Invisible Evangelicals' Insight on the Common Good (by Andrew Wilkes)
Evangelical women and minorities, it seems, exist on the muted margins of political discourse in America. If a justice revival is to sweep over America once more, from the suburban megachurch to the urban storefront church, then Christians must pursue a vision of the common good for all -- and not the common good of a few.
The public narratives of the media often chronicle the broadening social concerns of white evangelical males such as Rick Warren and Richard Cizik -- and rightfully so. Their story deserves to be told. But their story is not the only one.
As an African-American summer intern at Sojourners, I labored alongside two African-American women, two Asian women, and four white men and women -- all of whom persistently link spiritual renewal and social justice. To borrow an image from Gabriel Salguero, this technicolor portrait of evangelicals critiques the Alpine storyline, which is the subtle suggestion that only the broadening social concerns of progressive evangelical white males is newsworthy. Meanwhile, the stories of progressive evangelical minorities and women, the stories I heard at Sojourners, remain as invisible as the protagonist of Ralph Ellison's famous novel.
We stand at a critical moment in the socio-religious history of America. And before us lie two roads. One path pursues the common good of white evangelical men, while relying on the common labor of evangelical women and minorities. This path is marked by denominational positions that define minstry by gender and not gifting (shout-out to Dr. Mimi Haddad of Christians for Biblical Equality), theology that clarifies doctrine while obscuring the correlations of race and poverty, and well-intentioned civic disengagement that nevertheless stacks an already tilted deck of cards against the marginalized.
The other road, a glimpse of which I saw at Sojourners, relies upon the common labor of all evangelicals to pursue the common good of all. This pathway also has signposts: more women serving as bishops and pastors; theology that rhythmically alternates between digesting scripture and dismantling the poverty-race correlation; and wise engagement that represents the broad concerns of the evangelical constituency to the public and private sector. If we take creation care as a representative example, following this path would mean, amongst other things, advocating for green jobs as a response to structural inner-city unemployment.
For understandable and yet lamentable reasons, some evangelicals head down the first pathway; precious few are moving down the second. Of course this ''two roads'' dichotomy simplifies the complex phenomenon of American evangelicalism. Hopefully, however, it also underscores the urgency of now. Christians must toil for, and not just wish for, a technicolor justice revival that pursues the common good of all.
Andrew Wilkes is a policy and organizing intern at Sojourners. He is currently pursuing a Masters of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary. He offers reflections at Foursquare, a blog that encourages abstinence as a spiritual discipline with social consequences.
Add to:
Category: Evangelicals, Faith and Politics
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Evangelical women and minorities, it seems, exist on the muted margins of political discourse in America.
Not in my world. I have had the pleasure of working with some very influencial people that were either women or minorities. The difference for me was I worked with some wonderful - unique - wise and powerful people. Of yeah - the were also women and minoritites in that group - most of us just saw them as brothers and sisters.
Wallis and Co. talk about 'renewal' and link it to programs and issues. I perfer to look at renewal as something that happens to the person - because once the person has been able to see who they are in Christ - things tend to fall into line a lot faster.
All the Time - God is Good
.
It has to be a slow week in Sojoland - Wallis in Denver and we are hearing nothing...wonder if we can expect the same when he is in MN. My offer for dinner or coffee still stands.
Posted by: big guy | August 27, 2008 10:44 AM
"I perfer to look at renewal as something that happens to the person - because once the person has been able to see who they are in Christ - things tend to fall into line a lot faster." Big Guy
That certainly has been the basis on which many churches emphasize doctrine over action-- the only problem, it seems to me, is that there is a whole lot of talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and little concrete action.
The fact of the matter is there is a great divide between what Moderatelad (oops, I meant to say "Big Guy") articulated and more socially concerned and active churches. Instead of trying to pull the other churches along, it would probably be better just to leave them where they are and do the necessary, fully recognizing the divide.
Posted by: JamesM | August 27, 2008 11:52 AM
This post is so elliptical that I'm not at all sure what Wilkes is complaining about.
