Principles, Goals and Objectives for the IMS Congregations in the Public Square Project

Prepared for the Huntsville Interfaith Mission Service

John W. Eley, Ph.D.
October, 2014
Introduction
This paper contains a set of recommendations for five principles, a major goal, six
supporting objectives and some practical activities that could be undertaken by the study
groups who will be involved in the principles and values project in the public square of
the Huntsville Interfaith Mission Service.

An Overview of the Effort

IMS is involved in Daybreak Alabama because it believes that faithful citizens, organized
as study groups, have both opportunities and obligations to participate in the public
square in pursuit of social justice that is consistent with their core values. It is working
with various congregational study groups in an effort to improve their capabilities to
participate in debates on public policy.
These study groups are committed to the general goal of promoting social justice and
connecting faith and public life. They are engaging in a process of deliberative decisionmaking that entails an examination of the essentials of policy disputes, as challenges for
persons of faith who seek to promote social justice, and to develop positions on issues
that reflect the results of theological investigation and reflection on practical policy
concerns.
IMS expects that faithful persons as citizens in a liberal democracy can function as both
citizens of faith and as active and productive citizens in an secular political world in
which religion plays an important, but not controlling. role. It assumes that they can serve
as agents for strong ethical positions that can serve as powerful forces for good in the
society and political system.
As a consultant to IMS, I offer my considered judgment on the principles, goals and
objectives that study groups should adopt as their own in order to carry out the mission
that they share with IMS. The recommendations that follow reflect the insights gained
from several extended conversations with members of the IMS leadership team, potential
facilitators and study group members and from extensive reading on the general subject
of religion and politics.1 They are based largely on a view that preferences the values of
our liberal democracy over the values of religious bodies, while maintaining the
The sources upon which I rely are addressed in a companion paper, still under
development, which offers a more academic approach to the subject matter
addressed in this paper.
1

necessary tension between the demand of faiths, as I understand them and the ethics of
citizenship. As a political scientist, I offer IMS and its supporting congregations
recommendations that they are respectful of the requirements of faith as well as the
demands placed upon all citizens by the principles of liberal democracy which protects
the free exercise of religion.

Five Key Principles Guiding the Study Groups

In this work the study groups should2 be guided by five key principles, outlined below.
The Principle of Meeting Dual Obligations
This principle holds that faithful citizens, organized as lay congregational study groups3,
which seek to become involved in dialogues and deliberations in the public square should
honor their faith traditions by (1) becoming active in the public square (2) supporting
ethically sound public policies (3) adhering to the fundamentals of our democratic ethos
and (4) modeling for others the practices of deliberative democracy. It assets that faith
and public life are tied together in basic ways, especially in regard to principles and
values, such as the pursuit of the common good. It views public policy as an ethical
enterprise conducted in a liberal democratic polity. This principle encourages the faithful
to be active doing Gods work in the world and to assume all the obligations of
citizenship, while striving to balance what may at times appear to be conflicting and
crosscutting pressures.

The Principle of Upholding Principles and Values as Foundations for Ethical Public
Policies
This principle holds that congregational study groups should enter the public
square in a way that adds to the depth and breadth of the discourse on public policy
as an ongoing conversation about principles and values. It is based upon the
understanding that all public policy debates are debates about the principles and
values that should be given effect through public policies. Thus, this principle
contends that expressions of support for principles and values by faithful citizens
should add important ethical concerns upon which all citizens of good will can draw
in their deliberations.

From this point on in the paper I will be using language that reflects the fact that I
am offering recommendations on what should be done. In order to avoid needless
repetition of should I employ other key terms such as need to and will which I
treat as having the same meaning as should. Where used these terms mean that I
am assuming that the recommendation has been accepted.
3 In this paper I use the term congregational study groups and study groups
interchangeably.
2

The Principle of Relying on Social Ethics

This principle holds that congregational study groups should rely on the social
ethics of their traditions as the foundations for their contributions to deliberations
in the public square. These statements of ethics outline principles and values
developed in a religious tradition in response to developments in the political
system and the society as they are interpreted through a religious lens. They
provide important mediating concepts between those principles in the foundational
texts of a tradition, including scripture, and the ethical stances developed by the
public policy process. Under this principle, social ethics function as public reasons
and meet a major requirement for reasonable decision-making.
The Principle of Honoring the Ethos of Liberal Democracy
This principle holds that study groups should enter the public square with the
understanding that they are obligated to honor the ethos of the liberal democracy in
which they function. They should recognize and appreciate the fact that this system
of governance rests upon the pillars of political equality, freedom, rights, and
respect for the rule of law that are worthy of support as the major context in which
congregational study groups function in the public square of a system that protects
the free exercise of religion. This democracy functions in the context of pluralism of
beliefs and values, none of which trump the others, as they contend in the market
place of ideas. This principle calls for considerable restraint on the part of religious
groups in efforts to employ the coercive power of the government to secure
religiously supported values and principles.
The Principle of Functioning via Deliberative Practices
This principle holds that congregational study groups that seek to be influential in
the public square should function as deliberative bodies following the basic
principles of equality, mutual respect and equal opportunities. By so doing they will
acquire the skills and attitudes upon which effective participation in the democratic
public sphere depends and serve as important models for others.

