The Bible and Politics, pt. 3.3

And now for the final post of this week's lesson:

3. The Bible in Recent American Politics

In the last posting I mentioned the relationship between Ronald Reagan, the Religious Right, and the rise of biblical language in American politics. This mixture, as we will examine, continues with conservative President George W. Bush, but did not skip the Clinton administration. Indeed, from his famous ‘New Covenant’ speech to his second inaugural speech, Clinton drew heavily from the Bible for both quotes and imagery:

1. DNC Acceptance Speech, 1992: Clinton used the biblical language of the ‘new covenant’ (also used by the Puritans) to describe the government he would lead. He also quoted Proverbs 29:18 (‘without vision, the people perish’) to justify such a large-scale reimagining of the government’s role and purpose.

2. First Inauguration Speech, 1993: At the end of this speech, Clinton quoted Galatians 6:9 (‘and let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not’) to encourage America to work hard for his vision of a new government.

3. Second Inauguration Speech, 1997: Clinton started this speech with reference to America as the ‘promised land’ (also an old Puritan idea), and continued to speak of the ‘new American promise’ throughout. Noting that he had been given a Republican Congress to work with, Clinton decried partisanship and called upon Americans to be ‘repairers of the breach’ (Isaiah 58:12) between the parties.

After Clinton, of course, George W. Bush came to power, relying heavily on the strength of the Religious Right to get him there. In efforts to stay true to his ‘base’—and, presumably, himself—Bush’s speeches are often peppered with biblical language and imagery:

1. First Inaugural Speech, 2001: Bush declares that America will be the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), fueled by private initiative to take care of the poor. ‘And I pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.’

2. June 24, 2002 The President ends a call for new Palestinian leadership with a quote from Deuteronomy 30:19 ("I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life."). The quote is meant to urge all parties involved towards peace, but quoting from the Jewish Scriptures alone proves divisive.

3. September 11, 2002: On the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Bush pulls from John 1:1-5:

Be confident. Our country is strong. And our cause is even larger than our country. Ours is the cause of human dignity; freedom guided by conscience and guarded by peace. This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.

John 1, of course, calls Jesus—not the American ideal of freedom—the light that is not overcome by darkness.

Up until a few week’s ago, Bush’s chief speech-writer was evangelical Christian Michael Gerson. Though Gerson repudiates explicitly Christian language for political speeches, he argues that ‘there is a responsibility for public officials to maintain a principled pluralism that respects the important role of faith, but does not favor any sectarian creed.’ That being said, Gerson names the Sermon on the Mount as a central influence on his and Bush’s thinking, especially in its portrayal of a just God, and in its populous-oriented rhetorical style. But Gerson is cautious to state that policy cannot be gleaned directly from the Bible, but rather that ‘the Gospel stands in judgment of all human institutions and ideologies. It’s not identical with any one of them.’

Since the rhetorical humiliations of the 2000 elections, Democratic politicians have been eager to utilize the religious language that has won conservatives so much support. Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine, and other religious figures have been called in as advisors to help the Democrats learn religious speech that is true to their beliefs (disclosure: I work for Sojourners). Clinton notwithstanding, Democrats are traditionally known for their phobia of religious matters. After the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the beginning of the 20^th century, and the later rise of the Religious Right, religion has been viewed almost exclusively as the domain of conservatives. But Wallis and others are seeking to spark a ‘progressive’ religious politics that, in their view, is more ‘biblical’ than the politics championed by the Religious Right. At a recent Sojourners conference on faith and politics, both Democrat and Republican politicians mixed the Bible into calls for an end to poverty. But the keynote speakers at two major events were Democrats, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used their time to pick up Wallis’s progressive religious rhetoric. Clinton limited her biblical quotes to a reference to caring for the ‘least of these’ (Matthew 25:31-46), but Obama’s speech addressed the use of the Bible at length. Recognizing that the Bible is mainly used in politics by evangelicals with considerably different agendas than his own, Obama sought a nuanced position in which the Bible could be used in a more helpful way. He distanced himself from the conservative position of ‘biblical inerrancy,’ claiming that political realism and cultural pluralism necessitate a more careful, less literal use of the Bible. Chastened though it may be, this vision ensures that the use of the Bible in American politics will only increase in years to come.

Sources:

www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/speeches

www.whitehouse.gov/news/
For Bush’s speeches.

The Believer: George W. Bush’s Loyal Speechwriter
By Jeffrey Goldberg
The New Yorker, 2/13 and 20/2006
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact1

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html
Barack Obama’s recent speech.

Stephen B. Chapman, ‘Imperial Exegesis: When Caesar Interprets Scripture’ in Anxious About Empire, edited by Wes Avram (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004).
Analysis of Bush and Gerson’s use of Scripture.

The Bible and Politics, pt. 3.2

Here's the second section of the lesson on the Bible and Politics in the 20th century. I'll post a final section in the next couple of days on moves in recent politics.

2. Further Divide: The Civil Rights Movement and the Rise of the Religious Right

The next great outpouring of biblical language in American political discourse came in the decades of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The Civil Rights Movement was at the forefront of efforts to engage political structures with a biblical message, but the Religious Right was not far behind. Both movements began at the grassroots as church-based organizations for social change; both also emerged from the grassroots to have significant voices in national and state governments; and both used the bible extensively to make their political points. Nevertheless, each group used the Bible in distinct ways and for distinct ends.

The Civil Rights Movement: MLK and followers

Martin Luther King’s speeches and activities were heavily informed by the Bible. King claimed Matthew 5:47—‘love your enemies’—as the basis of his refusal to use violence, and much of his rhetoric was explicitly pulled from the Bible. For example, the famous ‘I have a dream’ speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, draws on Amos 5:24 (‘let justice roll like a river…’) and Isaiah 40:4-5 (‘every valley shall be exalted…’) for its rhetorical punch-lines. Similarly, King’s last speech, ‘I’ve been to the mountaintop,’ uses numerous biblical references as it implores preachers to speak out for justice in a time comparable to the Exodus.

The fruits of King’s biblical politics are varied. During his lifetime, he propelled the initial dismantling of segregation laws and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (removing poll taxes that kept poor blacks from voting); he later began to openly protest the Vietnam War. King also opened the door for many religious figures to enter the realm of politics. The most famous of these figures are, of course, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom staged unsuccessful presidential campaigns. Lesser known, perhaps, are activist John Perkins and Congressman John Lewis. In addition, King’s legacy has fueled a number of theological and church-based political movements. Among these we can count certain streams of black liberation theology, the progressive evangelical movements that started in the early 1970s (e.g., Evangelicals for Social Action and Sojourners), and several denominational justice programs. Like King, many of these followers use highly biblical rhetoric in their political advocacy.

The Religious Right
Although evangelicals and fundamentalists had mostly avoided the American political forum since the Great Reversal of the early 20^th century, the conservative Christian political voice exploded onto the scene in the early 1970s. During the preceding decades, a series of legislation had begun to curtail Christian influence in education and politics, and the tide of dissent began to be ride. But it was the decision of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 that galvanized the then-disparate opposition into the movement we know as the Religious Right. Specifically, Jerry Falwell and others organized a grassroots network that eventually wielded enough power to play a significant role in national electoral politics. Falwell’s Moral Majority (founded in 1979) helped stage President Reagan’s first victory, and Reagan responded with speeches that included Christian and biblical language. (For instance, Reagan quoted Isaiah 40:29, 31 to explain God’s blessing on the war on communism.)

Later, Pat Robertson organized the Christian Coalition to help stage his own unsuccessful presidential bids, but also to oppose the influences of the liberal Clinton administration. The Coalition’s vision statement, as stated on their website, begins with a quote from 2 Corinthians 5:17—‘…all things are become new’—to illustrate their renewed quest to ‘defend America’s Godly heritage.’ Former Coalition boss Ralph Reed is currently running for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia on a platform that, among other things, advocates for the display of the 10 Commandments at courthouses and other political institutions. For the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and other groups on the Religious Right, biblical language is at right at home in the political discourse of this ‘Christian America.’

