Rev. Otis Moss on Prophetic Faith (by Jim Wallis)
Somebody came up to me in Denver and said, "At the Democratic Convention of 2008, faith is cool!" That is indeed a big change from recent years. As I have been saying at the many "faith forums" in Denver, faith must have a different and better role than it has had in politics these last few decades.
And I have been encouraged by the more "prophetic" role that faith has played here, deeper than the partisan use of faith in recent memory. At one of those faith panels, Rev. Otis Moss Jr., one of the most respected pastors in the black church and a great leader from the civil rights movement, spoke eloquently and directly to the question of prophetic integrity in politics. He said we must "keep alive the prophetic tradition in our society," and went on to say that there will always be "a healthy tension between the faith-based mission and government enterprises, but tension doesn't mean hostility." In the deep and melodic voice of wisdom and authority that Otis Moss is so known for, this distinguished man invoked the framework that his friend Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. offered for the proper relationship between faith and politics. King said that the churches (or other faith communities) must never try to be "the master of the state." Nor should we be the "servant of the state." Rather the community of faith must be "the conscience of the state."
Rev. Moss said "if the state should lose its conscience, the state will become brutal," and if those of us in the community of faith lose our capacity to be the conscience, we will "be guilty of the sin of omission." He then paraphrased John Stuart Mill, who said that should the state "dwarf" or repress its citizens, it will soon find that with "dwarfed citizens" no great things will be accomplished. He then laid out what it would mean to "engage" government in the most prophetic way. It was a lesson in faithful citizenship, which received an extended standing ovation.
Yesterday, we saw the first nomination of a black man for president of the United States in our history. Today is the 45th anniversary of King's historic "I have a dream" speech on a steamy day in Washington, D.C., in 1963. Tonight, Barack Obama accepts the nomination of his party, addresses 70,000 people at Mile High Stadium, and lays out his vision to the country. All around Denver today, the emotional feeling is one of witnessing history.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
So faith is cool now. That's nice.
The big question is, faith in what exactly? Faith in Barack Obama? Faith in Jesus? Faith in the power and benevolence of Government?
Sojourners has warned about conservatives substituting faith in markets or faith in the American military for faith in God -- not without reason. But when "faith" becomes "cool", especially without any reference to what that faith is actually based on, well, that's grounds for concern too.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 28, 2008 4:16 PM
I little new here and not sure what Jim means by the "prophetic role" that faith has taken at the DNC. Can anyone shed some light on that?
Posted by: Marco | August 28, 2008 4:29 PM
"But when "faith" becomes "cool", especially without any reference to what that faith is actually based on, well, that's grounds for concern too." Lord Voldemort
What are you insinuating by this? More precisely are you trying to say that only a Bible-based, Christ-centered faith would be the only legitimate expression of faith?
Posted by: JamesM | August 28, 2008 4:43 PM
I do not see any faith in God at the DNC, i see radicals trying to get thier agendas to pass for nothing more than total power
Posted by: David | August 28, 2008 5:17 PM
Lord Voldemort, distracted by the 'faith is cool' quote, misses the point of Jim's post.
Let's try it again:
...Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. offered for the proper relationship between faith and politics. King said that the churches (or other faith communities) must never try to be "the master of the state." Nor should we be the "servant of the state." Rather the community of faith must be "the conscience of the state."
Rev. Moss said "if the state should lose its conscience, the state will become brutal," and if those of us in the community of faith lose our capacity to be the conscience, we will "be guilty of the sin of omission."
I'm intrigued by this:
He then laid out what it would mean to "engage" government in the most prophetic way.
Is there a transcript of Rev. Moss's speech?
Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 5:32 PM
I do not see any faith in God at the DNC, i see radicals trying to get thier agendas to pass for nothing more than total power
Posted by: David | August 28, 2008 5:17 PM
Step outside the Republican echo chamber and open your eyes, David.
Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 5:37 PM
... i see radicals trying to get thier agendas to pass for nothing more than total power
ROFL!
Posted by: Don | August 28, 2008 7:23 PM
Prophetic faith means that we pray, "Give ALL OF US this daily bread."
The prayer that Jesus taught is rooted in the Manna Way that God trained them to follow during their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness. Manna means that that those who gathered much shared with those who gathered little.
Currently, our world is structured on the Pharaoh system, a pyramid structure, a few wealthy ones at the top supported by the masses at the bottom.
Further, we live in a Herod culture. Little girls turned into exotic dancers. Truth tellers silenced and ridiculed, although in the USA, thankfully these days, rarely assassinated. Tragically, there is a "Herod News Network" that promotes trash at the lower end of the dial with spin masters doing "journalism" at the upper end of the dial.
