Training for Change (by Jim Wallis)
I want to personally invite you to Washington, D.C., on June 13 through 16 to participate in Pentecost 2008: Training for Change. For more than a decade, we have held an annual mobilization around the time of Pentecost to lift up a vision of overcoming poverty to the nation. I believe that with your help we can make this a pivotal year of elevating poverty to the top of the national agenda, the goal of our Vote Out Poverty campaign.
We've heard from many of you that rather than a conventional conference, you want to go deeper in learning real skills to take back to your local communities and congregations as advocates for social and economic justice. So, we are offering in-depth, practical training from Sojourners' staff and other experienced organizers (including Jennifer Kottler of Let Justice Roll, Rachel Anderson of the Boston Faith and Justice Network, Peggy Flanagan of Wellstone Action, and Lisa Sharon Harper of New York Faith and Justice, among others) who will facilitate small group workshops that teach practical skills. Following each group learning experience, participants will engage in facilitated small group discussions to take the learning to the next level.
Of course, we'll still have some of our traditional things. We'll have worship services (I will preach on Friday evening) with great music – Derek Webb will join us both Friday and Saturday evenings.
We will also be hearing from our seventh annual Amos and Joseph Award recipients. This year's "Joseph" - a person who faithfully uses a position of influence to benefit those in poverty - is one of our nation's great civil rights and economic justice leaders, Rev. James Lawson. Our "Amos" - a person who comes from a humble background to serve God and community - is Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, from Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice in Los Angeles.
And, for the fifth year, our Emerging Leaders program (for faith-inspired activists younger than 30) will include Brian McLaren, author of Everything Must Change, musician Derek Webb, and myself. A special campus organizing workshop will help you be an effective advocate and faithful leader on your campus, and there will be networking opportunities to build and strengthen the growing numbers of emerging leaders across the country.
Click here to learn more about Pentecost 2008, June 13 through 16 in Washington, D.C.!
Pentecost 2008 is the next step in a movement to really make a difference in overcoming poverty in our nation. It's an occasion to learn new skills and strengthen ones you already have to show that the faith community cares about our neighbors in poverty. The election campaign this year, in combination with our Vote Out Poverty campaign, offers us the opportunity to change the political wind on poverty.
I hope to see you in Washington in June.
Click here to register for Pentecost 2008.
Add to:
Category: Movement, Poverty
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Why is it necessary to promote only Barack Obama (change), and why are you using Pentecost which is exclusively a Christian religious experience for Democrat political gain ("take back our local communities")? This is disconcerting to the alarming. And I for one do not want to "change" America the way that the Democrats want to.
Posted by: T.C. Unger | April 4, 2008 9:23 AM
T.C. -
That's a cogent thought that didn't occur to me.
Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 10:09 AM
So how would you all like to see America change?
Should America stay the same as it is?
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 10:20 AM
Of course America should (and will) change. Whether it should change along the lines contemplated by Sojo is another question. I went out to the site to see what was the content of the "training", but there are few details there, so I am uncertain whether or not I agree with their agenda.
Posted by: Gordon | April 4, 2008 10:26 AM
The book everyone should read to get ready for this is Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell.
Roger
Posted by: Roger | April 4, 2008 12:01 PM
T.C. -
Actually, Hillary Clinton uses the slogan "Hillary for Change" quite often on signs and letterheads. So by just using the word "change" they're not explicitly promoting Obama. It'd seem that your bias against the Democratic party (as noted by your comment: I for one do not want to "change" America the way that the Democrats do) is probably coloring your perspective.
As for Sojo, It'd seem pretty obvious that they would be against McCain. He's the biggest war hawk presidential candidate that I've ever seen, who seems to parrot the current administration on most issues. So you're right in the fact that voting for McCain would be no change at all.
The question is, is the change promised by the Democratic party better than the current political atmosphere in America? Though I disagree with Obama on many issues, I have great respect for him on one: open government. All leaders will make mistakes, but with an open government approach, we can admire the fact that, right or wrong, they've thought through the decision. Information will empower society. It's not enough to tell our political leaders "you are wrong on this issue." We must know how they come about their decisions if we have any hope of reconciliation.
Back to your criticism of the Democratic party. I'd love to hear reasons why you disagree with them (I'd probably agree with you on many). But to push a blanket statement criticizing the Democrats is just painting you into a corner. Like it or not, there are two major parties in the United States. Both of them are wrong on certain issues. To be anti-Democrat or anti-Republican is just pandering for the other.
Posted by: Baumann | April 4, 2008 12:18 PM
America is changing, the rest of the world wants to live like us and there simply is not enough oil to go around. Our economy is lubricated with oil and cannot continue without it. There is a price of oil that will no longer allow us to cheat as we have done for so long.
Posted by: Oak | April 4, 2008 12:40 PM
Roger,
In case you passed over it on the MLK thread, here's my opinion of Thomas Sowell:
...
Thomas Sowell, heir apparent to Milton Friedman, is so far out of it he's become irrelevant.
His intellect is a mere shadow of Milton Friedman's.
The Hoover institute pays him to generate bogus arguments in support of disaster capitalism.
Sowell believes that raising the minimum wage will just make things worse.
He's against land use planning.
He's against regulation of any kind.
Sowell ignores the real causes of the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan scandal, the Great Enron Energy Swindle and the present collapse of the Mortgage industry.
Sowell cooks the economic data to support his harebrained theories.
...