Questions:

1. Take a minute to read Isaiah 40 (http://bible.oremus.org/). How do you feel about the way King used it? About how Reagan used it?

2. Reflecting on section 1 of this lesson, do you think the different ways the Civil Rights Movement and the Religious Right use the Bible are influenced by the earlier fundamentalist-modernist controversy?

Sources:

Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada.

www.ralphreed.com

www.cc.org (website of the Christian Coalition)

www.moralmajority.us

www.stanford.edu/group/King/ (source for King’s speeches)

www.reaganlegacy.org/speeches/

The Bible and Politics, pt. 3.1

Since I tend to write a lot (see last week), I've decided to break up the lessons into three or four parts. Today's post represents section one of lesson 3, and the rest of the lesson will come in the next few days.

Few of us, I imagine, would disagree that something changed in the 20th century in the way the Bible was used in American politics. Even in this age of Bush’s ‘evil doers,’ it is probably hard for most of us to imagine a president giving a speech like Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, in which a number of Bible passages were quoted to call out the nation’s sin of slavery. Indeed, whatever has changed in the last 100 years or so is precisely why so many are uncomfortable with President Bush’s religious and moral rhetoric: for some it is not ‘religious’ (or ‘Christian’) enough, for others it is far too religious.
In this lesson we will examine the fate of the Bible in American politics during the 20th century. In effect, we will be looking at the historical conditions that have given rise to the need for a class like this one. On one hand, I hesitate to offer this lesson, because your comments during the past two weeks are perfect evidence of the tensions described herein. But, on the other hand, attention to recent history may help clarify our understandings of one another’s positions. It is with this goal in mind that I offer the following reflections.
This lesson is in a sense a reflection on the split between conservatives and liberals at the beginning of the 20th century. That split ostensibly occurred along theological lines, but it has enormous effects on what each of us perceives to be the relationship between religion and politics, and by extension the use of the Bible in politics. We will examine the split in successive stages, starting with the Social Gospel and evangelical quietism. Then we will look at the emergence of the black church as a political force during the Civil Rights movement, followed by the reemergence of white Christian conservatism as the Religious Right during the 1970s and 80s. Finally, we will look at moves made by recent political figures to adopt biblical language. As always, please feel free to fill in my gaps and correct my errors!

1. The Great Reversal and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy
From 1900-1930, roughly, American Protestant evangelicalism underwent a ‘Great Reversal’ away from its earlier interests in progressive social change. Theological issues were important here, as an increasing interest in personal holiness and the ‘dispensation of the Spirit’ focused attention away from societal structures. But, as historian George Marsden argues, more important than those issues was the growing split between fundamentalists and ‘modernists.’ Originating in disputes over the divinity of Christ and, especially, the authority of the Bible, the ‘fundamentalist-modernist controversy’ soon spilled over into other areas. Because, at the time, social issues were primarily the provenance of theologically liberal Social Gospelers (discussed in last week’s lesson), many fundamentalists began abandoning social and political concern altogether.
For a time, though, theologically conservative Christians continued to exert political influence, but now progressive issues were given up in favor of attempts to defend the fundamentalist view of scriptural authority. Nowhere is this shift seen better than in the debate over Darwinian evolution. For many conservative Christians, evolution represented an affront to biblical doctrines of creation and providence. William Jennings Bryan, the former monopoly breaker and defender of the poor (as discussed in last week’s lesson), now signed on as the fundamentalists’ foremost defender of biblical authority, serving as the prosecutor of a rural-Tennessean school teacher who taught evolution (in the Scopes Trial, 1925). Though Bryan won the case, the defense made a widely-publicized mockery of his and other fundamentalists’ understanding of the Bible, and the intellectual legitimacy of fundamentalists was forever called into question.
Bryan’s fall, alongside other public embarrassments, severely restricted fundamentalist involvement in American public life. For several decades, fundamentalists chose (or were forced into) a quietist path in which they focused on building their own societal network of schools, churches, and businesses. Concern for larger society was regarded as ‘liberal,’ and most fundamentalists stayed away from what we have defined as American politics. Given that their reputation was severely damaged, however, it was highly unlikely that they would have been welcomed into American politics. Indeed, many liberal Christians felt it necessary to distance themselves from fundamentalists to the extent that they dropped explicitly Christian language from their public discourse. For a time at least, the Bible was more or less silent on the political front.

Sources:
See especially Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture.

Questions:
Where do you locate yourself on the spectrum between fundamentalism and 'modernism' (or liberalism)? Can you see how your theological heritage has influenced your opinions on the use of the Bible in American politics?

The Bible and Politics, pt. 2

I apologize for the lateness of this posting. I hope you are all having a great vacation weekend and look forward to the discussion in the coming days!

The purpose of this lesson and the next is to frame the rest of our discussion within some of the history of the Bible’s use in American politics. My hope is that, as we wrestle with the history, we will start to uncover some of the more theoretical issues we will tackle later. I have tried to be fair, showing a broad range of history and a broad range of uses of the Bible. Nevertheless, due in part to constraints on time and space, I am sure I have missed some important issue, speech, or debate; your questions and comments are much appreciated to fill out the picture.


This lesson deals with American life from some of the initial European migrations to reform movements in the 19th century. The next lesson focuses on different movements in the 20th century. This week we will look at five issues: (1) European immigration to America, (2) the American Revolution, (3) the First Amendment to the Constitution, (4) slavery and civil war, and (5) the Second Great Awakening and 19th-century social reform.

1. Immigration and the Bible
At the heart of the changes wrought by the 16th-century Protestant Reformation is the doctrine of sola scriptura: ‘Scripture alone’ should guide church practice, not tradition or reason. This belief combined with newly and widely available translations of the Bible in colloquial languages to give rise to an ever-increasing number of interpretations of the Bible, as is evidenced by the ever-increasing number of Protestant denominations and churches. Though by this point in time we are quite used to having widely different understandings of the Bible, in the 16th and 17th centuries such diversity of interpretation was still new, and was resisted by many quarters. In England a number of groups arose to either ‘purify’ the official Church of England, or to separate from it entirely. Persecution of those groups, which we know as the Puritans, Pilgrims, Quakers and others, led to migration to more religiously tolerant lands, first to other European nations (especially Holland), and later to America.
At stake in these migrations were communities’ rights and abilities to live life as they saw it defined in the Bible. In such a view what we consider ‘private’ religion and ‘public’ politics were undivided, and political structures were set up to reflect the various groups’ biblical understandings. For example, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony saw themselves as erecting a ‘city on a hill’ (see Matthew 5:14) that would demonstrate to the world what a biblically-ordered community would look like. Sin could not enter such a community, so the government erected laws that would help its citizens avoid sin (for instance, marriage was required by law) and harsh punishments to restrain sin.
Another, very different, example is the Pennsylvania colony established by William Penn and other Quakers. Penn’s ‘holy experiment’ was meant to reflect Quaker teachings of biblical non-violence, loving treatment of all humans, and democratic decision making. These ideals led to Pennsylvania’s unprecedented religious toleration (for its time), relatively just treatment of Native Americans, and refusal to form a militia—that is, until the Quakers lost political power. For many settlers in Massachusetts Bay, Pennsylvania, and other colonies, therefore, immigration to America was an opportunity to align their reading of the Bible with political structures.

2. The American Revolution
Though we commonly think of unjust taxation and unfair representation as the primary motivations for the American Revolution, biblical reasoning was brought to bear throughout the process. On one hand, Presbyterian pastor John Witherspoon gave biblical support to the revolutionaries through sermons on resisting injustice; on the other hand, Anglican minister and loyalist Jonathan Boucher preached against interpretations of Galatians 5:1 (‘for freedom Christ has set us free’) that were being used to justify the revolt. Pacifist Christians like Quaker Anthony Benezet offered an alternative when they argued that Christ’s injunction to love one’s enemies (Matthew 5:44) should steer the colonies away from any consideration of war.

