The Bible and Politics, pt. 6.2

Neo-Calvinist Theologians: Kuyper and Mouw

Abraham Kuyper

We have already traced some of the broad themes of Kuyper’s theology, but let’s look more specifically at how he addressed the intersection of politics and religion; we can then draw out some hypotheses as to how he might have regarded our question of the use of the Bible in American politics.

Three years before becoming Prime Minister of the Netherlands in 1901, Kuyper delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton University. His topic was Calvinism and his aim to portray Calvinism as a ‘life system’ that can adequately account for modern issues in art, politics, religion, and academia. In his lecture on ‘Calvinism and Politics,’ Kuyper sets forth his understanding of the sovereignty of God as the only true basis for a government that makes just use of the sword, provides for the social needs of its people, and protects its citizens’ individual liberties.

Because Kuyper saw the Christian God as the foundation of politics, he imagined a government that was entirely Christian. But, as we discussed in the last post, since politics and the church are two separate spheres, individual politicians should not look to their churches for advice on how to govern, but should trust to their personal understandings of their faith.

Overall, Kuyper advocated a politics that adhered strictly to Christianity and the Bible, even if he left politicians to themselves to figure out what those meant. An example from his own life as a political figure can be seen in an editorial he published on labor issues. As he pushes a pro-organized labor agenda, he continually disparages his opponents as going against God’s decrees. To illustrate just what God’s decrees might be, he quotes Psalm 35:10—‘Oh Lord, who is like you? You deliver the weak from those too strong for them!’ The Bible, then, is an acceptable part of political discourse, as long as its use is controlled by (Christian) politicians, not churches.

Richard Mouw

Mouw is the President of Fuller Seminary and a professor of philosophy who draws heavily from Kuyper. He elucidates similar positions to Kuyper’s own about the use of religious language in politics, saying that Christian politicians should avoid seeking out their pastor’s advice on political issues. But, working with categories from anthropologist Clifford Geertz, Mouw pushes for a distinction between the use of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ language. Mouw thinks the ‘thick’ language of the Christian worldview—the complexities of theological and biblical discourse—should best be left in churches and seminaries, while thin language is used to communicate Christian beliefs to the state in terms the state can understand. In all, Mouw is seeking a basis for common participation in society, something he feels that ‘thick’ language gets in the way of. This position by no means prohibits the use of the Bible in politics, but it does lean away from it.

Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931)

Abraham Kuyper, ‘Manual Labor,’ in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

Luis E. Lugo, ed., Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

The Bible and Politics, pt. 6.1

For the next couple weeks we’ll look at theological and philosophical positions on the use of the Bible in American politics. We’ll start with theology, looking at three common positions in political theology, as well as various theologians affiliated with those positions.

The first theological position to be examined is what is often called ‘neo-Calvinism’ and sometimes ‘Kupyerianism.’ As the latter name indicates, the position is rooted in the life and work of Dutch politician, journalist, educator, and clergyman Abraham Kuyper. Through his various occupations (most of which were held simultaneously), Kuyper attempted to revitalize the ‘Reformed’ theology of John Calvin for his time, particularly stressing Calvin’s doctrine of ‘common grace.’

Common grace—which, incidentally, is not an emphasis in Calvin’s own work—is the belief that God is actively involved in the world to restrain evil and promote some amount of order and flourishing. Neo-Calvinists often quote Matthew 5:45b in support of this doctrine: ‘for [God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.’

Common grace becomes the basis for a political theology when it is combined with a certain understanding of the opening chapter of Genesis. There neo-Calvinists find the ‘cultural mandate,’ God’s command that humans develop societal structures: ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ (1:28). Because human culture is part of God’s created order, then culture is meant to follow God’s designs, and, since God through common grace continues to be active in the world, Christians can participate in culture—including politics—with the purpose of achieving that design.

At this point we might conjecture that neo-Calvinists would encourage the use of the Bible in American politics, since such use might facilitate the ordering of American politics to God’s created design. Nevertheless, one other doctrine enters the neo-Calvinist picture to complicate things. That doctrine, called ‘sphere sovereignty,’ asserts the fundamental integrity of the various aspects of culture. Family, church, government, business, etc. are each separate ‘spheres’ that must be allowed to develop independently without too much interference from the others (government is somewhat of an exception since it works above and between the spheres).