Posted by: Gordon | August 27, 2008 12:32 PM
"One path pursues the common good of white evangelical men, while relying on the common labor of evangelical women and minorities"
So what is more real: The narrative about white evangelical men or the 'on-the-ground' work of women and minorities????
I believe you are right to challenge the storyline. But that includes holding Sojo accountable for its willingness to ride the back of the "white evangelical man" storyline to amplify its voice.
On the ground, I deeply trust those who 'set their hands to the plough' and don't look back; willing to grab onto the teaching and lifeways of Jesus allowing their lives to be channels of Gods grace, life and love. These folks come in many shapes,sizes, colors and fragrances.
Pray you come out of Princeton with fire in your bones for Jesus the Christ.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | August 27, 2008 12:33 PM
I've never been in a church that emphasized doctrine over action. I pick churches based on many things, but action is definitely one of them.
I also come from a long line of wonderfully involved women -- found mentors in churches and schools. No, they don't get the fame they deserve -- for all the world would benefit from their example. But I think that's what makes them so memorable. When we work for the common good -- the common good is the result. If we made celebrities out of them that gets sticky and changes the equation.
I would like to see them getting the help they need to do their jobs well. I don't know that we need to give them new roles in churches, maybe just more authority and support.
Posted by: frankie | August 27, 2008 12:41 PM
"We stand at a critical moment in the socio-religious history of America. And before us lie two roads. One path pursues the common good of white evangelical men, while relying on the common labor of evangelical women and minorities."
Subtle.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 27, 2008 12:44 PM
Lord Voldemort -- Were it not so. Those of us who are not white men understand that the church universal can no longer allow them to define for everyone what it means to be evangelical. The idea of partnering with people of color -- which almost always means other than the prevailing conservative ethos -- is long overdue.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted by: JamesM | August 27, 2008 11:52 AM
Instead of trying to pull the other churches along, it would probably be better just to leave them where they are and do the necessary, fully recognizing the divide.
Thanks for the LOL! (Mod-lad my...)
I agree that it takes more effort to pull churches along but I would not make and issue of what is called the 'divide'. It is interesting how some will come along at a later date for any number of reasons. They just need to be shown the way or that it can work. Making the divide the issue is counter productive. Bring them along in the areas that you have commonality and leave them to their own destiny on issues that you may differ on. Many times I have found out the people differ big time on the method of getting to the solution but agree on what the solution.
All the Time - God is Good
,
.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2008 1:01 PM
Can't resist a dig at conservatives can you Rick. Gotta work that into every comment somewhere.
Posted by: Ricardo | August 27, 2008 1:04 PM
"Bring them along in the areas that you have commonality and leave them to their own destiny on issues that you may differ on." Big Guy
Agreed.
I do hope that Wallis takes you up on the invite.
Posted by: JamesM | August 27, 2008 1:29 PM
Can't resist a dig at conservatives can you Rick. Gotta work that into every comment somewhere.
Deal with it -- Martin Luther King Jr. was far, far harsher on the political right than I have been and so, for the most part, are most African-American pastors today. You think I'm nasty? Wait until they get a platform; you'll learn that Jeremiah Wright might have actually been somewhat mild.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 1:45 PM
Oh Rick --
Maybe if you learn to say it a different way, you're message will be better understood. And I want you to be understood.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2008 2:14 PM
Maybe if you learn to say it a different way, you're message will be better understood. And I want you to be understood.
Oh, I've had little problem being understood. Thing is, the message itself, no matter how it's delivered, is often unacceptable because, at times, it challenges folks' pet agendas.
The real issue, as the authir tried to convey earlier, is that once more points of views are accepted as valid we'll have more a complete vision of God's intent. Unfortunately, to the detriment of the church the one slant I named has been predominant in evangelicalism, at least in my lifetime.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 3:05 PM
I fail to see how an exclusive focus on the twin issues of a wonman's right to choose and the acceptibility of same-sex marriage in any way furthers "the common good of white evangelical men." I know that's not the thrust of Andrew's posting, but he seems to make it essential to his rhetoric.