3. The First Amendment to the Constitution
Drafted immediately after the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ These words, as we all know, have been argued over ever since. Though knowing their views does not settle the debate, looking at early interpretations of the clause by the ‘Founding Fathers’ is an instructive part of our historical overview.
The most famous interpretation of the so-called Establishment Clause was provided by Thomas Jefferson: the clause erects a ‘wall of separation between Church and State.’ The essential function of this ‘wall’ was to ensure that men (unfortunately, only men) of all religious persuasions could participate in political life without hindrance. Similarly, James Madison interpreted the clause to prohibit officially-sanctioned national days of prayer and the pay of government chaplains. Early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, however, saw the clause as permitting a close relationship between Christianity and the state (for which he advocated), so long as that relationship did not infringe on others’ freedom of worship.
These arguments have been repeated over and over through the decades of American life, and we probably will not settle them here. Notable for our purposes, however, is the ambiguity of the Establishment Clause in regards to using explicitly religious language—such as biblical quotations—in political discourse. Even if Jefferson’s ‘wall of separation’ exists to allow political participation by a diverse constituency of religious and, we presume, non-religious people, what does that participation look like? Do the sacred texts of the various groups make it over the wall, or are they stopped on the ‘Church’ side of it?

4. Slavery and Civil War
From early on, the debate over slavery was waged along biblical lines. Puritan politician and minister Samuel Sewall wrote what many consider to be the first anti-slavery tract produced in America. Writing in 1700, Sewall quotes Exodus 21, Psalm 65 and Acts 17 to the effect that all humans are God’s children and none should be enslaved. He then goes on to counter the biblical arguments given for slavery—namely, that black people are the punished descendents of Cain and that Abraham owned slaves—by offering alternative explanations of those passages. Quaker organizer John Woolman and ex-slave Frederick Douglass are two other early figures that argued against slavery on explicitly biblical grounds. Indeed, Douglass summed up his political position by quoting Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people."
Biblical positions motivated both sides on the Civil War that eventually broke out to address the issue; soldiers, preachers, and politicians quoted freely from the Bible to support their diverse positions. Near the war’s end, President Lincoln offered his own analysis of the conflict:

Both [sides of the war] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other…. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

These lines, coming from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, regard the war as divine punishment for slavery, a fulfillment of Jesus’ saying about ‘offenses’ (Matthew 18:7).

5. The Second Great Awakening and 19th-Century Social Reform
Other opponents of slavery were part of the great ‘evangelical’ revival movement known as the Second Great Awakening (~1795-1810). Charles Finney and Asa Mahan, two of the most popular revival preachers, saw no rift between ‘saving souls’ and advocating for structural change in society. In fact, the ‘holiness’ they preached was based on Old Testament guidelines, which they recognized as inherently political.
Though this evangelical fusion of social and spiritual concern did not last past the 19th century, in one form or another it did characterize many of that century’s various reform movements. Labor laws, prohibition, women’s suffrage, education, and health care were all issues picked up under biblical auspices. For the first half of the 19th-century or so, many evangelicals saw no problem advocating for structural change based on the Bible. In the second half, however, evangelicals eschewed structural transformation as the domain of the so-called modernists. While evangelical women formed private ‘benevolence societies’ to care for the sick and poor and Sunday Schools to provide education for a great portion of society, proponents of the ‘Social Gospel’ continued to use the Bible to address structural issues. Social Gospelers Walter Rauschenbusch, Josiah Strong, and others offered biblical critiques of both the church and government’s failures to adequately care for the poor, especially in urban areas. Similarly, though not associated with the Social Gospel movement, Democratic politician William Jennings Bryan used biblical arguments to attack unjust labor conditions and economic practices.

Some questions to consider:
1. What are your reactions to the various uses of the Bible represented here? Do they challenge or affirm your earlier opinions about how the Bible should or should not be used in American politics?

2. We have seen that the Bible has often been used to support opposing political positions (such as on slavery or the American Revolution). What does the diversity of biblical perspectives say to you about how the Bible can or cannot be used in politics? Is there a caution that emerges from seeing so many different interpretations? A prohibition against the Bible’s use in American politics?

3. 19th-century evangelicals moved away from using the Bible to effect structural change, preferring to leave charity work up to the private sector. What do you make of this move? Does the Bible speak more to ‘private’ charity, public institutions, or neither?

4. What are some other pre-20th-century uses of the Bible in American politics?

Sources:
Every week, I'll give a few of the sources that were most helpful in preparing the lesson.

George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992).

Stephen H. Webb, American Providence: A Nation with a Mission (New York and London: Continuum Press, 2004).

http://www.rootsweb.com/~mosmd/#part1
Information on Puritans.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech.

http://www.wikipedia.com
Information on everything!

The Bible and Politics, pt. 1

And now, for something completely different. Or, maybe not.
For the next eight weeks or so I'm turning this spot over to Jamie Pitts (more on Jamie below -- and, yes, we will have to get the man a good nom de blog!) He will be the primary poster for an on-line "class" the centers on the Bible and politics. I'll continue to chime in, and sometimes I'll actually address that topic, although I promise to remain steadfast in my randomness. In any case, here's the first post from Jamie, and may a rich conversation begin:

From President Bush’s speeches, to recent Democrat efforts to learn ‘religious language,’ the use of the Bible in American political discourse is a contentious topic. Some say the Bible and politics have nothing to do with each other: either the Bible has nothing to say about politics, or our church and state policies prohibit such a mixture.

Others argue that the Bible can only be corrupted by politicians who invariably twist it to their own agendas. Proponents of this view often call on the church—the only organization, they feel, that can legitimately use the Bible—to engage in the ‘prophetic’ task of resisting status quo politics; some see this resistance coming through local communities that demonstrate an alternative politics, others through active revolt against the prevailing authorities.

Another approach sees little problem with using the Bible in American politics. After all, some argue, America is a ‘Christian nation’; biblical rhetoric can only call the nation back to its roots. Others in this camp are more cautious in speaking of America’s Christian identity, but still maintain that Christians can and should use biblical language in political discourse, since that language is (or should be) the foundation of their political views.

What are we to make of such confusion? Perhaps, if you’re like me, you throw up your hands in exasperation and decide that not using the Bible in political discourse is better than using it badly—or at least than using it when we’re not really sure how to do it correctly. That’s an easy stance when most of what passes for political discourse consistently mangles the Bible, clearly illustrating concerns about political manipulation of biblical language. But then, occasionally, you may find yourself passionately agreeing with a certain politician’s use of the Bible: a quotation about God’s justice to support a program for the poor; a verse on God’s love to advocate for more inclusive policy. What do we do then? Do we hold to a principle of separation of church and state? Or do we applaud the ‘right’ use of the Bible, at least just this once?

In this class I hope that we can explore a few of the issues surrounding this dense topic. We’ll look at some historical and contemporary uses of the Bible in American politics to get a feel for the context we’re working with. Then we’ll examine some of the places in the Bible itself where scriptures are quoted in ‘political’ contexts; Jesus’ use of Jeremiah and Isaiah to condemn the temple (Mark 11:17) is one prominent example. Finally, we’ll look at some of what theologians and philosophers are saying about religious language in public discourse, a non-technical examination of some of the positions mentioned above. This is only a rough plan for what we’ll be talking about in the next 8 weeks; my hope is that your questions and comments will lead us in new directions.

A note about the word ‘politics’ as used in this class: I am convinced that everything we do as the body of Christ is ‘political’ in nature, that is, it witnesses to the social life that all humans are called to in some degree or another. Thus, simple acts like communion or baptism can be powerful statements of economic solidarity and the inclusion of society’s marginalized. The Bible seems to reflect this understanding of the church’s political nature when it calls the church a polis (Matthew 5:14), a common Greek word for city, and an ecclesia (Matthew 18:17, among others), a Greek word used for political assemblies.

In common parlance, however, we use ‘politics’ to refer to what local, state, national, and international governments do. For most of us the mayor and the president do politics, not the pastor, and certainly not us when we gather on a Sunday morning (or Friday night, or whenever).