If you read Sowell's works, you should also read:
A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Harvey, David. 2005. Oxford University Press
The Shock Doctrine: The rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein,2007, Henry Holt and Company
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 12:42 PM
T.C. Unger--
"And I for one do not want to "change" America the way that the Democrats want to. "
The article speaks much about issues related to poverty. So, please clarify. Are you against dealing with issues of poverty and would you prefer Americans remain in poverty?
Posted by: squeaky | April 4, 2008 1:03 PM
Justintime,
I'm sure Thomas Sowell doesn't think that there should even be a minimum wage.
And as to land use plans are you speaking of the ones in California that have driven land prices and house prices out of sight.
Or wear you speaking of Houston that has no zoning and land prices and houss are cheaper than the national average.
What has served the poor better?
Roger
Posted by: Roger | April 4, 2008 1:04 PM
Roger,
Those are just more bogus arguments advanced by Sowell.
Sowell has no workable ideas that would benefit the poor.
Please broaden your understanding of economics.
You're trapped in the 'conservative' echo chamber.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 1:10 PM
Justintime,
How are the poor better off with these policies? Going green=higher prices for food, energy and land.
Roger
Posted by: Roger | April 4, 2008 1:16 PM
Sowell's bogus arguments only support the prevailing 'conservative' mindset:
Anything you could possibly think of to make things better would only make things worse.
So it's best not to worry about economic inequality. Just relax, kick back and enjoy life the way it is. After all, you've got yours.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 1:17 PM
I have to produce some wealth now.
I'll check back this evening.
Posted by: justintime | April 4, 2008 1:23 PM
Roger--
" Going green=higher prices for food, energy and land."
but only because the government subsidizes non-green energy, thus creating an artificial competitive advantage. Make no mistake, even though you many not currently pay for not being green through the price of food, energy, and land, you definitely ARE paying for it.
Going green = a livable world for us and our future generations.
Posted by: squeaky | April 4, 2008 3:31 PM
Justintime: Sowell believes that raising the minimum wage will just make things worse.
Paul: And Sowell is right.
In the 90's when Clinton and Keggedy raised the minimum, I saw several small businesses go under in my town. I saw not only my hours get cut, but everyone elses as well. I worked at a Mc Donalds at the time, and we slowede down hiring. I personally had to change the pries on all three menu boards three times that year. I saw every other place I regurlary bought stuff at do the same thing.
In terms of the poor and lower middle class, as far as I could tell where I lived, the increase of the minimum wage was a disaster. People who were at that level lost hours, and therefore money. People who did business where minimum wage jobs were predominate, paid more for their stuff, therefore having less discresionary spending. Businesses saw a decrease in revenue, so they cut hours further and raised prices more.
The immorality of a government minimum on wages is astounding, and even more astounding is the few people who actually see it and admit it.
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | April 4, 2008 3:52 PM
Paul,
It seems like the choice you present is that some people simply must earn an extremely low wage and must stay poor so the rest of us can enjoy the low price of goods and services.
Maybe the real problem is our expectation that the prices of goods and services should always remain low.
Posted by: squeaky | April 4, 2008 4:30 PM
sqeaky, are you saying, don't worry about the cost the poor will be ok. or are you saying it is worth the suffering. roger
Posted by: roger | April 4, 2008 5:32 PM
Squeaky,
Your assumption is wrong. There are numerous oppertunities to find different streams of income that most people can take advantage of. it simply takes a little creativity. I clean houses for a living, because I got tired of working for less than I could afford. Now, suddenly, I am the evil greedy guy that should "pay his fair share" in taxes, never mind that I have a very small company, and I want to expand the tax base by hiring a couple of people.
You do realize that the vast majority of those making minimum wage are high school and college students, right? Very few are single parents.
BTW, the increase in the minimum wage that Clinton and Keggedy forced on us, I got no increase. I barely made too much per hour for the democrats to care weather I could survive their scam or not.
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | April 4, 2008 5:46 PM
"but only because the government subsidizes non-green energy, thus creating an artificial competitive advantage. "
Good point there Squeaky . We do subsidize oil exploration big time , plus have been pretty good to Oil via tax breaks . I am not as down on oil corporations as you and Bill O'Reilly are ,
But If I was president , I would call on a massive techonolgy research in renewable energy and practical uses , subsidize the use of renewable energy , hopefully oil companies could be involved of this new thinking , training the guy who shoed horses to learn how to build cars .
Including nuclear power which would stop the unity I guess from the liberal side of the issue . Unfortunately so but not the commonsense of solving the problems , and use the FDR New Deal method of making jobs that did something usefull , Kennedy to the Moon , or the Manhatten Project develpoing the bomb , building Dams and such that buit hydo electric facilities, and just go all out for renewable energy , and different different types of energy to get us all off oil .
You would think with all the oil in the middle east , their standard of living would be so much better . Obviously not a mind set in regards of how they treat their fellow citizens that we should trust or the world can .
Posted by: Mick | April 5, 2008 5:31 PM
"I am not as down on oil corporations as you and Bill O'Reilly are"
QUA?!?! You mean I actually agree with something Bill O'Reilly says?
To be fair about oil, it makes the world go round, and I'm not advocating a sudden switch to a new form of energy, as the economic disruption would be far too great. However, a purposeful progression to a new form of energy must take place, and oil companies should be part of the solution (if they want to be part of the new energy future, they will be part of the solution).
I agree with your thoughts, and would add that even some Democrats are pro-nuclear. I'm not quite there yet, but I definitely understand the pros. If the cons weren't so devastating, I'd totally be on board...
Posted by: squeaky | April 6, 2008 1:48 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?