Posted by: lbrmouse | August 27, 2008 3:44 PM
what is lbrmouse talking about?? No nohere in Andrew's essay does he mention gay marriage or abortion. The fact is these are pet issues the right, whether by white men or other, have long used these issues to drive a wedge between people and gather followers who think like they do. I like Bob Casey, Jrs thoughts he shared in his speech at the DNC in Colorado.
"Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.
I know Barack Obama. And I believe that as president, he’ll pursue the common good by seeking common ground, rather than trying to divide us. We are strongest when we are together. And there has never been a more important time to devote ourselves to common purpose."
Posted by: Jvf | August 27, 2008 4:20 PM
jvf --
lbrmouse didn't say Andrew said it -- but people on this blog associate it with white men's agenda.
I personally have a very high view of marriage, so there's lots of things I'd like to limit about it, but since my country doesn't share that view, I don't see how we can deny same-sex marriage. I'd be happier with a civil union solution, but I can also see why same-sex types don't feel that's good enough.
Posted by: U TOO | August 27, 2008 4:46 PM
Pray you come out of Princeton with fire in your bones for Jesus the Christ.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown
Welcome back , missed your posts .
Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 4:54 PM
Jeremiah Wright might have actually been somewhat mild.
Posted by: Rick
He was somewhat mild, you missed Ricardo's point . Stopped a good conversation.
Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 4:58 PM
This post is so elliptical that I'm not at all sure what Wilkes is complaining about.
Posted by: Gordon
Gordon I think he felt with all the attention from the manistream media on religion it still appears to be focused on white males and the culture there of . I think he was being like Paul Newman in the Sundance Kid when he keeps saying " Hey what about those guys"
Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Thanks, Michael. I personally try not to get exercised about the coverage of the mainstream press.
Posted by: Gordon | August 27, 2008 5:15 PM
He was somewhat mild, you missed Ricardo's point.
Impossible.
Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 6:04 PM
He was somewhat mild, you missed Ricardo's point.
Impossible.
Posted by: Rick
Nothing is impossible with the Lord . Even those with Agenda's , or those who fear them , can come together . That is how things change. Even when it appears impossible .
Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 6:38 PM
"the common good of white evangelical men"
Some of you may be surprised to learn that this is something that does not enter the mind of the average white guy.
We have health problems, family problems, work problems and money problems just like anyone else.
Contrary to popular belief, we do not sit around conspiring about how to "keep the black man down" or how best to advance "the common good of white evangelical men." To even suggest that we do so is an absurd and insulting.
Posted by: Bradley | August 27, 2008 11:39 PM
Contrary to popular belief, we do not sit around conspiring about how to "keep the black man down" or how best to advance "the common good of white evangelical men."
No need to do that -- the culture does it for them. Why is it, for example, that you never see people of color as spokespeople for major evangelical ministries except those specifically addressing the issue of race? Answer: "Political correctness."
Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 1:43 AM
Rick: "No need to do that -- the culture does it for them. Why is it, for example, that you never see people of color as spokespeople for major evangelical ministries except those specifically addressing the issue of race? Answer: 'Political correctness.'"
Rick, I'm afraid you're wasting your breath. Many white people will never "get" race unless they experience things like a store clerk following them around as they shop, being stopped for driving through the "wrong" neighborhood, having a woman of another color not get on an elevator with him because she would be alone with him, being the only one of your race in a large university class and the instructor asking you to comment on a racial issue and then all eyes turn to you, or having to listen to someone of the majority race respond with a personal anecdote about how they always get along with minorities and therefore they think that gosh darn it people exaggerate race. Or even better, we're all the same in Jesus so it's wrong to bring up race. Funny how it's always whites who say that. The same way it's always whites who say it's time we "get over" race.
Posted by: carl copas | August 28, 2008 11:45 AM
Carl, and don't forget having to constantly hear "some of my best friends are black!"