One goal I have for this class is that we would think through how we use the term ‘politics.’ Do we believe the church’s internal practices are really political? If not, why not? But in the meantime, let’s try to be sensitive to the linguistic issues involved in discussing faith and politics. In the paragraphs above I tried to walk the line, discussing the Bible’s use in ‘American politics.’ This phrase isn’t completely satisfying, but I hope it conveys that what we are mainly talking about is the Bible’s use in the politics that happen outside of the faith community.

A note about the class: I am very grateful to David for allowing me to teach this class on his blog. I hope that the same openness and care that seem to characterize his ministry can be at work in this class. In other words, I look forward to a gentle, honest exchange of deeply held beliefs about tough matters. I pray that our unity in faith would transcend disagreement, that we would be a true family of sisters and brothers—even if we disagree with each other, we have to stick together!

Logistically speaking, there’s not much to say. I’ll post new ‘lectures’ every Sunday evening for the next 8 weeks, and then we can discuss throughout the week. I’ll close each lecture with some questions to facilitate discussion, but please feel free to ignore them! I’ll also try to put up some bibliographic information for those interested in further reading.

For those of us in the DC area, we’ll be trying to get together for a couple of brunches. Details will be posted ASAP.

A note about me: I am just graduating from Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California with a Masters in Divinity. The MDiv degree is pretty broad, but I tried to tie together theological and philosophical ethics with studies in Anabaptist theology. A focus for me in theology and politics is US-Mexico border culture and policy, and I have tried to write on those issues as much as possible. I’m also a musician, and I have played drums for several bands in LA and Austin, Texas (my hometown). I look forward to getting to know you all more in the coming weeks.

Questions:

1) What is your immediate reaction to the phrase ‘Bible and politics’? Do you think the two should be forever separated? Forever united?

2) Is there any political speech that stands out in your memory for its use of the Bible? Any particular politician?

3) How do you feel about the description of the church as a political institution? Are the church’s ‘politics’ different in any way from other politics?

One Last Letter from Birmingham

Lest I be accused, accurately, of providing only my own narrow view of things from Birmingham, this final letter from the assembly comes from the moderator of the 217th General Assembly and from the denomination's stated clerk. This, then, is the official view from Birmingham.
A Message to Congregations from the Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
June 25, 2006
To Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) congregations
Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The Lectionary Psalm for today is Psalm 133: How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity!
As the 217th General Assembly met together in Birmingham, it was remarkable to see Presbyterians from north, south, east, and west gathered together to discern the mind of Christ for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). We witnessed the work of the Spirit in and through the assembly, giving us a glimpse of our visible oneness in Jesus Christ. We give thanks that the assembly theme, “So Great a Cloud of Witnesses” (Heb. 12:1) permeated the community of faith within the convention center.
In this meeting, we saw commissioners and advisory delegates living out in word and deed their deep commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, their passion to be living expressions of Christ’s love to the world, and their eagerness to be a part of the future God intends for the PC(USA). We experienced the Presbyterian process of doing things at its best. We observed people working fairly and treating each other graciously.
This assembly dealt with hundreds of items, and a few made headlines across the country. Most likely, you have read or will read about the assembly’s actions from a number of sources over the next many days and weeks, but we want you to hear about this important gathering directly from the General Assembly. That is why we are writing this letter to you.
We know of three particular decisions that made immediate headlines. Here is what the assembly did with each of them:
--Israel/Palestine issues: This General Assembly acknowledged that the actions of the 2004 assembly caused hurt and misunderstanding among some Presbyterians and our Jewish neighbors. However, this assembly did not rescind the previous action on divestment. Divestment is still an option, but not the goal. Instead, this assembly broadened the focus to corporate engagement to ensure that the church’s financial investments do not support violence of any kind in the region.
--Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church: With the approval of this report, the assembly did not alter our historic standards for ordination. However, it did make clear that more responsibility is to be exercised by sessions and presbyteries regarding the examination of candidates for ordination. By an overwhelming majority, the assembly also affirmed our covenantal partnership, our common theological roots, and the need for prayer in Christian communities as we make decisions.
--The Trinity: The assembly received a paper that affirms “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the church’s primary language for the Trinity. The paper also lifts up other biblical images of the Trinity for study and use in worship.
We hope, over the months ahead, you will hear about the other items that did not make headlines: new church development, Christian education, evangelism, older adult ministries, homelessness, globalization, international mission, multicultural issues, disability awareness, and military chaplains, to name a few.
It was obvious to us that this assembly, like the church, had deep differences on a number of issues. But, the longer we were together, the more we realized how much we have in common in Jesus Christ and the more we realized we need one another.
The unity we seek for the church and the unity we experienced at the assembly is not just about coming to an agreement. It is also about being with each other in the healthy struggle to discern God’s will. It was that healthy struggle we witnessed at the assembly, and in that struggle we were blessed. God’s Spirit was with us. Not everyone will like what the commissioners did, but the spirit coming out of the assembly was something we think will be a blessing to the whole church.
Indeed, we are convinced that God has a future for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). We invite you to join us as we move with renewed enthusiasm to doing God’s work in the world.
Yours in Christ,
The Reverend Joan S. Gray
Moderator of the 217th General Assembly (2006) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
The Reverend Clifton Kirkpatrick
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Surely I don't see everything eye-to-eye with the moderator or the clerk, but their letter does capture the spirit of this assembly. Some are calling it the "nobody was happy" assembly, and surely no one left completely satisfied with where we are. But I left full of hope, convinced that God is still speaking to us and through us to the world.
As I said earlier, despite the fact that it appeared to us all that we were gathered in Birmingham, I think the space we occupied was more that of Montgomery following the bus boycott of the mid-1950s. That work did not change the constitution nor the statutes of Alabama or of the nation, but it did create a fundamentally new social space and altered forever the relationship of white folks and black folks.
I believe we have altered the ecclesiastical space. I hope that someday we look back on what the 217th General Assembly did and say, "that gathering was the beginning of the end of the homophobic, patriarchal church."

Letter from the Brimingham Convention Center, cont.

I was out running this morning, trying to clear my head and enjoying the thick Alabama humidity when I heard church bells ringing. They were playing Ode to Joy. I looked around to see where they were coming from. It was an Episcopal church.
Our Anglican sisters and brothers are in the midst of their own divisions right now over the selection of a woman as presiding bishop, yet their bells ring out joyfully. Perhaps it's because they are experiencing a new way of being together as church, a new day in the life of the communion.
I did take a moment's unholy pride in being a Presbyterian as we celebrate the anniversaries of women's ordinations at this assembly: 100 years of ordaining women as deacons; about 75 years of ordaining women as elders; about 50 years of ordaining women as ministers of word and sacrament. We selected a woman as moderator of this 217th General Assembly without a ripple.
Of course, a moderator is not a presiding bishop, for which I am also glad, for today the church gathered in Assembly charted a new direction for our denomination by passing virtually unamended the final report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church.
The report has been before the church for almost a year now, and there remains much doubt about how its passage will change us. I am hopeful that it will be a creative third way the moves us beyond the debate mode of the past 30 years of dispute about ordination and sexuality.
It does not answer the root questions, but it may provide space for being together as church and moving closer to that day when we are celebrating the anniveraries of the ordinations of queer folk -- so let a few church bells ring today.

A good friend and colleague of mine from camp counseling days some 20+ years ago when our hair was darker and thicker. I had not seen him since our now 15-year-old was an infant. In the end, relationships trump issues and connections in the body of Christ are more important than victories at GA. As much as I hope for strides toward justice this week, the joyous surprise of catching up with Pat will be the best thing that happens here this week for me no matter what happens. And hey, he made the Presby news, too, looking every bit as happy to be here!

Letter from the Birmingham Convention Center, cont.

