Toronto Archbishop Colin Johnson ate out of a food bank for three days to make a point to the Ontario government. I’m not convinced he made much of a point other than that Archbishops have little better to do than indulge in temporary play-act poverty before returning to the comfort of their Pâté de Foie Gras, Chardonnay and lattes.
The point he wanted to make has nothing to do with Christianity: he thinks it is the government’s responsibility to create a “just” society by redistributing wealth through taxation. He is entitled to his opinions however wrong headed; what he is not entitled to do is dignify them with the stamp of approval of the church – even the Anglican Church.
From here (Page 4):
Foodbanks were created by churches and others to deal with the crisis of people in our province going hungry. That was a quarter of a century ago. It was meant to be a temporary relief, but it has tragically become an expanding social safety net. We should not rely on the generosity of a small percentage of folk to voluntarily provide food and labour, nor on the largesse of a few companies.
Poverty has an impact on the whole community. It is the responsibility of the whole community to deal with poverty through its government’s resources. The government can use its tax base to build a healthy, sustainable strategy to reduce poverty, a strategy where everyone contributes to the solution, not just a motivated few. That’s what a just society is about. In the Old Testament, we read about provisions for leaving the edges of the fields un-harvested so the poor could glean. It wasn’t about encouraging the generosity of an individual farmer; it was a societal injunction that was to govern a society’s responsibilities (Leviticus 19:9; repeated at 23:22; see also Ruth).
The passage from Leviticus is exactly what Johnson claims it isn’t: God’s instruction to individuals on their responsibility to help the poor. It has nothing to do with God giving tax advice to governments.
And just how did the good archbishop help anyone by eating from a foodbank? In fact, he actually took food meant for those who truly need it!
I don’t think what you’ve bolded is wrong headed; it would be more convincing if he was a little clearer on the how part. As it is, what he’s done is pretty useless.
Government does have a big part to play in the creation of a just society, but it’s not the archbishop’s place to make this sort of grand gesture. I don’t think priests and bishops should be actively politically involved. A pastor has to be a pastor to everybody, on all sides of the political spectrum. I don’t think pastors or bishops should go any further than to urge people to vote.
Jesus called on his followers to help the poor, and did so himself, which is what a good church should be doing. Nowhere that we know of, however, did Jesus or any of his followers lobby the government of the day to do so. The same goes for issues like capital punishment, although he would have had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Perhaps Archbishop Johnson should be serving personally at the food bank (if he is not already) instead of eating at it.
That’s irrelevant. He didn’t forbid us to do it, either. If we had to confine ourselves to only what Jesus did, we wouldn’t be driving in cars, either. The government does have a place in providing social services, unless you want to go back to the days of the dirty thirties soup kitchens.
In the bishop’s defence, I believe the exercise was to live on what would have been available at the food bank, I don’t think he took food bank food.
How so? Are you saying that capital punishment is permissible because Jesus didn’t expressly forbid it? That’s the same logic the same sex blessings folk use.
Hi Kate. I thought my reference to capital punishment might get a response.
First of all the comment about driving cars was a little wierd. Obviously, there were no cars in Jesus’day, but there were poor and there were governments, and Jesus had every opportunity to call on the government to look after the poor, but did not do so. Instead, he called on his followers to do it. I’m not saying the governments of today should not provide social services; just that I don’t believe it is the church’s place to demand it. At least, the church has not been commanded by her head, the Lord Jesus Christ, to demand it.
Also, Jesus was not silent on homosexual behaviour. He spoke a number of times about sexual immorality which I believe, in spite of what the same sex advocates would argue, would have included the Levitical prohibitions against same sex activity. On the other hand, he was in a land in which the Roman occupiers crucified thousands of people, and he didn’t say anything about it, even though he obviously would have been fully aware of it.
Just sayin’
My point was, I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that capital punishment is ok, simply because Jesus was silent on the issue. For another example, he was silent on slavery too – does that mean that slavery is ok?
You’ll note, I said that I thought that it was wrong for clergy to get involved in politics.
The bishop should be careful. The laws governing registered chartities in Canada are very clear on the topic of lobbying. Basically, registered chartities are liited to 10% of their total budgets for lobbying. Otherwise they are forbidden from lobbying any government to either change or maintain or create any laws or government policies. If a registered charity does lobby in excess of this 10% limit it risks losing its registered charity status.
I personally do not have any issue with a bishop spending his own time in an effort to reduce/end poverty. But I do have a problem with a bishop using his religous office to lobby on a political issue. Especially an Anglican Bihop who should be fully aware of the 39 Articles of Religion. If this bishop believes that the government should be a bunch of socialists engineers than let him say so as a private citizen, not as a bishop.