Posted by: I and I | August 28, 2008 12:25 PM
Thank you, Andrew! This is right on. I look forward to checking out Fourquare.
grace and peace,
Lydia
Posted by: Lydia Bean | August 28, 2008 2:35 PM
It seems that all this talk about whether someone is white or black - or look who did what to whom - is merely escalating division and strife. It creates disunity, not unity. I like what Joseph P. Watkins said:
It seems that all this talk about whether someone is white or black - or look who did what to whom - is merely escalating division and strife and pits one against another. I like what Joseph P. Watkins said:
“Well, the beautiful thing about the church, God’s church, is that it is universal and not about color. People like to make it about color and people, because we are small at times, and make it about the black church or the white church, but in reality, there is no such thing because those of us who know Him and love Him are filled with His Spirit and are part of His Family. And, God’s family knows no color.
“You want to know what Jesus said? Its not about what Joseph P. Watkins thinks, its about Joe Watkins sharing what Jesus says and did…and Jesus said (you know we’re supposed to be with your enemies and those who are treating us poorly?) He said: ‘Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who despitefully use you. Bless those who curse you.’ When He hung on the cross and looked at the people who cursed and crucified him, Jesus didn’t say: ‘You’re gonna get yours someday.’ He said rather, as He lifted His eyes toward heaven and said, ‘Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ This is the Spirit of Christ. This is the teaching of Christ.” - Joseph P. Watkins, former White House Aide
Who is Joseph P. Watkins? Here’s a link below to get you started. He offers a differing philosophical and theological perspective and solutions to issues of social justice than what Sojourners, Wallis, and Campolo offer and support. Is he white or is he black? Does it really matter?
http://josephpwatkins.com/video_select.html
PS. That megachurch referenced in the beginning of the article most likely refers to Vineyard Church of Columbus, the first church to host a "Justice Revival." That church is multi-cultural, well diversified, with many nations and people groups represented. Offers a free community center (built mostly with conservative evangelical donations and no government funding), free medical clinic, free food pantry, free legal service, free ESL and Citizenship classes and more. Also has an extensive homeless ministry to men, women, and families. Just can't stereotype mega evangelical churches...
Posted by: Betsy | August 28, 2008 5:42 PM
Who is Joseph P. Watkins? Here’s a link below to get you started. He offers a differing philosophical and theological perspective and solutions to issues of social justice than what Sojourners, Wallis, and Campolo offer and support. Is he white or is he black? Does it really matter?
Betsy -- You better believe it matters, and Watkins would likely be laughed out of my multi-racial evangelical church which has actually done the hard work of racial reconciliation that he seems to want to avoid. You see, before you can reconcile you have to admit there was a breach of some sort, and based on what I heard he's trying to paper over the sins perpetrated by the church (and especially the white church) -- it's the "cheap grace" that Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about. A few "I'm sorrys" won't cut it; there has to be deep repentance and actions that confirm such before any "coming together" to serve the LORD can happen. In other words, we have to "clean up the mess," as the Good News of Jesus Christ is effective when, and only when, it follows the bad news of sin and its effects on mankind.
My first year in college I learned the chorus "Come, let us reason together..." as a sweet little worship number, but I have since learned that the context, the first chapter of Isaiah, was scathing as he named the sins of Israel in word, deed and attitude. In this context Dr. Wright, as harsh as he sounded, may have been more truly Biblical than Watkins in that he named specific sins where Watkins fails to do so.
Posted by: Rick | August 29, 2008 12:32 AM
Rick, you seem so full of venom and hatred that you are not worth even responding to. Of course, in the USA, it shouldn't matter if someone is white, black, brown, tan, neutral, or albino. In
God's eyes, we are all equal. This was Watkins's point.
You just don't like Joseph P. Watkins because he offers biblically based, conservative, and pro-capitalistic solutions and this runs counter to your liberal, statist, socialist, marxist solutions. And, he happens to be Black American.
The readers of this blog need to know that there are many godly men with much more experience than Mr. Wallis like Mr. Watkins who do not adhere to hateful speech like Mr. Wright, to the opinions of Wallis or Sojourners, nor, who propose bigger government control and spending to further the enslavement of those impoverished.