I walked into a deli at lunch time today and wound up in line in front of a past moderator of GA. He served as moderator of the 1978 GA which passed what became the definitive guidance to the church on homosexuality.
He expressed a profound hope that the PUP report, if passed in its entirety, might help the church twist free from the reified opposition in which we've been locked these past 30 years.
I share that hope, even though I long for a day of justice upon which true peace is built; a day of equality upon which unity is based; a day of compassion of unsurpassed purity. The PUP report is not the end which many of us desire -- the final removal of G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. Still, it may just be a means toward that end.
Being in Birmingham, many of us are reaching to the Civil Rights Movements for historical analogies. With respect to the rights of GLBT folks we are not yet in Birmingham. We are closer to Montgomery and the bus boycott. That movement laid claim to an ultimate aim of ending racial discrimination, but it did not ask for the end of all legal discrimination. Rather, it asked initially for a simple change in the relationship, in the social arrangements between black folks and white folks in the Jim Crow South. Literally, it asked for a new way of being together on the bus.
The PUP report does not ask for the end of legal discrimination in the church, but it does ask for a new way of being together as church. Just as Montgomery did more to change social space than it did to change legal space, the PUP report could do more to change ecclesiastical space than it does to change constitutional space in church orders. It's a slim reed, indeed, but it's the only one to grasp at right now.
As we stood in line in the deli, I noticed that many of the folks around us wore red bagdes that read "juror." They were on their own lunch break from trials in the nearby justice center. Somewhere in that complex, I think, is the Birmingham City jail from which Dr. King wrote his famous letter. At one table in the deli, three young African-American women wearing the juror badges were enjoying their lunch. In 1963, when King was jailed here, jurors who judged any case in Alabama were always all white. (Indeed, they were also all men, because it was against the law for women to serve on juries in Alabama in 1963, too.) Defenders of the Jim Crow South grounded their positions in scripture (as did those who opposed recognizing the rights of women).
But today, Birmingham, Selma and Montgomery claim their places in the history of an expanding dream of justice and equality. The beloved community is as yet unrealized. Racism, homophobia, patricarchy remain facts of life here and around the world. Nevertheless, the simple act of standing in line in a downtown deli in Birmingham today gives me hope that the justice arc bends ever closer to that day when black folks and white folks, Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Gentiles, women and men, straight and gay can gather together around one table -- and please, make it a New York deli instead of a Birmingham one! Oy!
Whether or not PUP emerges will likely be determined tomorrow. It escaped unscathed from committee but was chased by a minority report that will haunt us in the morning. For an extended report, see the GA news. We are sure to enjoy a long day of parliamentary procedures. Robert's Rules do not the kingdom usher in, I am certain.
The Spirit of Pentecost is not decent and in order. Maybe tomorrow the church of Jesus Christ will not be either.

Letter from the Birmingham Convention Center, cont.

I experienced a foretaste of the kingdom this morning, in a beautiful worship at a local UCC congregation. We sang and prayed and broke bread together with joy, and all God's children, white folk and black folk, men and women, young and old, straight and gay were there. The sermons -- I am overly churched for sure this week -- focused on the kingdom and its radically inclusive nature. Like the bush that grows from the tiny seed and gives a home for the birds -- the mustard weed that grows uncontrollably. Hm, down here perhaps the kingdom of God is like kudzu.
It is not, however, like a bus. Or, better, the bus is not the kingdom. Some folks were lingering a bit long following worship and we were having a conversation on the bus about whether it was welcoming and hospitable to abandon them if they didn't hurry up. The kingdom may wait, but you're either on the bus or you're not!
Lots of folks in our pews are not on the bus. That seems to be the message in the ecclesiology committee, where the parsing of the PUP report has begun in earnest and the long knives are out. I just left their meeting where they were in an interminable debate about a motion to refer the critical parts of the report to the presbyteries for discernment.
Seems some folks feel like they haven't had time, even though the process has been underway with interim reports and guidance for half a decade. A five years that comes at the end of 30 years of discussion and debate about ordination. At a certain point, ignorance of an issue is a choice for which the rest of us cannot be responsible. You're either on the bus or you're not.
Of course, the report calls for precisely a season of discernment, but a season guided by and conducted under a different understanding of our polity. I am not a fan of the report because I am not patient with more discernment on the issue of ordination. You don't need to read far in this blog to know that.
Nevertheless, I do believe this report presents the church with an opportunity to twist free of the paralyzing polarization within which we have been locked for more than two decades. The delaying tactics -- oops, I mean the "motion to refer" aims to put us right back into our well-established divisions, locked in a stagnant non-relationship that is going absolutely nowhere.
This report does not do justice for queer folk, but it changes the terrain and, perhaps, opens a space in which we may stride toward that justice. I may be mistaken in that hope, but it is the only hope before the assembly right now.
Of course, they have talked it to death this afternoon, so I'm off to get some much-needed exercise. I've been on the bus too long today.

wake me when it's over

Your faithful blogger, toiling in the fields of the Lord, bringing in the kingdom in the committee on mission priorities and budgets. Do I look happy to be here or what?! Actually, it has been a good committee doing necessary -- if less than scintillating -- work. The hot-button issues are moving -- or not, as the case may be -- in other committees, and you can get an update on the pcusa.org site or wait till after church for commentary from this site. (All the photos from the assembly are from Presbyterian News Service unless otherwise noted.)

Letter from the Birmingham Convention Center, 2

One's view of the assembly becomes quite myopic when the entire day is spent in the confines of a single committee -- especially when it is committee 8, on budgets and mission priorities. None of the hot-button issues are coming our way. Instead, we are reviewing the budget and mission plans of the reconstituted General Assembly Council. All of the concerns related to the recent downsizing of staff at Louisville come our way. It could be quite depressing what with all of the budget cuts and revenue loss, but it has been, instead, remarkably hope filled.
The tide turned from an attitude of scarcity to one of abundance on the first night of the assembly when an elder and businessman from Colorado stood before the entire assembly and told the story of how the church had been present for his grandmother when she was left widowed with seven children (don't quote me on the number of kids!), and how the church had been there for his family in his own childhood as well. It was a sweet story, gently told. All of us anticipated, I believe, that we were about to be told of a generous gift. I suspect we shared similar thoughts: "this guy is going to give the church six figures ... perhaps a million dollars."
I'm sure such news would have been received with great gladness, but when he quietly announced that, this fall, his foundation will provide a gift to the PC(USA) of $150 million there was an audible intake of breath and a moment of absolutely stunned silence.
That single gift, surely the largest such in the history of our church, electrified the assembly and, at least in my little committee, it left us with a sense of great hope. The attitude has been reinforced for us by the report of outgoing moderator, Rick Ufford-Chase (above). His passion, energy and enthusiasm for the church and its mission is positively viral.
Of course, none of that does anything to move us closer to peace with justice, unity with equality and purity with hospitality and radical welcome. Hearings on the report of the Peace, Unity, Purity Task Force began yesterday and went on well into the evening. I heard very little about it. Check the news for a broader perspective at this point. Likewise on ordination. The handful of mean-spirited marriage overtures were not recommended by the committee that heard them although the votes were closer in committee than progressives would like.
All of those issues, along with divestment concerns, will come before the entire assembly next week. Meanwhile, I go back to my quiet committee in a back corner of the convention center hoping that hope itself, renewed by generosity, might possibly open other hearts at this assembly when those issues come before us. Scarcity leads to fear -- the beginning of the path to the dark side, as my favorite theologian, Yoda, might say. Abundance, on the other hand, is an attitude the shapes the path of hope, faith and love. We shall see.