The Major Goal and Supporting Objectives of the Effort

In this pilot effort, IMS and the participating study groups should be testing an approach
that is directed to the major goal of increasing the capability of congregational study
groups to participate in dialogues and deliberations in the public square by responding
to opportunities and responsibilities inherent in this situation as they (1) honor their
faith traditions, (2) support ethically sound public policies (3) adhere to the

fundamentals of liberal democracy as a system of governance4 and (4) model for others
the practices of deliberative democracy.

Objective One: Developing a Commitment to the Five Core Principles

This objective emphasizes the importance of developing positions on pubic policy issues
by following the five key principles outlined above. In pursuit of this objective each
study group will engage in a collaborative learning process that will result in an
understanding of the principles and a commitment to adhere to them throughout the
effort. Study groups are expected to consider these principles as they work their way
through the six objectives outlined below.
Objective Two: Develop an Understanding of Public Policy Issues as Conflicts Over
Principles and Values
This objective flows from the central fact that public policy making includes an active
and ongoing consideration of the principles and values that American citizens want to
have supported or opposed by the government. These principles and values arise in the
debate as participants encounter aspects of a problematic situation, that they regard as
having ethical significance, e.g., the persistence of substantial inequality of income in the
citizenry has implications for the principle of equal opportunity. As this process unfolds
many of the principles and values of interest to persons who seek to promote principles
and values in the public square are examined, supported, or opposed. Examples include
the common good, solidarity among persons across lines of race and class, more equal
distribution of power and resources, redemption of humanity, liberation from oppression,
promotion of the common good, extreme individualism and consumerism and the
preservation of individual freedom.
The presence of these principles and values in the policy process creates opportunities for
a study group concerned about the good to take ethical positions and to add its voice5
with others in discursive efforts to support favored principles. They may be able to align
themselves with like-minded persons and add to a coalition in favor of certain principles
and values that citizens are already supporting and thereby contribute to the common
good, as they define it. This opens up the possibility that it can develop and sustain an
overlapping consensus of principles and values, as envisioned by John Rawls and others,
and move the political process to higher ground than it might otherwise traverse.
A study group with a strong orientation toward principles and values may be working on
a policy issue in which the participants are paying too little attention to the principles and
values that the study group sees as directly relevant, when the issue is viewed through a
In this case the term liberal should not be confused with the current usage in
contrasting liberals and conservatives, both of whom function in a liberal
democracy.
5 The means for doing so are outlined in Objective Four.
4

religious frame. In this case, a study group may have an opportunity to make an original
contribution to the ongoing dispute by offering an interpretation of the facts of the
situation in a way that illuminates their ethical significance and by connecting those facts
to important principles and values. For example, it may discover that participants are
attempting to resolve an issue on payday lending by focusing only on the purely
economic aspects of the practices of payday lenders. If this is the case, a study group may
choose to offer a preferred principle, such as avoidance of exploitation of the poor as a
principle that may shed new light on the policy options.
In pursuit of this objective each study group will review material on a policy issue
provided by their respective facilitators or engage in detailed analysis on its own. There is
no hard and fast rule here. Thus, the scope and depth of the policy analysis will vary from
group to group and from issue to issue. As a matter of prudence, a study group should
avoid getting so deep into the facts of a policy dispute that it loses sight of the underlying
principles and values.
Objective Three: To Employ Social Ethics as the Grounds for Developing Principles and
Values Relevant to Policy
Once a study group has acquired a good understanding of an ongoing policy dispute,
viewed as a contest over principles and values, and determined that its wishes to be
influential in that arena, it will face the challenge of developing policy relevant
principles, such as preference for the poor, that are consistent with the principles and
values of their faith traditions. In accomplishing this objective, a study group needs to
take full advantage of the accumulated wisdom of its tradition as reflected in its
statements known variously as social principles, social teachings or social ethics (referred
to hereafter as social ethics), which have been developed within its religious tradition.
These social ethics contain statements of the principles, values, norms, and rules that the
leaders, theologians and ethicists of its tradition believe ought to be supported in the
society and its political and governmental systems. These include basic concepts such as
preference for the poor, support for the dignity of persons, a concept of the inherent
dignity of all persons made in image of God, protection of the vulnerable and
marginalized. They, represent the application of religious ethics to the challenge of
Developing sound political ethics in response to changing conditions in the society and
economy. They may also reflect a more assertive effort to shape public policy in a
specific way.
As a practical matter, a study group is to pursue this objective by (1) reviewing the
material on social ethics provided by the groups facilitator and (2) determining which
among the various principles outlined in that material is most relevant to the issue with
which the study group is concerned.

