end of their ropes humans lift their hearts to heaven imploring a new opportunity and God grants it generously, we are in the presence of the greatest authority of all times.

The public life of the Church must be one of integrity. We cannot perceive a revelation from God and reflect a different reality through our presence in society. When we know what God has shown us, we cannot speak something different. There is no room for alternative facts in the prophetic activity of the Church. Integrity takes the form of truth-telling in two different aspects. One is telling the truth to the secular authorities when they are abusing the poor and oppressing the marginalized. The other is telling the truth of God’s abundant love and acceptance to those who are discriminated and devalued in our society.

I pastor a local church in downtown San Jose, CA. Our main ministry is with the homeless. There are seven thousand homeless in the city. We house some of them, feed them, provide warm showers and a free laundry room; we teach them about self-esteem and empowerment, coach them to set and attain their own goals, and minister to their spiritual needs. They are part of us. This is not easy; the neighbors are not happy and the city authorities threaten us with fines from time to time. We are monsters in the eyes of many good citizens for attracting what they consider the scum of the earth to their neighborhood. In the eyes of others, we are heroes who offer true love and grace to the least of these, thus living out the Gospel. We try to resist the pain of judgment and the joy of accolade with equal strength. We pursue integrity most of all, so when we go to City Hall to fight for justice, they may not like us, but they cannot dismiss us!

Because we have seen God’s love incarnate in the love of Jesus, we can identify evil in the systems of this world. Once we have opened our eyes we cannot close them again. When God has shown us what peace and justice look like, we can identify and denounce those who do not honor them. By the same token, we can also spread love and respect for those who are mistreated by the unjust and violent. We can become sanctuary to the homeless, the immigrants, the refugees, the mentally challenged, and we can embrace cultural, sexual, and religious diversity in the name of God.

The apostles claimed they could not keep from speaking about what they had seen and heard. The image of God’s goodness is forever impressed on our physical and spiritual eyes. We can never forget what God has shown us during this pilgrimage on earth. The beauty of a fully bloomed cherry tree, the Good Samaritan’s quick response to help, the stretched hand of a loving child, and the marks of nails in the hands of Jesus are only examples of things that compel us to tell the truth as churches in the public arena.

What we have heard

Those of us who, according to God’s will, have been called to be a part of the family of faith have heard God’s voice in a variety of forms. We have heard God’s voice through Scripture, that unique revelation given to us through so many filters and imperfections, nevertheless assisting us in the glorious task of discerning God’s will. We have heard God’s voice through the sobbing lament of those who suffer in the world, as well as through the joyful noise made by God’s children when they unite in worshipful celebration. We have heard God’s admonition and encouragement, call to service, and words of discipline. In the voice of Jesus, we have heard a commission to love unconditionally and to give our lives for those we love.

We must bear witness to those words with utmost integrity, without betraying their meaning and intensity. We cannot impose biblical teaching on people for whom it may be irrelevant, and we cannot interpret that teaching in a way that only supports our hidden agendas. Participating in public discourse brings with it the responsibility of being true to the cry of the suffering, the anger of the oppressed, and the pleading of the needy. Listening to the people is what will give us the authority to speak with authority on public issues. The Church will do well to repeat the stories of the people; storytelling is a powerful tool to avoid betraying our integrity by creating narratives that only represent our ideas, and not reality.

When the apostles told the Sanhedrin they could not keep from speaking that which they had heard, they were referring to the teachings of Jesus, but also to the testimonials of hundreds of people who had been healed, freed, and transformed by the power of the Son of God. When we tell the stories of abused women, victims of addictions, mentally challenged persons, abandoned children, gang members, and terminally ill people, we have a chance to resonate with the community that surrounds us. In these post-modern times, the younger generations will listen to us if they believe we are genuine; a church that pounds on the table, shouts loud empty statements, and pretends to be holier than all will not be able to capture the attention of a world that is tired of meaningless sound bites.

Detractors in San Jose may challenge the ministry of our church because they do not agree with our position on issues, but when we talk about Patrick, the Berkeley graduate architect who after two bad divorces and a stroke became homeless, or Renita, the cancer survivor who is homeless because she cannot work anymore, they know we are telling the truth.

By speaking with integrity in the public realm, the Church may contribute to raising the bar of public discourse among other stakeholders. When we are recognized as truth-tellers, others will in turn follow suit. We have learned from systems thinking that the only way to change a system is to change ourselves. When we recognize the need to facilitate change in society and we are called to take the lead, self-differentiation is an effective mechanism to assert our position.