Letter from the Birmingham Convention Center, 1

I don't know how my friend Wayne Sherwood managed to give such wonderfully rich and detailed accounts of the 216th General Assembly on a daily basis. Wayne must not sleep. Hm ... vampire, perhaps? By the time the 217th General Assembly had elected the Rev. Joan S. Gray as moderator on the third ballot it was already past my bedtime.
The Rev. Deborah Block, the candidate supported by most progressives, finished second after leading on the first ballot -- although only 34 votes separated her from the fourth-place candidate the Rev. Kerry Carson, the most theologically conservative of the four candidates. He and the Rev. Tim Halverson, an avowed centrist, wound up with 20 votes on the final ballot out of 488 votes cast.
Gray's cause was no doubt helped by the fact that her book on Presbyterian polity is must-reading for candidates for ordination to ministry of word and sacrament these days. It certainly helped me get through the ordination exams back in the day.
It's way too soon to tell what her victory means about the tone and tenor of this assembly, but if it suggests anything it is that we are a moderate body.
Of course, Dr. King's great letter was addressed precisely to the moderate faith community, and he appealed to his brothers -- the eight Birmingham clergy named in the letter were all men -- to eschew their moderation in favor of a decisive commitment to justice. He noted that the inaction of the many good people of the South was more damaging to the cause of justice than the actions of the few people moved by hatred to acts of violence.
King said we are all tied together in an inescapable web of mutuality, a single garment of destiny. While he certainly meant to remind his readers of the common bonds of faith, he particularly aimed to underscore the bonds of humanity that brought him to Birmingham, for the injustice here was a threat to justice everywhere. The privileged and powerful are inextricably bound to the poor and powerless. Those at the center of power are bound to those on the margins. The Presbyterian Church is tied together by a common faith in Jesus Christ, but the question remains before us this week as to whether that tie that binds can be broadened to include those marginalized by the church today.
No time to spell check -- got to run to a committee meeting.
Grace and peace.

For Sale ...

So, they're auctioning off Dr. King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail. I'm off to Birmingham tomorrow morning for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. Injustice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere, and I suppose that's why I felt called to go to Birmingham this year in the slim hope that my GLBT sisters and brothers might find a measure of justice within the church and the broader culture. Sometimes the arc of the moral universerve bends too slowly toward justice. This is particularly difficult to accept when the church itself resists the bending arc. King understood that better than anyone, as he expressed so powerfully in the final third of his epistle. I'm not heading for the Birmingham Jail -- at least not planning any such thing! Rather, during these next few days, I'll post "Letters from the Birmingham Convention Center."

Be Afraid ...

Yesterday was "More Light" Sunday at my church. We marked our connection to the network of More Light Presbyterians working for the full inclusion in the life and leadership of church of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people of faith. You can tell by the picture that the foundations of Western Civilization are crumbling because of this. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A Conversation on Christian Social Ethics

OK, I promised something worth reading. Below is an e-mail exchange among several of my colleagues on the social justice committee of National Capital Presbytery. This is as good a brief exchange on key concerns of Christian social ethics as you're likely to find in just a few brief e-mails. The primary voices are the Rev. John Wimberly of Western Presbyterian Church, and the Rev. Jeff Krehbiel of Church of the Pilgrims. The Rev. Roger Gench of New York Avenue puts in his two-cents and the final note (so far) is from Gayraud Wilmore. All of them are stalwart progressives and thoughtful leaders. It's a bit long, but worth it. Enjoy.

Dear All: I apologize for not being able to stay yesterday for the rest of our meeting. I was looking forward to the discussion about WIN. As Jeff and I have discussed, I have serious questions about WIN's strategy. While their accomplishments are significant and worthy, I have great difficulty with the idea that all the mayoral candidates come to hear demands from the church then move on to hear demands from labor unions then move on to hear demands from neighborhood associations then move on to hear demands from the business community, etc. The candidates make promises to each group, oftentimes conflicting promises. In this process, the church becomes one more interest group in a plethora of interest groups in this city. But the church isn't an interest group per se. We have a much broader agenda than any interest group.

In yesterday's District section of the Post, their was an article about WIN in which the reporter expressed reservations about WIN's style, saying it was certainly not "pastoral." The reporter wrote the text below in reference to Martin Trimble, WIN's lead organizer:

Trimble, who is trying to put together a similar group in Northern Virginia, tells potential acolytes to go to Union Station and study the quote inscribed on the statue of A. Philip Randolph , the late labor leader who helped organize the 1963 March on Washington.

"At the banquet table of life, there are no reserved seats. You get what you can take and keep what you can hold," it says. "If you can't take anything, you won't get anything. And if you can't hold anything, you won't keep anything. And you can't take anything without organization."

Trimble said the nonprofit group is "not Pollyannaish about the promises made Monday night. What all those candidates were thinking is: 'I don't want anyone talking negatively about me on their doorstep.' But I don't care what the promises are. You have to hold them accountable. And you have to have the power to do that."

While I absolutely adore A. Philip Randolph as a labor organizer, he is one of my heroes, his is a model for unions, not churches. I really wonder how WIN can harmonize the philosophy in this quote with the way Jesus went about organizing or how Dr. King and the civil rights movement went about making significant political gains. Dr. King spoke about love not power or, more accurately, the power of love. Preaching love not power, he gained more power than any politician of his time. I prefer the model of Dr. King to WIN's Alinsky model. Thanks for considering my thoughts. john

John: I think you seriously misread the Civil Rights Movement, and King in particular. King, who was acutely aware of the dynamics of power, said famously,

"Power...is the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political or economic changes. In this sense power is not only desirable but necessary in order to implement the demands of love and justice. One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites. Love is identified with a resignation of power and power with a denial of love... What is needed is a realisation that power without love is reckless and abusive and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."

So when Sojourners lobby's at the Capitol for the budget, they aren't concerned with power? They aren't interested in rallying citizens who will vote for candidates that support their agenda? When you joined other clergy to press the mayor on DC General, there was no implied threat if he ignored you? Please. Of course there was. The mayor didn't meet with you because you had good ideas. He met with you because you represented a constituency that had the capacity to punish him. (And by his calculation, the determined that your constituency was not sufficiently organized to worry about, which is why, in part, he ignored you.)

Moreover, WIN's agenda is not "narrow." We developed our "agenda" over years of patient organizing in every city in the neighborhood, through thousands of one on one meetings and house meetings and strategy sessions. And I believe our platform on May 22 captured the soul of the city and the best pastoral concerns of the church. There was nothing narrow about it. Too bad you weren't there, but the post covered it well (see links below). In the Post article you referenced, Martin was responding to activist critics who accuse WIN of being naive, that the politicians just made to us a bunch of empty promises. We intend to continue our organizing to ensure that those promises are fulfilled.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402730.html?referrer=emailarticle
As for Jesus and Alinsky: see Walter Wink’s piece.

-- Jeff

Jeff: Thanks for the thoughtful response. I didn't say Dr. King denounced power. He said that Christian effectiveness flows from focusing on love, not by focusing on power itself. For me, the key in the quote you cite from Dr. King is the line "power is not only desirable but necessary in order to implement the demands of love and justice." It is love that is generally missing from the language of Alinsky-based organizing and strikingly missing from Martin's articulation of the WIN vision. When I went to the first big organizing meeting at Metropolitan way back when, I heard a consistent message: We will win over our opponents with power. Dr. King never, ever would have said that. One pick out a few lines of a speech here or there that sound like he was focused on power. But anyone who was around then or has read extensively about his life knows that power was not his focus. It is why even his enemies came to respected him. He said that we win over opponents with love and the power of God. Obviously, he organized people into a powerful movement. But the organizing principle was love, love and more love. The focus on power rather than love is why I dropped out of WIN then. It is why I continue to question its methodology today.

As for my protests against the closing of D.C. General, you write, "When you joined other clergy to press the mayor on DC General, there was no implied threat if he ignored you? Please." In fact, there was no threat, implied or stated. That isn't the way I operate. I don't think it is consistent with the Gospel. I feel my responsibility is to speak truth (as I understand it) to power, not seize or accumulate power. If the principalities and powers listen, I am happy. If they don't, I intensify my efforts to gain their ear. If that doesn't work, I know the history of powers that don't listen to the truth---they disintegrate and disappear. And, of course, their is the infinitely remote chance that I am wrong!

The accomplishments of WIN are significant. However, the methodology is flawed, in my opinion, and leads the church into a role in society that has led to the church being diminished and discredited whenever it happens. Whenever we become perceived as a political interest group to whom the principalities and powers bow, the separation of religion and state is damaged. And when that happens, both religion and state are damaged. john

First, let's be clear about one thing. WIN is not the church. It is a citizen's organization organized through institutions, primarily but not exclusively churches. It is not the church's only voice, it does not pretend to be. It is certainly not my only voice, nor Pilgrim's only voice, and it does not prevent me, or the church, or any of our members from being involved in any number of ways in the world.

