Here's an important question for all Christians: Is it appropriate for the church as a body, and/or for individual church members, to advocate particular positions before governmental agencies in issues of justice? Some say the church should not meddle in politics and economics at all; others, however, think the church should speak assertively to elected officials - but can't quite say why. Think about this issue with me for a moment.

Every Halloween when the trick-or-treaters come around I look for the children with the UNICEF boxes. These little boxes, which I remember from my own childhood, are a modest symbol of the central ethical lesson of Christianity: love one's neighbor. Through UNICEF and in countless other ways, big and small, simple and complex, visible and invisible, churches and church people in the United States and around the world teach and live out their love and concern for their neighbor through works of mercy. As Presbyterians we are proud of the many acts of charity and compassion in which both our denomination as a whole and our many congregations engage.

Helping the neighbor - through soup kitchens, big brother and sister programs, building houses, preschools, tutoring programs, financial contributions and the like - flows from a basic and broadly shared understanding of Christian faith which includes, in fact demands, love for the neighbor far and near. And loving the neighbor is simultaneously a way to love God and a way to manifest God's own love for all.

Love of God and love of neighbor are so intertwined that part of what it means to love God is to love the neighbor. If one has any doubts about this primary obligation to care for and show concern for the other, simply open the gospels and look at the scriptural accounts of Jesus' own ministry, which was replete both with his own acts of love and compassion for the other and with his teachings to his followers to go and do likewise.

For the most part, acts of love such as soup kitchens and preschools are not controversial. In fact many of us enthusiastically teach our children at Halloween to carry the UNICEF box along with or instead of the bag for their own candy. It is a concrete way to teach them how to love the neighbor. We also admire persons who are engaged in acts of charity as volunteers, and those who contribute to charitable causes, and we respect the time and effort and resources that volunteers put into the activities in which they engage.

We admire acts of charity and compassion not simply because of the good they do, but also because we see such acts as a necessary and natural fruit of Christian conviction. Indeed, as we look back on the lives of those in our churches and in our society whom we most admire, we invariably evaluate the quality of their lives according not just to what they have achieved professionally, or according to what special talents they may have possessed, but also, importantly, we evaluate them morally. We ask what they have done for others.

This shared admiration for acts of care and concern for others can evaporate, however, sometimes dramatically, when personal acts of charity or compassion shade into or evolve into positions that appear to include advocacy. When the church begins to take a public stand on matters before the public, in the political arena, some Presbyterians get nervous. Thus building a house for Habitat for Humanity in order to provide affordable housing for one, local, low income family is an act which is admired and respected; advocating publicly for legislation for affordable housing for low income families in general is an act which, while morally consistent with the participation in the building of a house, may appear too overtly political for some church members.

It is almost as if we understand God to be present in small scale, personal, acts of love towards the other, but absent or obscured in larger scale social acts, acts which may be beneficial for many unknown others for many years to come.

There are several reasons for this shift of attitude when the arena of action moves from the private and personal to the social and political. A primary reason is that in the larger scale what love of the neighbor may mean or require in terms of public policy often quickly becomes both complex and confusing. Whereas the concrete need of individuals or families in one's neighborhood or community may be easily seen and understood, the needs of others as they are addressed through public policy and legislation are not so easy to grasp. We know fairly directly the effect of our individual acts of care for the neighbor. But care for the neighbor in the larger world, as expressed through public policies for which our church advocates, is not so readily discerned. Furthermore, even those who hold public office often do not agree even among themselves, either in their assessment of needs or in their recommended ways to meet those needs.

Given both the complexity of the public issues and the varieties of responses on the part of public officials, it is hardly surprising that when it comes to public policy Christians themselves can and often do disagree. Thus, even if two people in the same congregation were to agree, for example, on the goal of affordable housing for low income people, they may not agree on how to provide that housing, or even on what effect a given piece of legislation regarding affordable housing may have. Small wonder perhaps that many Christians decide simply to withdraw from such discussions altogether.