Objective Four: To Develop Positions on Public Policy that Reflect the Spirit of
Democracy in a Diverse Society While Retaining the Message of Social Ethics
Once a study group has decided upon the social ethics that it wishes to promote, it will
need to develop an overall approach to the policy making system to which these ethical
principles are to be applied. The best approach is one that is consistent with the core
principles of our liberal democratic system in which citizens are expected to honor the
principles of freedom, equality, mutual respect, full citizen engagement and securing
consent of the governed. These expectations apply with equal force to all citizens
regardless of race, color, creed or even no creed.
In pursuit of this objective, a study group needs to view itself as an equal player in the
public square with no more and no less a claim on the outcomes of the process than any
other association of citizens. It should realize that the government is not simply one of
several institutions in the society capable of allocating goods and services to achieve
just, fair and ethically sound outcomes. Citizens, even those with strong normative
positions on the good, do not normally turn to the government for action until
and unless it has become clear to them that voluntary collaborative action by fellow
citizens will not secure the results that they seek. They turn to government in order to
accomplish that which they cannot accomplish by other means. They turn to the
government because it possess a monopoly of legal force and can compel citizens who do
not agree with public polices to obey them or be punished in some way. When the state
acts it always does so in the context of the use of latent or active coercion as the
mechanism of enforcement. This means each study group should commit itself to
exercise restraint when calling for coercive governmental action and be very cautious in
its advocacy of public policies which force other citizens to obey laws and regulations
that violate their core principles and values.6

Objective Five: To Pursue the Above Objectives via an Internal Deliberative Process
If a study group seeks to influence public policy in the context of a liberal democracy, as
indicated, above it will need to emphasize the important objective of making sure that its
own methods are democratic and deliberative. This points to the need to follow the
principles of deliberative democracy in internal deliberations concerning both the social
ethics to be employed, the principles and values to be recommended and the preparation
of statements containing the recommendations. Under the guidance of a trained facilitator
each member of the group should practice active listening, seek to be influenced by the
better argument, remain open to persuasion by others, monitor her emotional and
intellectual reactions to views with which she does not initially agree and allow each
person to have a voice.

This constraint applies to all citizens who seek to use the government to promote
their concept of the good.
6

Objective Six: Prepare a Statement Summarizing the Work of the Group and
Recommending Principles To Guide Resolution of the Issue
By pursing the four objectives outlined above, a study group will have done important
work and reached important conclusions that should be shared with others. Thus it should
develop a short statement that reflects the results of this sustained effort using the model
developed by IMS. (See revised Sample Report Handout). Each group may present this
report to its congregation, its clergy, and the general public, as it deems appropriate. It the
overall context of this set of recommendations, it should be clear that we assume that
broad dissemination of study group statements is the most appropriate action.

Attachment One
Sample Study Group Report on Ethical Public Policy7
The Study Group on Payday Lending of the Main Street Methodist Church is pleased to
announce the results of its study of the ethical implications of the continuing public
controversy over the need to impose tighter regulations on the practices of payday
lenders, i.e. those for profit financial institutions who lend money to individuals who are
able to offer either their paychecks from employment or their vehicles as collateral.
After several weeks of careful study and deliberation we have reached the conclusion that
we support all efforts in the policy process designed to develop regulations that will to
minimize the ability of certain payday lenders to engage in exploitation of poor and
needy persons by charging interest rates well above that charged normal customers and
provide incentives for more humane lenders to and to provide those seeking temporary
financial assistance with reasonably priced loads as they try to meet their daily needs for
food, housing, medicine and other critical needs.
Background to the Study
The origins of this effort lie in the commitment of members of the Study Group to
respond to the call of the Huntsville Interfaith Mission Service to become well informed
on this contentious issue of substantial or minimal regulation of a practice that has been
labeled by its opponents as predatory lending and to offer ethical sound principles that
can be used by those in the public square to make ethically sound decisions. We would
like to thank the IMS leadership for the assistance that it provided us throughout our
weeks of study and discernment.
Principles Guiding This Effort
The Principle of Meeting Dual Obligations
This principle holds that faithful citizens, organized as lay congregational study groups,
which seek to become involved in dialogues and deliberations in the public square should
honor their faith traditions by (1) becoming active in the public square (2) supporting
ethically sound public policies (3) adhering to the fundamentals of our democratic ethos
and (4) modeling for others the practices of deliberative democracy. It assets that faith
and public life are tied together in basic ways, especially in regard to principles and
values, such as the pursuit of the common good. It views public policy as an ethical
enterprise conducted in a liberal democratic polity. This principle encourages the faithful
to be active doing Gods work in the world and to assume all the obligations of
This is a hypothetical report comparable to the one that would be issued by a
congregational study group which adhered to the guidance provided in the paper
Principles, Goals and Objectives for the IMS Congregations in the Public Square
Project.
7

