Pomp and People Power (by Jim Wallis)
Sunday morning a week ago I preached at the beautiful Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, California. Their service blends the best of the Anglo/Catholic Episcopal tradition with the creative San Francisco one—this time beginning the recessional with dragons celebrating the Chinese New Year. Offering a sermon on hope with the light of a dozen stained glass windows dancing in the huge Gothic Cathedral was an absolute delight.
Dressed head to foot in flowing clerical robes, a religious train of participants processed in, calling the congregation to worship. While my uniform of choice while preaching is usually limited to dark jacket and black turtleneck, this day I threw on the robes and joined in the pomp and circumstance. My wife Joy, formerly an Anglican vicar, would have loved to see me all dressed up like that.
In a surprisingly similar experience, I was a guest at the State of the Union address the other week for the very first time, sitting up in the gallery. What I saw unfold below almost rivaled the pageantry of Grace Cathedral with everybody processing in.
First came the representatives. Then the senators. Then the Supreme Court justices. Then the military brass of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And finally, with that now famous call to worship, "Madame Speaker, the president of the United States!"
Everyone stood up to give the president a standing ovation, then sat down, only to stand up again when the Republican commander in chief was introduced by the Democratic speaker of the house. It's a time-honored ritual in the best traditions of high-church Washington politics.
Of course, the air was full of murmuring political expectations and questions. Would Barack and Hillary shake hands? (They didn't.) Would either shake hands with President Bush? (Barack did, but Hillary had her back turned as the president passed by.)
I know many of the legislators who were down on the floor and like many of them. But watching them scurrying around below, a realization hit me. "These people often think they are at the center of the universe; they think they are the most powerful, important, people in the world."
But history offers a different perspective.
History suggests that change doesn't start inside the beltway, inside our chambers of power, inside the heads of politicians. Change begins outside Washington, D.C., in the hearts and minds of those who first experience society's brokenness, envision a different future, and then bet their lives on a new vision. That's how social movements begin.
The wind generated by these movements changes politics, rushing into places like the U.S. Capitol where politicians throughout the United States' history have always held wet fingers in the air, gauging its direction. Our leaders often respond long after the country does, and they are usually the last to change.
That's what we are talking about every night on the Great Awakening book tour—how change begins with us, all of us, and that betting our lives on new visions is always what changes the big things.
And from the response we are getting on the road, something new has already begun.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Jim's comments remind me of the bumper sticker reading "If the people lead, the leaders will follow".
Posted by: Nance | February 11, 2008 4:48 PM
There's very little more amusing about the State of the Union address than watching individuals who, one day prior to it, were calling Bush a war criminal, a huge civil rights violator, someone guilty of starving the poor, etc rush to shake hands with him as he walks by. One wonders if they really believe what they say or if they're just doing it to appease the radical wings of their party...
Posted by: Eric | February 11, 2008 4:50 PM
The similarities between cathedrals and capitals are not accidental. Worship is for the law-giver. As believers we recognize the Lord as the one true law-giver. But statism treats the government of a nation as a legitimate source of law.
God established courts as an institution for discovering the law. He gave us examples of this common-law process in the books of Deuteronomy and Judges.
Pagans treat the law as arbitrary and malleable. They revere the opportunity to manipulate the law to their own purposes. So, they create temples for they space where they craft the laws to their own liking. They establish priesthoods of differing ranks and orders for the men and women the inaugurate into the position of law-creators.
Should we worship there as well? Ought we to advocate the manipulation of the law for any special interest group? Or should we work to limit the scope of the law as severely as possible?
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 11, 2008 6:24 PM
" One wonders if they really believe what they say or if they're just doing it to appease the radical wings of their party..."
Of course they don't. No reasonable person over the age of 30 believes any of the Dailykos rhetoric.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 11, 2008 9:10 PM
"Their service blends the best of the Anglo/Catholic Episcopal tradition with the creative San Francisco one"
To say the least.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 11, 2008 9:13 PM
"To say the least."
Obviously, Sonoma is too far away from the Golden Gate for some San Fran to rub off on you!! :)
Posted by: carl copas | February 11, 2008 9:50 PM
So - what am I to take away from reading this article. Churches and Robes in CA - the State of the Union address and all the people shaking or not shaking the Pres. hand.