As a follower of Jesus, I denounce the evil of the Pharaoh/Herod systems. I pray, "Deliver us from evil." And... I know that evil is defeated through redemptive suffering... overcoming evil with good.
As long as people go without food, housing, health care, education, safe surroundings... the Jesus Liberation Movement is called to advocate for the least of these... and... practicing radical generosity... embodying forgiveness... embracing suffering.
So yes, prophetic faith is cool.. and biblical... and Christ-centered... not to mention justice-grace-forgiveness-and-generosity-centered.
Graced people, grace other people,
Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 28, 2008 7:39 PM
James M asks what I am "insinuating" and if a Bible based, Christ-centered faith is the only acceptable one.
Well, Sojo is supposed to be an evangelical outfit. Now the actual writers have come from a pretty broad range of religious traditions, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that only evangelicals are accepted, but it would seem to me that a "Bible-based" and "Christ centered" faith would be preferred.
Justintime says I was distracted. I wasn't distracted, I thought the introduction was interesting, as much for what it didn't say as for what it did.
FWIW, I thought the comments by Rev. Moss were pretty hard to argue with -- at least what we see here. I especially commend his paraphrase of Mill and his warning of what might happen when the state "dwarfs" its citizens.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 29, 2008 12:34 AM
Well, Sojo is supposed to be an evangelical outfit. Now the actual writers have come from a pretty broad range of religious traditions, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that only evangelicals are accepted, but it would seem to me that a "Bible-based" and "Christ centered" faith would be preferred. Lord Voldemort
I am very thankful that there is a Christian organization such as SOJO that is not so insecure in its faith that it insists that an ostensibly secular event,i.e. a political party convention only express its (SOJO's) view of faith in God. If you're looking for a party that takes that view, you would probably be better served by the Republicans. Although the Republicans would probably disappoint you too.
In my view (and it is only my view), I prefer a party that shows respect for all religious traditions. If what you're looking for, Lord Voldemort, is a political party with the preferred "Bible-based" and "Christ-centered" values that you want at front and center, you would be better served by either founding or joining (if you can find one) a theocratic party. It's not that the Republican party per se advocates theocracy, but you would probably find more people who feel "led" to impose a theocracy within the Republican party.
Posted by: JamesM | August 29, 2008 7:00 AM
It's funny. When the Democrats do it, it's prophetic. When the Religious Right did it, it was wrong. While there were and are extremist on both sides, in most churches they tried to find a balance.
It's not like every Christian failed to do this well in the last 30 years. And like any movement or evolution, those pioneers are what got us here. They took a lot of the flack so you wouldn't have to. Those Religious Right freaks that you don't like, had their lives threatened for speaking out politically against pornography, abortion and various other values we do agree on. So yes, now at the DNC, it's very safe and cool to say, "Faith is cool."
Posted by: Connie | August 29, 2008 10:32 AM
James M.
I would not expect a political party to embrace any particular theology, and would reject one that did so rigidly -- even if that theology were mine.
I would hope, however, that the teachings of a "Bible-based and Jesus-centered" Christianity would be respected, and that individuals who embrace such a faith would have a role in that party's councils.
There are lots of faiths. Many I respect even if I disagree with some of their teachings: Judaism, Catholicism, even some of the more moderate branches of Islam, to give just a few examples.
Other faiths I am less impressed with: radical Islam tops the list, but there are others.
Jim Wallis reports that "faith" is cool. He doesn't say that the Dems are going theocratic and nobody here suspects they will, he's just saying that some sort of faith has become respected among the leadership of the Democratic Party. But just what that means for the Democrats depends a lot on just what type of faith is being embraced.
We both know that religious zeal can be attached to foolish ideas, and the result is often catastrophic. We probably even agree on a lot of examples of bad religion.
So when Jim says that "faith is cool", that's interesting, but it isn't necessarily good news until we have some idea just what type of faith is becoming in vogue.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 29, 2008 10:40 AM
When the Democrats do it, it's prophetic. When the Religious Right did it, it was wrong. While there were and are extremist on both sides, in most churches they tried to find a balance.
When the Democrats do it, it's going up against the status quo which, in their case, is often indifferent or even hostile to religious faith; that by definition made it prophetic. When the "religious right" did it, however, it was trying to maintain the status quo for the sake of its own authority; it acutally morphed into a kind of idolatry. So you really can't compare the two.
