Religious leaders, human bureaucracy, and the right to rule

This is a follow up on a Facebook posting with Ashley, who went to the same grade school that I did, though many years later. One of Ashley's friends commented that as clergy, "I signed up to be a religious leader, not a tool of human bureaucracy. I don't believe any human has a right to rule over another." I started a lengthy response in fb, but figured it would be better to pull it out and put it here. (I'm not sure of the manners about starting heavy, deep, and real conversations with strangers on fb. I can understand how others can be turned off by that at times. It can be a little creepy.)

Religious leaders and bureaucracy

I don't know a lot about how clergy works historically or contemporarily. I do have some first hand experiences with clergy and former clergy though, so let's see how this goes.

1. Religious leaders are often part of a bureaucracy called 'The Church' or something similar. Does the religion have rules? Most do. Is any system with rules a 'bureaucracy'? (Do you consider any system with rules to be a bureaucracy or is a bureaucracy something else?) Maybe some religious leaders think of themselves as 'spiritual' leaders and consider themselves to be outside of any bureaucracy. Maybe it's just fair to note that if you're in a system, the system, by definition, has parameters.


2. Religious leaders do not act in a vacuum. Historically, they have helped societies and cultures progress and grapple with challenging issues. Religious leaders may not be paid agents of the government, but they historically and regularly do a great deal of the communitarian work that serves well the citizenry of states. So how do they relate to the will and acts of the state? In this specific case, marriage equality, clergy are signing off on legal documents like marriage certificates that register marriages with the state and certify that all legal requirements of the state have been met.

Do clergy have a duty to society or the state that goes beyond just their spiritual duties? I'll say yes. The communities they serve are not islands with no other rulers. Even if that clergy member feels that they personally don't want to be ruled, or even that no one should be ruled, their flock may not agree. Their parishioners may love the state, work for the state or whatever. In service to who those people are, the clergy cannot just pretend like the state doesn't exist. The best clergy who I have ever known are acutely aware of the role of the state and the role of the individual members of the electorate. They work with all parties in concert. They minister to needy. They get arrested at protests. They speak out from within the systems.

As a tool for the state, clergy do great, postive work for individuals and for the collective.

Right to rule

For my part, I'm happy to live in the USA and have politicians govern. I'm happy to have senators, representatives, judges, a mayor, a governor, and a president. Do they have the right to rule over me?

Yes.

Why? It's not because I voted for them (some of them I didn't vote for).

They have that right to rule over me because I grant it as a citizen. If want to act to revoke that right I have choices.

1. I can vote against them and for someone else.
   
2. I can move to some place where they will not rule over me.

If I choose option number one, I'm saying I don't want to be ruled by this person specifically. But I still accept being ruled. If I choose option number two, it may be for many reasons, one of which may be that I'm rejecting being ruled at all. In that case, then I either choose to ignore the rules of the system of people who rule over me, or I try to find a place where I can live and not be ruled.

What about the issue of where the right comes from? The commenter, KF, said she didn't think any person had a right to rule over another. Clearly, people do rule over other people, so let's imagine that she doesn't think people should have such a right. In this case, perhaps, she'd argue that people therefore also shouldn't give people that right. And therefore she'd be bothered that I was giving all these people rights to rule over me.

I grant the right, gladly, because I'm willing to live in a system that is pluralistic. In which some of the rules match what I think are right and some don't. I'm willing to work on it collectively. I'm willing to argue. I'm willing to do those things because I believe that though our positions on any number of issues may differ, I can still work collaboratively with others to achieve certain goals for change. This system in the USA is pretty damn excellent. It was carefully built on the beliefs of pluralism, a strong government, and a carefully defined set of rights for individuals. It's not screwed up. The system allows for people to join up to get things done, to speak up when things are unjust and need changing, and to sit in a cabin in the woods. There is little compulsion, but the idea is that if you choose to be here, you agree with the idea, that we can do more together than we can do individually. That the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And that the country's motto, "E Pluribus Unum," is not a dusty old idea.

I'll sacrifice for that. I'll compromise for that. And I'll keep working for better. For me, that's the American Way. We're not looking for the easy way. We're down in the grimy machinery wrestling around with big ideas, pushing and pulling on the levers (somtimes even replacing them) to make the equipment work better for everyone. It's dirty.

Just a bit more

I'm an idealist and an optimist. I'll always be.

I know parts of the system are really messed up. But in my mind, they need good, loving, intelligent hands on them to make them right. The problems aren't helped by looking for the eject button. (Not yet at any rate! ;-))

Is marriage equality coming? I'm almost certain it is. Is slavery threatening to start up again legally in the USA? No. Anyone who would suggest it would not make much headway. Let's count that box as checked and move on. Marriage equality is an unchecked box (nationally). But just think of how much has happened for gay rights just in the past twenty or thirty years. The national level of acceptance is growing. Is the goal, 100%? I'd suggest caution. Not everyone thinks people of different ethnic backgrounds should marry, but that issue is a checked box. You don't need everyone to agree. Keep the goals clear and achievable. The people's will shall be done. Noam Chomsky has been asked about speaking truth to power. His response is that power can't always hear (or listen), so one should be sure to speak truth to people. Yes. Let's.

Topical tangent: Does providing a national healthcare system, like a social security system, fall under "promoting the general welfare?" I'm no expert, but like having state-run (and funded) fire and police departments on which we depend for safety and security, maybe we can get our heads around a wellness system that works in an efficient, preventative fashion to increase that general welfare of the people. People wiser than I struggle with this, so I'm not sure I've much to offer here.

So that's it. Good luck. See you on the other side.