Christians, therefore, are left with a somewhat paradoxical role in politics: they are to engage politics with the hope of ordering it according to God’s design, but they are not to confuse the spheres of church and government. Though, as we will see in the next post, various neo-Calvinists resolve that paradox in different ways, it at least provides us with a rough base from which to build a neo-Calvinist response to the issue of the Bible and politics.

Although the Bible, insofar as God’s intended design for politics can be found in it, is indispensable in shaping Christian political engagement, Christians must be careful to ensure that their political language and actions are sufficiently ‘political’ and not overly ‘religious.’ Thus the neo-Calvinist view assigns the Bible a place in politics, but cautions that its use may violate the separation of church and government spheres. This nuanced position will become more clear in the following post on specific neo-Calvinist theologians.

The Bible and Politics, 5.2

Here's the final post on the use of Scripture in political situations in the Bible itself. I'll be out of town for the weekend, and will begin our lesson on theological perspectives on the use of the Bible in politics early next week.

Acts-Revelation

Acts

As a story about the expansion and dispersion of early Christian communities, Acts is as explicitly political as the Gospels. Christians are constantly coming into contact with political officials, and their discourse is often recorded (or ‘created’) by the author. The speeches of Peter (4:8-12) and Stephen (7:2-53) before the temple council are preeminent examples of the use of scripture in political situations. Drawing on the shared narrative of the Jewish scriptures, both Peter and Stephen retell parts of that narrative, naming Jesus as its culmination. Paul continues this pattern of scriptural debate in synagogues around Turkey and Greece, and in his prison cell in Rome. Interestingly, in Paul’s own trials before Jewish and Roman leaders, he argues more out of his conversion experience than out of scripture (22:1-21; 24:10-21; cf. 26:2-27 where Paul urges King Agrippa to believe in Jesus out of a shared belief in the Jewish prophets).

The Epistles

Since the epistles were written to encourage and guide specific churches in their communal life, there are no examples in them of scripture used to directly address political situations outside of the churches. Nevertheless, many of the epistles seem to counsel churches on how to act within their political settings. Hebrews is an especially interesting example, as it is basically a commentary on Old Testament scripture. Jesus is depicted both as the great high priest who opens up the inner courts of the tabernacle to us, and as the exalted Lord who rules the world and judges its rulers, just as portrayed by Psalms 2 and 110. These meditations are to strengthen the community’s resolve to be a kind of alternative political community that is ‘receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken’ (Hebrews 12:28). This community is to be marked by the welcome of strangers, care for prisoners, peace, and detachment from money, among other things (see chapters 12-13).

Revelation

Though Revelation is notoriously difficult to interpret, I understand it as a political document denouncing the authority of the Roman Empire in favor of the authority of Christ. There are few quotes from the Old Testament in Revelation, but the book’s form and genre draw heavily upon Jewish apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Daniel. As in Daniel, the great empires of the world are portrayed as violent beasts that are overcome by God, but in Revelation it is specifically the slaughtered Lamb that overcomes the beast. By lifting up the Lamb as the paradigm for Christian political engagement, Revelation teaches us the centrality of non-violence in our political action.

Questions:
Reflect on the various ways the biblical authors use Scripture in political situations. Are the authors consistent? Are there multiple ways to use Scripture in political settings? Do the uses change with the context?

As always, think about how political situations in biblical times are similar and different to our own (see past posts for questions).

The Bible and Politics, 5.1

The Gospels

Today we turn our attention to the use of Scripture in political situations in the New Testament, specifically in the Gospels. Again, since only the briefest of surveys is possible, please fill these ‘lectures’ out with your own thoughts.

From the coming of John the Baptist to Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Gospels place Jesus’ life and ministry firmly within the world of the Hebrew Scriptures. Each of the Gospels regards John the Baptist’s coming as the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3—John prepares the way for the Lord who comes to gather and feed the people of God. Jesus’ mission is thus framed as ‘political’ from the start, a mission to gather a people and provide them with some basic social services (e.g., feeding and healing). As far as I understand it, a body that administers social services for a gathered people is one way of defining ‘government.’