Those Religious Right freaks that you don't like, had their lives threatened for speaking out politically against pornography, abortion and various other values we do agree on.
They also are the people who even today often denigrate the faith of other believers who don't subscribe to their narrow ideological agenda, as mentioned numerous times on this blog. I don't know how long you've been posting here, but after a joint appearance four years ago it reported that Jerry Falwell insulted Jim Wallis as "as evangelical as an oak tree." Last year James Dobson ordered the National Association of Evangelicals to fire or discipline executive director Rich Cizik for signing off on a white paper on climate change. (The NAE board told Dobson to take a hike.)
I would hope, however, that the teachings of a "Bible-based and Jesus-centered" Christianity would be respected, and that individuals who embrace such a faith would have a role in that party's councils.
That depends as much on the character and motivations of its pracitioners. If the focus is on justice and good will toward all, that's welcome. If, however, it's about cultural imperialism, folks will run from that.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2008 11:09 AM
After reviewing this comments, it seems that I was watching a different DNC. The Democrats practiced their faith in a reasonably quiet way and I would hope that America can understand that our political parties should not be theocratic or our government. Religious faiths of all walks seek the appropriate way to deal with God's love and how we must show that love through our own actions. The Democratic Convention speakers were not false in their statements of their faith. I would hope that the American people can stop being so divisive and work together to solve the great problems we face. My way is right and your way is wrong must be defeated in this great land and we not worry about what we think God has ordained. In John 21:22, Christ tells Peter: "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Let us stop the name calling and get to work.
Posted by: Brooks | August 29, 2008 12:28 PM
Yesterday, we saw the first nomination of a black man for president of the United States in our history.
I believe that we need to insert 'of a major political party' into the sentence. I believe that other parties have had a black canidate.
Faith is cool at the DNC in Denver - WOW!?!
I believe that is becasue liberals in the 70's and 80's didn't give a rats behind about faith. I was OK to be a person of faith - just keep it to yourself and don't offend anyone - whatever.
So - now Wallis will be in MN and we will see what he has to say about the 'faith community' here - I believe that some of his reports have already been outlined.
God is Good - All the Time
.
Posted by: big guy | August 29, 2008 12:33 PM
Brooks --
Appreciate your thoughts, but was wondering how you felt about letting sin run wild, or do you someone try to legislate what you can about it.
While we say we cannot legislate morality, obviously we want to stop many immoral things. I'm just wondering how you'd like to balance the two.
Posted by: frankie | August 29, 2008 2:04 PM
"I would hope, however, that the teachings of a "Bible-based and Jesus-centered" Christianity would be respected, and that individuals who embrace such a faith would have a role in that party's councils." LV
Your expectation is a reasonable one. Unfortunately due to the secular nature of a political party (and that applies to both) one religion cannot be exclusively represented on the councils (which from your posts, I do not believe that you are advocating). It seems obvious that both parties are positioning themselves for the religious vote. Whatever the "religion is cool" rhetoric from either party is, the bottom line will be the bottom line: How many votes does it get for our candidate. That is what it is all about and for anybody to expect anything better is pretty unreasonable.
Posted by: JamesM | August 29, 2008 3:54 PM
David: "I do not see any faith in God at the DNC, i [sic] see radicals trying to get thier [sic] agendas to pass for nothing more than total power[.]"
David, I have it on good source that if the radical Democrats are elected, they will force women to have abortions, outlaw heterosexual marrriage, ban the Bible, show pornography in the schools, restore the top-bracket tax rates to what they were under Clinton, outlaw guns in the military, and require that everyone become vegetarian.
Posted by: I and I | August 29, 2008 4:22 PM
I don't care if Falwell said Wallis was a an oak tree -- that still doesn't mean he didn't make this job a little easier by pioneering the way.
We don't always like what our pioneers look like, but they are necessary pieces of the great scheme of things.
It's always easier to take an idea and make it better than to be the first one with the idea.
Posted by: Connie | August 29, 2008 6:20 PM
"I don't care if Falwell said Wallis was a an oak tree -- that still doesn't mean he didn't make this job a little easier by pioneering the way." Connie
Well, if you want to judge by that standard, then you might as well say that Hitler built the autobahn [sic], the trains ran on time under Mussolini, and that Robespierre made innovative use of a new innovation-- the guillotine.
Posted by: JamesM | August 30, 2008 3:27 AM
I and I and JamesM, thanks for the laughs.
JamesM, I assume you're still trying to convert those Euros you acquired in Britain?
Posted by: carl copas | August 30, 2008 11:39 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?