Back to your comments: To make no threat, implied or otherwise, may have been on your mind when you met with the mayor, but not with those who met with you. The accompanying newspaper articles make that clear enough. And it was not what King did in his organizing. To simply "speak the truth" with no concern for the effect or consequence is to be indifferent to justice, which is what King's quote points to. King did not want to just speak about love or justice, he wanted it enacted, which requires power. It makes no difference to you that DC General closed? Well, it makes a lot of
difference to a lot of other folks. So which would be better, to say, "Let's work to keep DC General open, by organizing effectively so that the political leaders of the city hear our voice," or, "What we're going to say won't really make a difference, and we aren't concerned with outcomes, just in speaking the truth."

I would contend that those actions were all about power, just poorly executed. And when you go with your church to your City Councilman and he promises to build a shelter for the homeless, and then he doesn't, but votes to give some big tax cut to the Corcoran Gallery instead, there should be no consequence for that? You would not encourage your members to vote for a candidate with other priorities? (The vote, as King's biographer Taylor Branch notes, being the most important tool of nonviolent social change. Branch, by the way, has been involved with WIN's sister organization in the IAF in Baltimore, BUILD.)

Did you not participate in the South African divestment campaign? Withdrawing financial support was not a coercive use of power in the cause of justice? Of course it was. It was an effort to punish the South African government, and to punish corporations that did business with them.

One of the reasons I got involved in organizing with the IAF was out of frustration with clergy who were content to simply "speak the truth" without doing any of the hard work for justice. So we would light a candle at Rodney Square in downtown Wilmington against the death penalty, but do nothing to actually get the death penalty changed. But boy, did we speak about truth and love! I'm sure the people on death row were impressed.

To say WIN or the IAF, or Alinsky for that matter, is ONLY concerned about power is to distort our actions. Alinsky talked, and the IAF talk, a lot about power because they want to help people get things done, and have constantly to help good church people understanding that love and truth without power will never achieve justice. So yes, we talk about power. But to say that we ONLY focus on power is just false, and I don't know how you could sit through a WIN action and come to that conclusion. The moral voice of the churches in WIN lack no shortage of focus on love or justice. That has been abundantly clear in everything WIN has worked on to date. (And Alinsky too. He started organizing in Back of the Yard, then in Woodlawn, Buffalo, Rochester, always among the poor and disenfranchised. If he had been interested in power for power's sake, he would have worked someplace else. He was interested in power for those with no place at the table-- as the Randolph quote points to.)

-- Jeff

Lest we continue to clog up everyone's inbox, maybe we should just agree that we disagree: profoundly, respectfully. John

I am hesitant to join this discussion because I have not been attending these meetings, but the discussion between Jeff and John is key to Christian Social witness and ministry. So for whatever its worth, here are my two cents. The gospels do, in fact, talk about Jesus in terms of power. In Mark, when folk say of Jesus "what is this -- a new teaching with authority." "Authority" here can be translated "power." It is also said of Jesus in the gospel that he did works of "power." Power is a perfectly legitimate understanding of the gospel in the world -- note Reinhold Niebuhr's translation of love into justice which is the balance of power. Indeed, Niebuhr's social ethic would be vacuous without "power" that is in dialectical tension with the love. The two -- power and love -- are not antithetical, but must be held in tension. I have worked with the IAF for over 15 years now, and the IAF organizations I have participated in are very conversant with Niebuhr's understanding of love and justice. I don't know what "justice" would mean without power, just as justice without love is brittle. Much thanks to Jeff and John for engaging this discussion.

Roger Gench

Since one or two of you seem to be actually reading these, I'll go one more round. (It's my day off. Keeps me for having to work on the lawn.)

I guess I'm still not entirely sure, John, what the issue really is here. In the old PCUS there as a doctrine that the church should not be involved at all in civic affairs (which allowed the church to ignore Jim Crow for 100 years). Is it just the rhetoric? You can exercise power, just not talk about it? Not acknowledge it? Not teach about it? Not be strategic in its use? While this does not make your argument wrong, I will say, that in all my years of organizing, the only colleagues who have ever raised issue with the IAF's talk of power have been white male clergy. I have yet to have an African American or female colleague raise such concerns. That does not mean your concerns have no merit, but it does raise the question if at least some of this arises from discomfort on the part of some with their own relative position of power and privilege.

You concede that King did not denounce power, but that seems to be what you are doing. When you attended the WIN event back in '98, you were disturbed when Joe Daniels said, "we are organizing for power." But of course, that wasn't all that was said. Many things were said that night about WIN's purposes, things about love and justice, things which I imagine you support. In addition to those things, it was also said, "We are organizing for power," something you allege neither King nor Jesus ever would have said. I won't speak for Jesus, but I disagree about King. The quote about power I referenced earlier says exactly that.

WIN has never said, as you well know, that we are organizing ONLY for power (that would be absurd). We have said that, in the pursuit of justice, working in the most disenfranchised areas of our city, we are intentionally and strategically organizing for power. That is, unlike myriad previous efforts (whose numbers are legion) that have organized with similar aims and lofty goals but have quickly petered out or fallen short of their goals, we intend WIN to be effective over the long haul, and we are not so naive as to believe that we will be effective just because we have love and truth on our side. We will also need power, power in the real world.

The IAF teaches that in the world of politics, power has two sources: organized people and organized money. We don't have much organized money (though we have some, which WIN has used for good purpose, as have our sister organizations in the IAF, which collectively have built over 5,000 units of low income housing, in part by organizing millions of dollars of church money to provide 0% construction loan financing). We do have the capacity to organize people, consistently and over time, which is WIN's source of power. When we sit down across from the mayor, or members of city council, or leaders of the Federal City Council, they don't listen to us because we have good ideas (though we do have good ideas, just not good ideas alone), but because we have numbers. This is what the IAF teaches. We organize relationally, building relationships one by one over time based on common self-interest. We don't have power because we attract high profile celebrities, or because we contribute large sums of cash to campaigns. We have power because of organized people. It's as simple as that. And in the process we teach our people how to use that power to accomplish our aims.

So, yes, is a city-- in a world-- in which ordinary citizens-- especially poor citizens, are shown everyday who has power-- the corporations, political leaders, the wealthy-- the IAF says to its members, "You also have power, but to use it you have to work for it, organize for it, and use it strategically." The IAF teaches that we organize in the "world as it is" on behalf of "the world as it should be." In the world as it should be, the concerns of the poor would be central, and ordinary citizens would have the same voice as the chair of the Federal City Council. In the world as it is, that is not the case. WIN understand that, and teaches it.

While the IAF organizes differently than the Civil Rights Movement, on this I see no difference. When King called for clergy to join the march to Selma, it was because he understood strength in numbers (power.) Of course he also believed that the marchers had truth and righteousness (and dare we say God) on their side. But the more marchers the better! Not because more marchers made their cause any more "true," but because more marchers made their march more powerful. The March on Washington was nothing if not a show of power. Every march has an implied threat! (Kennedy certainly understood that.) And, again, when you joined other clergy at the Mayor's office to press about DC General, you also understood there was strength in numbers. That's why the organizers called you and asked you to join them. They wanted as many people there as possible, as many clergy as possible (not because you are more righteous, but because you are presumed to represent a constituency), and I imagine they were especially keen to have you there as a White clergyperson not from Ward 8, to demonstrate that this was not just an east-of-the-Anacostia concern (that is, they were strategic). You think the mayor would have met with you had you come alone? Not a chance. (He would have if you were the Cardinal. He also understands power.) And if you believe there was really no implied threat in showing up in numbers, you are either being disingenuous or naive. The mayor certainly understood the implied threat. You may not like the coarseness of Martin's language about "punishing" those who ignore WIN's demands, but I imagine you might share, from time to time, such stories in your sermons about political leaders who ignore the concerns of the poor and cater only to the interests of the rich, and I also imagine that your congregants might pay attention to such stories, and perhaps even vote for someone else the next time around. Their vote is also punishment, whether you call it that or not. (Which is what voters did in the last election, when they turned Harold Brazil, Kevin Chavous and Sandy Allen out of office to "punish" them for ignoring their concerns, especially on the baseball stadium.)