Jesus does begin to gather, feed, and heal people in Israel, and he does so in a way that brings him into direct conflict with the political and religious authorities of his day. Choosing an official group of 12 disciples was likely part of the problem, as the number references the 12 tribes of Israel. ‘In my ministry,’ Jesus seemed to be saying, ‘the political unity of the 12 tribes is restored’—and Jesus was at their head. So the numerous debates in the Gospels over the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures cannot be seen merely as debates over the role of ritualized religion, but as conflicts over who had the authority to lead the people of God. Of all the Gospels, Matthew is perhaps most explicit on this point, as he orders Jesus’ teachings in 5 blocks to reflect the 5 books of the Torah; Jesus, for Matthew, was the ‘new Moses’ who leads and orders God’s people through his authoritative teaching.

Perhaps the most overt use of scripture for political purposes in the Gospels occurs in the temple action near the end of Jesus’ life. Upon entering the Jerusalem temple—headquarters for Jewish religion and politics—Jesus physically and verbally attacks the temple’s economic and ritual systems. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus quotes Jeremiah 7:11 and Isaiah 56:7, echoing the prophets’ condemnations of the unjust and exclusive temple system. Lest we think this critique is solely ‘religious,’ let us recall that Jeremiah was critiquing the oppressive treatment of ‘the alien, the orphan, and the widow’ (7:5). The political consequences of Jesus’ temple action become obvious in the trials that lead to the cross: one of the main charges brought against Jesus is that he claimed to replace the temple (Mark 14:58; Matthew 26:61).

Questions:

1) Again, think about the similarities and differences between the political structures in Jesus’ day and our own. What would be the location of a ‘temple action’ in our day? How appropriate would it be to quote Isaiah and Jeremiah in a political speech at the capitol building?

2) Here we begin to get into the idea of the church as a political community—if Jesus’ mission was ‘political’ in some sense, what is the political role of the church now? What role does the Bible play in the church’s politics?

The Bible and Politics, 4.4

Here’s the last Old Testament lesson. Later in the week I’ll post two sections on the New Testament, dealing first with the Gospels and then with Acts-Revelation.

Old Testament Writings

The section of the Old Testament known as the Writings covers all the books not in the Torah or Prophets. They are books of history, poetry, song, and story. Because the Writings are so varied, I will make no attempt to cover all of them here. For our purposes, a quick look at Psalms will suffice.

Psalms

There are two primary ways the Psalms reference Scripture: through discussions of the ‘commandments’ (or ‘law,’ ‘decrees,’ ‘teaching,’ etc.) and through stories that retell significant events in Israelite history. Good examples of the first can be seen in Psalms 19 and 119. Both speak of the commandments as guides to follow to achieve the ‘good life.’ Far from being purely ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious,’ these psalms point to the political life of the people of God—measured by the commands found in the Torah—as the locus of faithful worship. The psalms themselves indicate the political nature of following the commands: Psalm 19 is ascribed to King David and is addressed ‘to leaders,’ and the voice behind Psalm 119 is an exile who is persecuted by princes, but who nontheless speaks God’s decrees to kings (119:19, 161, 46).

Several psalms retell significant narratives from the Israelite past, especially the creation and the exodus. Psalm 136 is one example that tells both stories in order to remind God’s people that God is the one that delivers us from hardships—God’s faithful love vanquishes enemies, feeds the hungry, and ‘remembered our low estate’ (136:23-25). Though it’s hard to tell when any of the psalms were written, it’s feasible that story psalms like this one were especially important in the exile and at other times in which the political life of the people of God was imperiled. Singing the Lord’s songs in foreign lands was hard, as Psalm 137 tells us, but it also seemed to be a vital part of maintaining a distinct political identity.

Other Writings

As a guide book of wisdom, Proverbs admonishes rulers and all God’s people to a life of obedience to the commands of the Torah. The history books of Ezra and Nehemiah are about leaders who exemplify such obedience in their quest to restore Jerusalem after the exile. (Among other things, Nehemiah restores the practice of Jubilee commanded in Leviticus.) Alternatively, Job and Ecclesiastes depict rich and powerful people who have found that the path from obedience to success is not as direct as it may seem.

In summary, the Writings, like the Prophets, uphold the Torah as the basic template of political life for the people of God. Even when God’s people are in exile—having little or no political sovereignty—they are called to live out God’s commands within their communities.