Or, if some Christians choose to pursue the issues and seek guidance in congregational discussions and from church leadership, they may discover that out of fear the congregation itself will get bogged down in controversy among members who feel strongly on both sides of an issue, a decision has already been made, implicitly or explicitly, not to engage in advocacy for that particular issue, or indeed for any issue at all.

While the effort to avoid controversy is understandable and may at times be the very best or even the only choice to make, in the understanding of the Reformed Tradition to which Presbyterians belong, one of the central reasons for the existence of the church is precisely for the sake of the neighbor, for the sake of the world. The church is not called to serve its own interests only, or even solely to worship God, but rather it is importantly, even urgently, called to witness publicly to, and to provide leadership in, both the love of God and the love of neighbor. The denomination's Confession of 1967 puts it this way:

"Wherever the church exists, its members are both gathered in corporate life and dispersed in society for the sake of mission in the world ... the church gathers to praise God ... to be tested, and reformed, and to speak and act in the world's affairs as may be appropriate to the needs of our time."

The church is called not only to nurture its own resources for itself, but also to participate in the careful stewardship of all of God's creation, and to advocate for justice for others in human societies. "Do no harm" is a sound rule for the moral bottom line for medical doctors. But the moral injunction for Christians - love both God and neighbor - requires a response which is far more active than simply doing no harm. In a complex world of competing claims and multiple interests and points of view, what active love requires is often complex and even controversial. And in a world in which most decisions and policies are made in places far removed from local, face to face communities, the way the church expresses its love for the world, for the neighbor, is often through active advocacy on certain, carefully chosen, public policies. Public policy is a critical arena in which to express one's love of neighbor - and of God.

Public advocacy is a way the corporate body of the church loves the neighbor or tends and keeps God's creation, just as participation in the building of a house is a way for a group or an individual to love the neighbor, or the UNICEF box is a way for the child to learn the love of the neighbor. In its public witness and advocacy, in spite of all its prayer, reflection and study, the church may not always correctly discern the issues at stake. It may err in the position it takes. This fact underlines the requirement for careful study; it does not, however, relieve the church from its public role.

Happily, there are clear benefits for congregations who are interested in, who actively help inform and are informed by the advocacy positions of the national church, and by the theological thought which has informed these positions. Moral discernment is a skill which grows through practice. Congregational study of a public issue is an opportunity to exercise corporate moral discernment and a chance for all involved to grow in understanding the ethical and theological dimensions of faith put into practice. Congregational study of a public issue, and the advocacy of the church on that issue, will teach individual Christians that inevitably, whether one likes it or not, ethical and theological positions taught by the faith live concretely in the form of public debate and policy initiatives.

Congregational study of an issue and of the advocacy position on that issue by the national church, even if, or perhaps especially, if one does not agree, is a chance for an individual congregation to allow itself to be challenged by the many perspectives of other congregations and by the perspective represented by those who speak for the national church. This is a precious part of what it means to be a connectional church. Growth in moral sensitivity and growth in the many other dimensions of faith often result in just such conversations and debates.

While this kind of conversation is not always easy and not always comfortable, the advocacy ministry of the church at the national level provides the occasion for the denomination to witness to the larger social world the values the denomination shares. It also provides congregations and individual members the opportunity to sort through tough moral and theological issues, not by themselves but in conversation with others. Thus advocacy is a way not only for churches to witness to their faith and its moral demands, but also for churches to learn together and to grow together in faith and in moral insight.

Humans being human, the opportunity to engage with and to learn from the public advocacy of the church on public issues is more or less appreciated depending on whether one agrees or disagrees with the position taken. But whether we agree or not, our Presbyterian tradition is one that affirms the importance of the continual study of public issues and the role of the corporate body in that study, and beyond study, the importance of corporate involvement in those public issues.

The Reformed Tradition, in its often pragmatic and no nonsense way, expects Christians to work vigorously for the common good in all varieties of ways, including public policy, and though all varieties of issues. Calvin himself is the Reformed Tradition's most prominent model for such active concern for the world, and we have him to thank for such public practices for the common good as free public education for all, for which he was an active advocate in the society of Geneva.