Well, the Great Society of LBJ, the Democratic President and pushed by the Democrats have done more to harm this nation than any other social reform ever: millions enslaved and entrapped in cycles of poverty because of it. Millions spent - creating a huge deficit which Presidents - both Dem and Rep - have had to deal with....millions spent! Crime up, education down, etc....
It wasn't until the Republicans had the guts enought to draft the first major welfare reform act in the 90's did we ever see a downturn in povery. Less are impoverished today in this country - while Wallis and other Dems fought this welfare reform - which empowers people to work and to get an education and working training...this welfare reform act's stats are in - and it is working1 Is it all that can be done? Of course not - there is much to undo the dammage of the Democratic Great Society program and it will take years...but its a start. Dem. Bill Clinton even signed it into action, but it was the Republicans with the persistence and audacity to stand up and do what was right for this nation and all Americans.
And, the Civil Rights Act was created by Republicans, fillibustered by Democrats who were opposed to it, and, only voted for it until LBJ told the Dems to quit fillibustering.
The Dems and liberal media uphold MArtin Luther King as if he were among them - and that it was their liberal agenda that he advocated. I have news for you: Martin Luther King was a conservative Republican. Are you now going to downplay him as you did Jospeh P. Watkins just now?
So much for your liberal open-mindedness. You can have government control you and the poor, you can have government programs creating more dependence on the federal government, you can have higher taxes, you can have a controlled economy, you can have bigger government encroachment on all of our freedoms, you can socialist-marxist regime, but not here in the USA. You can move to any communist nation for a while and see what living under the ultimate ideal of the liberal fat left agenda really is like.
Posted by: betsy | August 29, 2008 1:04 PM
Betsy, welcome to the blog, but do learn to chill out a bit. Do your homework on the poverty rates, the effectiveness of Great Society programs, socialism and communism, and the Civil Rights Act before subjecting other readers to your rants.
Posted by: I and I | August 29, 2008 1:52 PM
Rick, you seem so full of venom and hatred that you are not worth even responding to. Of course, in the USA, it shouldn't matter if someone is white, black, brown, tan, neutral, or albino. In God's eyes, we are all equal. This was Watkins's point.
Betsy, that first phrase says more about your character than mine -- having dealt with the process of racial reconciliation since the 1970s, long before it became a hot topic, I know from experience that most conservatives simply have no clue what it entails, and simply slamming me because I stand up and challenge conservative orthodoxy all but invalidates your point. In other words, in that last post you exhibit the same venom you falsely accused me of.
We may be all equal in God's eyes, but we are not the same -- when I was a junior in high school I finally learned there were indeed cultural differences between black and white that needed to be accounted for. Even though I grew up in a conservative white denomination with good theology, because of my background that has worked out far differently in my life than those of my then-churchmates. Anything wrong with that? Watkins ignores this.
The "conservative" approach would be to ignore things like culture, theology, personal experiences and the like and focus on (their version of) Jesus. It doesn't work that way, and for that reason "diversity" doesn't threaten me in the least.
You just don't like Joseph P. Watkins because he offers biblically based, conservative, and pro-capitalistic solutions and this runs counter to your liberal, statist, socialist, marxist solutions. And, he happens to be Black American.
In the eyes of most black Americans (and I mean over 90 percent), he is a right-wing stooge set up by arrogant white conservatives to make them look reasonable and non-racist -- that is, to white moderates. Doing so is in fact a barrier to racial reconciliation because it allows conservatives to feel "superior" to everyone else, but in reality they don't want to deal with anyone but themselves. So much for "reconciliation."
The Dems and liberal media uphold Martin Luther King as if he were among them - and that it was their liberal agenda that he advocated. I have news for you: Martin Luther King was a conservative Republican. Are you now going to downplay him as you did Jospeh P. Watkins just now?
Au contraire -- in fact, having actually read much of his material I know for a fact that King was pretty far to the left politically compared to "conservative Christians." In fact, he denounced Barry Goldwater in 1964 as "the most dangerous man in the country" and also on more than one occasion blasted "right-wing Northern whites" more interested in dividing the country. Most of the rest of what you wrote is blatantly false and can be easily disproven.
Posted by: Rick | August 29, 2008 4:17 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?