Questions:

1) In what ways are our political situations similar or different from those of the Israelites in exile? Are we ‘at home’ in a Christian nation? Or are we ‘in exile’ in a foreign land? Do you think the answers to those questions affects how we use the Bible in American politics? Why or why not?

2) Are there Bible stories that shape your own approach to politics? What are they and why?

The Bible and Politics, pt. 4.3

The Prophets

The Prophets includes the ‘former prophets’ and the ‘latter prophets.’ The former include the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1 & 2 Kings (because of its narrative unity and connection to the book of Deuteronomy, this section is often called the Deuteronomistic History). The latter prophets include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets (the Book of the 12).

Most notable for our purposes is the ongoing commentary on the Torah that gets carried out in the prophetic books. The Torah as scripture is continually brought up as a reminder of who God is and how God’s people are to order their common life accordingly.

In the former prophets, the political vision of the Torah is worked out in new situations. The Torah more or less envisions a theocracy, in which prophets or ‘judges’ relay God’s messages to the people. But after a long period of strange and unsuccessful judges, the Israelites demand a king so that they can be ‘like other nations’ (1 Samuel 8:5, 20). Nevertheless, throughout the period of the kings (Saul, David, etc.), God continues to raise up prophets to call the kings and the people to faithfulness to the Torah. But the kings do not lead the Israelites to greater faithfulness—only greater territory—and the narrative of Deuteronomy to Kings as a whole seems to be a sharp political criticism of kingship in light of the Torah.

One specific use of scripture in politics worth pointing out from the former prophets occurs in Josiah’s reform. Josiah was king of Judah during a rough time for the people of God: foreign superpowers threatened Judah with their militaries, Israel was divided (Judah was the Southern Kingdom), and God’s people worshiped foreign gods. When Josiah’s high priest found the long-neglected ‘book of the law’ in a back corner of the temple (many scholars think it was Deuteronomy), Josiah declared a time of national repentance. Altars and temples of foreign gods were destroyed, the Passover was celebrated in Jerusalem, and ‘the words of the law that were written in the book’ were established by kingly decree (2 Kings 23:24).

The latter prophets continued the tradition of political critique based on the Torah. The following comment from Isaiah is typical: ‘Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of rights and rob my oppressed people of justice, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless’ (10:1-2, NIV). We need to be careful here to recognize that ‘laws’ and ‘decrees’ were not generic terms, but referred directly to the Torah as a legal source book. Similarly, in a passage we will discuss more later, the proclamation of the ‘year of the Lord’s favor’ in Isaiah 61 seems to be a call to the economic and social practices embodied in the Torah’s jubilee laws (in which land and food were regularly redistributed to the poor).

Finally, the use of Torah by the former prophets in international politics was complex. On the one hand, foreign invasion was sometimes depicted as God’s just punishment for the people’s disobedience. Thus Cyrus, the invading emperor of Persia, is depicted as God’s anointed king (Isaiah 45). On the other hand, the prophets sometimes proclaim judgment on foreign nations for their unjust practices. (It should be pointed out, however, that it is unlikely that the foreign nations ever heard those critiques; rather, they may have served to warn Israel about how serious God was about the Torah.) At another point, when the Jews are captive in Babylon, Jeremiah recommends they ‘seek the welfare [shalom]’ of the Babylonian city (Jeremiah 29:7). Again, the concepts ‘justice’ and ‘welfare’ were not neutral terms, but would have directed their readers back to the political vision of the Torah.

Sources:

One helpful book for understanding the politics of the law is Christopher J.H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004).

Questions:

1) Think about our own political context—how is it different from the Israelites’? Would Josiah’s Reform make sense in our national setting, or would it better be undertaken within faith communities? What do the latter prophets suggest about our ability to communicate prophetic critique to ‘foreign’ nations (including our own)?

2) The prophets’ language of peace and justice was rooted in the Torah’s vision of those terms. But those terms are also common in our American political discourse—do we mean the same thing as the prophets when we use them? What traditions lie behind our political language?