citizenship, while striving to balance what may at times appear to be conflicting and
crosscutting pressures.
The Principle of Upholding Principles and Values as Foundations for Ethical Public
Policies
This principle holds that congregational study groups should enter the public
square in a way that adds to the depth and breadth of the discourse on public policy
as an ongoing conversation about principles and values. It is based upon the
understanding that all public policy debates are debates about the principles and
values that should be given effect through public policies. Thus, this principle
contends that expressions of support for principles and values by faithful citizens
should add important ethical concerns upon which all citizens of good will can draw
in their deliberations.
The Principle of Relying on Social Ethics
This principle holds that congregational study groups should rely on the social
ethics of their traditions as the foundations for their contributions to deliberations
in the public square. These statements of ethics outline principles and values
developed in a religious tradition in response to developments in the political
system and the society as they are interpreted through a religious lens. They
provide important mediating concepts between those principles in the foundational
texts of a tradition, including scripture, and the ethical stances developed by the
public policy process. Under this principle, social ethics function as public reasons
and meet a major requirement for reasonable decision-making.
The Principle of Honoring the Ethos of Liberal Democracy
This principle holds that study groups should enter the public square with the
understanding that they are obligated to honor the ethos of the liberal democracy in
which they function. They should recognize and appreciate the fact that this system
of governance rests upon the pillars of political equality, freedom, rights, and
respect for the rule of law that are worthy of support as the major context in which
congregational study groups function in the public square of a system that protects
the free exercise of religion. This democracy functions in the context of pluralism of
beliefs and values, none of which trump the others, as they contend in the market
place of ideas. This principle calls for considerable restraint on the part of religious
groups in efforts to employ the coercive power of the government to secure
religiously supported values and principles.
The Principle of Functioning via Deliberative Practices
This principle holds that congregational study groups that seek to be influential in
the public square should function as deliberative bodies following the basic
principles of equality, mutual respect and equal opportunities. By so doing they will
9

acquire the skills and attitudes upon which effective participation in the democratic
public sphere depends and serve as important models for others.
A Brief Outline of Our Process
We began this effort by developing a good working understanding of the key aspects of
the issue of regulation of payday lending by analyzing the overall public discourse on the
issue and paying particular attention to the statements of various interest groups, advocacy
organizations, and public officials that are of interest to them and about which they wish
to form positions that can be expressed in the public square. We exchanged views and
perspectives in order to discern the ethically significant dimensions of the issue. We asked
ourselves Does the policy issue involve the value of security, equal opportunity, common
sense of humanity, protection of the poor, fairness, equity, etc.?
We learned that there are two major sides of this issue. There is a free market side, which
believes that payday lenders are providing a critical service to people who have great
difficulty in living from payday to payday and defends the practice as ethically sound.
This side supports prefers to let the market deal with the requirement for lending as
businesses see fit, with minimal governmental regulation.
There is a second the side of this issue, which interprets these lending practices as
exploitative and counterproductive as well as fundamentally unethical and wishes to see the
lending rates tightly regulated under Alabama law. This side gave the name predatory
lending to the practice that it wishes to regulate.
Since we wanted to develop a position that would speak to others in the congregation to our
leadership and to our fellow citizens we determined that we needed to form our opinion
about the values as stake in the context of our faith tradition rather than simply state
our own views. This lead us to an effort to discover what our faith tradition would wish us
to value in this case. We examined our social ethics as outlined in the public statements of
our official bodies and our leading ethicists and took our own ethical concerns into account.
We concluded that our tradition encouraged us to take a stand on the value of opportunities
for individuals to flourish and the value of supporting those who were attempting to create
a better life for themselves. We settled on the values of not exploiting those in need and
helping them to improve their lives by ethically sound lending as our primary ethical
positions consistent with our faith tradition.
We then asked if we needed to take our position into the public square, either as faithful
citizens or indirectly by encouraging our vestry and clergy to take a position on our behalf.
After some deliberation we decided that we wanted to take both approaches. We are
passing our recommendations along to our congregation leaders and preparing to enter the
ongoing public debate on this issue, as faithful citizens using the results of our study effort.

10

How We Worked Together

In conclusion we would like to stress that we followed the principles of democratic
deliberation throughout our process. We treated each other as equals worthy of respect and
love. We listened carefully to each other to make sure that we understood each other as
fully as possible. We questioned and challenged each other respectfully and with an
appropriate dose of humility concerning our individual abilities to discern the proper
position for us to take on the values that were at stake. We were able to do so with the
assistance of a trained facilitator who kept us on task and focused on the rules that we
had agreed to follow.

11