According to Rabbi Friedman, differentiation is the capacity to define our own life’s goals and values apart from surrounding pressures. In the case of the Church in public life, differentiation means to state our voice in spite of the many voices around us that may pressure us to betray our convictions. Differentiation includes the ability to maintain a relative non-anxious presence in the midst of social anxiety, and to take responsibility for our own future and emotional health. ⁴ Only through self-differentiation can the Church become a participant in the concert of partners in society who may have a real conversation.

What we must speak

When the Church of Jesus Christ engages in the public conversation, it needs to do so with faithfulness and responsibility. The children of God can never forget whom they were called to serve. When the Church chooses where to align its loyalties, it must do so in full accountability to the One who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. Speaking the truth is our right and our duty. Speaking the truth in love is our privilege and our charge. When lies are running loose in society and nobody knows what to believe anymore, and when the public discourse has taken aggressive and even violent undertones, the Church has the ethical responsibility to speak the truth with love.

Times are difficult in these United States in 2017. People in authority talk about fake news and alternative facts. The media as a source of truth is dubious at best; people do not want politicians to run their lives, and those who are not politicians have demonstrated they are not suited for government. Who will speak truth? The Church has a responsibility to utter words of wisdom and hope, not based on fairy tales, but rather on concrete evidence and trustworthy experience. One of the characteristics of postmodernity is the lack of absolutes; everything is relative and everyone holds his or her own truth. How can the Church speak the truth in a society like this?

The first step is confession. The Church needs to be wide open and transparent in regard to its not so innocent history. ⁵ We are off to a bad start when we sit at the conversation table and bring false pretenses of purity, sanctity, and holiness. We must begin by acknowledging the good, the bad, and the ugly. We should begin by accepting responsibility for all the bad things done in the name of Christ in our communities and around the world, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, just to name two that are obvious. Christians have not been a pure example of love and grace throughout history. Often in public we like to portray ourselves as perfect people, but frequently we do not make the mark.

Communities are very aware of the problems in their local churches: conflicts, divisions, adultery, domestic violence, and the list goes on. Truth-telling should begin by admitting our own faults; we come to the table with as much baggage as the next door neighbor. Some are afraid, though, that in doing this we might make God look bad. We could rid ourselves of such concerns and become real.

We could also recognize our failure in telling the truth of our own struggles with sin. Some churches try to engage the world in a conversation about sin, showing themselves perfect and able to accuse everyone else. We need to name the limitations we have; we are not without sin, and should not cast the first stone. I have known deacons who are adulterers, pastors who are alcoholics, and church ladies who do not really care so much about charity. Conceding to these things is a way to level the ground and not put ourselves above the rest, which, in the end, backfires and puts us below everyone.

The second step in effective truth-telling is telling the truth in love. There is much denouncing to be done in the world, but we need to contribute to toning down the public discourse. It would behoove us to remember that love is the most revolutionary concept that Jesus taught us. Deep and sincere love in our hearts will inspire words of wisdom and not of hatred.

Oftentimes I speak about love to my congregation by stating that love is not just a feeling, but a commandment, a responsibility, and a commitment. The other day a parishioner asked me, “What does love look like? What does it mean to love all people?” We engaged in a long conversation. We talked about the different kinds of love based on the different Greek words. We talked about respect. Is love respect? Well, it comes close. Then we said, “What about considering every person as an equal; is that love?” I guess we will have to continue the conversation, but the fact is that even having the conversation is truth-telling.

Conclusion

In conclusion, if we have seen the glory of a merciful God, if we have heard God’s word calling us to sit at the table of public dialog, then we are called to develop a strong voice in society, one that denounces injustice and announces Shalom. We are called to live accordingly as well.

When the Church partners in the public scene with other nonprofits, government, educational organizations, business, the health community, and law enforcement, it has a much better chance of being relevant and effective in its ministry. Being a partner does not mean forgetting we are the Church.

Our motto is in all things, integrity first. We apply this to our dealings with everyone, from the homeless to the mayor of our city. The doors of our church are open to all; we are welcoming and affirming; we respect and celebrate cultural, sexual, and religious diversity, but we never tell people they must come to church to be served. They come only if and when they choose to do so. To do otherwise would be a violation of our principles.

Peter and John had just offered healing to a man at the door of the Temple, and that had caused turmoil in the town. There were disturbances everywhere the disciples of Jesus went and did ministry. The authorities were after them wherever they were. They did not fight nor did they abandon the public scenario. They only stated the obvious: we cannot keep from speaking what we have seen and heard.