No - another shameless plug to buy the latest book by Wallis.
Whatever -
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | February 11, 2008 11:02 PM
Not exactly a scientific poll, but the consensus from comments to my Feb. 2nd post was that at best, the idea that some kind of widespread spiritual awakening is occurring is too early to call.
That said, pointing out how much this country needs a change of direction, and what kinds of change, and why - and not just using the word "change" repeatedly - might help stimulate it. As you say, if it doesn’t come from the bottom up, it’s hard to see it happening at all.
I don't really fault Obama himself for how vague he is on "change," given that the state of public discourse has been largely reduced to sound bite exchanges.
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | February 11, 2008 11:25 PM
Nathanael - It's not just pagans who treat the state that way. There is a well documented history of Progressive Christians treating the state and its power as an extension of God on earth.
"God works through the State in carrying out His purposes more univerasally than through any other institution." - Richard Ely
Many Progressive Christians believe that if we can wrap the state up in the trappings of a religious movement people will look to it for their needs just as they look to God. You hear it all the time around here. Individualism is bad; state directed collectivism is good. You can't recreate Heaven on Earth without a powerful state.
Posted by: Eric | February 12, 2008 9:04 AM
Eric,
We are agreed. Let's converse more.
ndsnow@gmail.com
Also, check out Jesus Manifesto.
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 12, 2008 10:07 AM
"Obviously, Sonoma is too far away from the Golden Gate for some San Fran to rub off on you!! :)"
Hmmm... My response to this got deleted. Maybe we have a Sonoma St. grad among the moderators? At any rate, I went to Pomona, not Sonoma, and if you get it wrong again, I'll cut you.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 10:31 AM
"At any rate, I went to Pomona, not Sonoma, and if you get it wrong again, I'll cut you."
LOL. I humbly apologize for calling a true Bronco a Seawolf. In the spirit of the Lenten season, I'll deny myself my 4th cup of coffee this a.m.
Posted by: carl copas | February 12, 2008 11:47 AM
Sorry, Eric. It isn't just "Progressive Christians" (whatever they may be) who treat the state and its power as "an extension of God on earth". Christians of all persuasions have fallen victim, from time to time, to the third of the temptations in Matthew 4:1-11 - sometimes, as in 1930s Germany, disastrously so.
I'm not sure, moreover, that the negative attitude toward the state which you seem to be commending is necessarily the only one which a Christian may legitimately adopt. Have you read Romans 13 recently? St Paul certainly seems to regard "the state and its power", even when wielded by pagans, as being part of God's providential ordering of his world, both in administering punishment for bad behaviour and in levying taxes (which, even in Paul's day, had a purpose beyond that of enriching the tax-farmers).
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | February 12, 2008 3:36 PM
History proves that unless a person's heart is changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ that person remains under the wrath of God. The only way to to be right with God is through His only Son, Jesus, who died for sinners and rose from the dead. Since we are all sinners our only hope is to repent (turn from sin) and trust in Jesus alone as Lord and savior. Change your future forever by getting right with God today.
Posted by: Linda Thacker | February 12, 2008 6:52 PM
Tony – I didn’t mean to give the impression that I have a negative view of the state in theory. I agree with you, and Paul, that God ordained government for the purpose of bringing some sort of order to fallen man and that we should obey laws that do not conflict with God’s law. My gripe isn’t with the state in general; it’s with particular people who seek to use the state in certain ways.
Posted by: Eric | February 12, 2008 7:58 PM
Tony and Eric,
God established law, not centralized government. There is a difference. It is possible to have independent courts without arbitrary legislation. Kingdoms and other systems which provide men an opportunity create laws out of thin air are pagan.
Rom 13 is clear on this. The role of the authority is to bear the sword against wrongdoers. This action was carried out by the Judges in Israel. I Sam uel 13 is clear about the pagan nature of centralized government.
What ought to be obvious is that there is no virtue in using the coercive force of a state to compel individuals into charity.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | February 12, 2008 8:08 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?