I write so passionately about this because when the 800 members of WIN gathered at Asbury United Methodist Church on May 22, from such diverse constituency as St. Albans Episcopal Church in Ward 3 to Anacostia Bible Church in Ward 8, in common cause around an agenda to invest $1 billion dollars in neglected neighborhoods, build and preserve 10,000 units of affordable housing (including not only low income housing but transitional housing for homeless families), and create a $350 million fund for youth services, it was for me a glimpse of what the Kingdom may be like. I don't know of any organization in the city that has achieved anything like that. And we were able to do so because we are also willing to talk, teach, and organize around power.

-- Jeff

Again, I'd like to have this debate in person. But two quick points:

1) If you don't think there is widespread and deep opposition to/questioning of WIN's tactics in the African American community, we live in different cities.

2) A quote with which I will begin our debate when it resumes:

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, not the tool of the state." Dr. King Strength to Love

john

John, I sort of regret that I've not been able to participate in the on-line discussion of the issues raised by your exchange with Jeff. I thought that my hospitalization and rehab experience was over for the present (thanks to the many well-wishes and prayers of friends and family members), but I learned just today that I've got to go back in for another spell of tests and procedures having to do with a recurring heart disease. So I'm not going to try to put more than my two-cents in at this stage of the game.

I really think that your idea of two short working papers that could be distributed at Presbytery and discussed at various times and places would be a modest but reasonable way of encouraging brothers and sisters to share in unpacking and solving old but always timely problems in Christian social ethics. But it's also possible, unfortunately, to get so excessively bogged down searching for an infallible verbal solution for problems like the love/power conundrum that urgent action on some pressing issue at the end of our noses gets passed over out of sheer exhaustion. That's a disease especially known to afflict highly educated and verbose Presbyterians. I hope our social justice committee will learn to always be wary of it.

I remember that the debate between African American Christian activists and the Maulana Karenga-wing of the Black Power movement on the west coast covered much of the waterfront on agape and dunamis. And most of the people involved never went to seminary! That discussion was most vehement (if not always enlightening) between 1967 and 1969 and, if anybody is interested, it can be revisited in the opening pages of the first volume of "Black Theology: A Documentary History," edited by Cone and Wilmore and published by Orbis in 1993. It may be helpful to the current discussion to see how the issues were framed in the Black community between the followers of Martin and Malcolm, between the religious mugs and the secular thugs, during the waning years of the church-led civil rights movement.

In any case, there is doubtless some benefit in re-opening the debate. Only the issues are so madly contextual and existential that the argument really needs to be joined by real live combatants on the actual field of battle--that is to say, in the historical moment--than hypothetically around mahogany tables in nicely appointed church parlors. But I don't mean to be flippant. It really does involve matters of life and death and too few of us seem ready to die.

Gay Wilmore

Watering Weeds

Been a while since I posted. I've been watering weeds.
Actually, literally so for that past 20 minutes or so. We have a lovely little patch of flowers and ground-covering plants on a steep bank. We planted them for a patch of beauty -- and to avoid mowing grass on the bank.
For the past week almost all of my spare time has been spent in replacing a broken storm door. It's been a classic home improvement chore. In removing the old one I discovered that the root cause of the problem was that the decking outside had risen too high. In removing the decking I discovered the root cause of its rise and so on and so forth. So the new door remains in a box and two trips to the Depot later the new deck floor is almost installed as are the new steps that became an unplanned side benefit of the task.
The good news is that the weather has been nice.
The bad news is that the weather has been nice -- too nice. No rain. Plants need watering. Hm, garden needs weeding. No time. Oh, well. Let's water the weeds.
Much of life is like that. The logical order is not always, or even often, the possible order. So we do what we must when we can. Meanwhile, we water weeds.
I hope the coming days have a bit more time for posting, because I have some really good stuff to put up here. Keep checking back. Unless the weeds take over completely I should have time to get back here pretty soon.

Another day, another agitation

In case you weren't depressed, this should do the trick: Christian nationalism. I'm not suggesting that "the Nazis are coming, the Nazis are coming." Still, it's worth remembering that Hitler acted "mit Gott." The picture of Nazi trinkets at the foot of the cross is haunting. American civil society remains strong enough that a slide into fascism is neither imminent nor inevitable. On the other hand, the part of the church that is not cheerleading the rightward drift of the nation is incredibly weak and adrift. Powerful voices of faith speaking out for equity, justice and peace -- and against the scapegoating of immigrants, gays, and Muslims -- are more important now than ever. Pass it on.

Memorial Day

In between painting the front porch and heading to the Depot to prepare for more holiday fun I paused for a moment's reflection on this day. As is often the case, James Carrol has given powerful expression to the necessary distinction between soldiers and the wars they fight. Memorial Day is as good a time as any to think about the narratives that frame the war and opposition to it. Honor, duty and courage are the dominant themes of the story we are told by those in power leading this war. There are other themes and other stories -- stories of nonviolence, of justice, of peacemaking. We must tell them again and again and again until we are sick of telling them for only then might they be heard above the martial drumbeat of war.

More on NSP

Here's another reflection on last week's Network of Spiritual Progressives conference.

Tooting My Own Horn

About a month back, The Nation ran an excellent piece on the state of progressive faith. I wrote them this letter, an edited version of which will apparently run in this week’s print edition. It is important to write these things to publications, to Congress, to each other. And hey, every once in a while one will get noticed.

Thank you for Dan Wakefield's challenging "Taking Back the Faith." I'm sorry that Wakefield didn't visit with more people of faith in his travels because he might have found that there are communities and faith leaders walking the same path that Coffin, King, Heschel and the Berrigan brothers trod. On Easter Sunday, reflecting on the empty tomb and the missing body, I said to the congregation I serve in Arlington, "The Jesus who came preaching good news to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, liberation to the oppressed and the year of jubilee (Lk. 4:18-19) has been stolen by Christians who don’t seem to care much about public policies to help the poor, the imprisoned or the sick, who preach a hate-filled message to gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons, and who embrace a gospel of prosperity for the affluent and but remain indifferent to the impoverished and indebted of the developing world. This Jesus has been stolen by those who call you a saint when you feed the hungry but call you a communist when you ask why people are hungry. This Jesus has been stolen by those who call you a good Christian when you pray for the safety of the troops in Iraq but call you un-American when you question the wisdom of the war. This Jesus has been stolen by those who call you pastor when you do a wedding for a man and a woman but call you a false prophet when you suggest extending the same rights to same-sex couples." I am not laying any personal claim to the mantle of the great leaders of the Civil Rights and peace movements of the past century, but the people we have been waiting for are among us already. The challenge lies in organizing effectively, raising voices repeatedly and getting the media -- including The Nation -- to focus on what is being said and done today rather than on what was said so eloquently four decades ago. Come and see.

If We Build It ...

The Network of Spiritual Progressives conference ended Saturday evening and my middle-aged bones are only now recovering from too many long, late, spirit-filled evenings in a row. The conference drew about 1,200 people and considerable media attention as well as progressive commentary. It drew from me the conviction that now is the time to build a network of spiritual progressives in Northern Virginia. Read up. If you're interested, let's connect on it.

Away Message

I'm at the DC conference of the Network of Spiritual Progressives this week and away from the computer. No more entries till next week. In the meanwhile, check out the network. Read The Left Hand of God. Get spiritual. Be progressive. TTFN.

Another Day, Another Agitation

John Kenneth Galbraith, who died last month, once said "The emancipation of belief is the most formidable of the tasks of reform, the one on which all else depends."
Sounds like a call to rethink, to get a new mind for a new time.
On the other hand, William Sloan Coffin, who died days before Galbraith, was fond of saying that "you don't think your way into a new way of living; you live your way into a new way of thinking."
And then there was Funkadelic, who sang "free your mind and your ass will follow."
Head first or not, we need some liberation these days from lousy belief systems and unjust actions.