The Bible and Politics, pt. 4.2

The Torah

The Torah (or Pentateuch) comprises the first five books of the Bible, Genesis to Deuteronomy. Though it is unlikely that all of the Torah was written before the rest of the Old Testament, it makes no overt references to the rest of Scripture. This fact makes it somewhat difficult to discuss for our purposes, but not impossible. The final or canonical form of the Torah evidences multiple layers of skillful editing, and the finished product seems to include elements from older scripture traditions. These instances, then, will be useful for us to examine in order to see how the Torah used scripture in political contexts. In the interest of space, I’ll only examine one of these instances, the Decalogue (or Ten Commandments or Ten Words).

The Decalogue shows up in two places in the Torah—Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5—suggesting a tradition (oral or written) prior to the writing of the Torah. Both places it appears are politically charged, and it’s interesting to note how the Decalogue is tweaked to fit the different contexts. In Exodus, the Israelites are at Mount Sinai, having just left Egypt. There God gives Moses the commandments in order to guide their behavior on the path to the Promised Land, basically to ensure that they will remain faithful in their travels. The Decalogue in Exodus therefore acts as a sort of basic political charter for God’s people on the move. In contrast, when the Decalogue is restated in Deuteronomy, it’s at the threshold of the Promised Land, acting now as a political charter for Israel’s life in the Land.

Though much of the two passages are the same, it’s notable that the rationale for the Sabbath command changes: in Exodus the Israelites are told to take a Sabbath in imitation of God’s rest on the 7th day of creation; in Deuteronomy they are told to take a Sabbath because God led them out of Egypt. It’s difficult to say why the rationale changes, but it does suggest a process of recontextualization in the face of new political contexts. As the political setting changes from a wandering tribe in the desert to an established nation, the stories that guide the application of the commandments change. This, perhaps, suggests a basic ‘negotiability’ in the structure of God’s teachings, though it is notable that the basic direction of the teaching stays the same. (See the work of Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann for this concept of negotiability.)

To suggest some other places where older traditions have been incorporated into our Torah, I point out the two creation stories and the numerous places where psalms, prayers, and other liturgical elements have been imported (e.g., Jacob’s prayers for his sons in Genesis 49; Moses and Miriam’s songs in Exodus 15).

The point of all this is that the Torah itself, as a political document for God’s people, draws on older traditions that would have been considered ‘scripture’ by the Torah’s authors. Those traditions are brought into new contexts and altered somewhat to provide fresh political commentary. (Again, as I said before, the purpose of these texts is not only political, just as much as they are not only spiritual.)

Questions:
1) I have said that God’s commands are altered or ‘negotiable’ to some degree in light of changing political contexts. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? What does your answer mean for how we read the Bible in light of our current political contexts?

2) The teaching in the Torah, including the Decalogue, is primarily directed at God’s people as a guide for their worship, politics, family life, etc. This being the case, to what extent can the Torah’s teachings be recommended to those ‘outside’ the people of God? Why would or wouldn’t you use the Torah to make political recommendations?

The Bible and Politics, pt. 4.1

In this week’s lesson and the next we turn to the use of the Bible in politics by the Bible itself. Specifically, we’ll be looking at how different biblical authors draw from other passages of Scripture in political situations. This week we’ll look at the Old Testament (of, if you prefer, Hebrew Bible) in three sections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. Next week we’ll get into the New Testament. There is A LOT of information here, so I’ll necessarily be skipping important passages and books—please add your insights!

A note on my approach to politics in the Bible: In the last couple hundred years we in the West have developed the idea that religion and politics are two distinct entities. Our doctrine of separation of the church and state is the perfect expression of such a distinction. But in biblical times, as is still the case in some parts of the world, there was no categorical differentiation between the two. Thus, to talk about ‘politics’ in the Bible as a distinct matter from ‘religion’ or ‘spirituality’ probably would not have made sense to any of the Bible’s authors. Today the distinction between religion and politics is firmly embedded in our worldview, and it is difficult to read the Bible any other way.

The difference all this makes for us is that I may read a passage as ‘political,’ whereas you may have only read it as ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual.’ My hope is that we can respect the biblical worldview(s) enough to see that there are both political and religious layers to most if not all texts. But, as always, lets speak openly when we disagree about a reading of a passage.

I’ll get the lesson on the Torah up ASAP, and the lessons on the Prophets and Writings up later in the week. For now, be thinking and commenting on the above note: what is your reaction to thinking about the Bible as a ‘political’ text?

Jamie

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.