Please change your bookmarks to: www.godspolitics.com

and your RSS feeds to: http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?feed=rss2

After two years of a blog partnership between Sojourners and Beliefnet, we're moving the God's Politics Blog in-house to the Sojourners Web site. You can still go to www.godspolitics.com which as been redirected to reach us at our new location.

Other than a new look and feel, you'll still find the latest commentary by Jim Wallis and friends "articulating the biblical call to social justice" as our Sojourners mission statment says. You will also find a few welcome changes and great new features, such as:

• More ways to access blog content, including links to posts by author, "most read," and "most commented."
• A "tag cloud" that represents the hottest topics on the blog.
• Separate RSS feeds for God's Politics, Verse and Voice of the Day, and our Daily News Digest (and more to come...)
• Advertisements that comport with Sojourners' mission and values. 

And perhaps the most significant new feature of all--new comment software including a new sherriff in town: YOU!

• That's right--we're implementing peer moderation, with the ability for readers to rate comments up or down as useful or not useful. Posts that receive too many down votes (no, we're not telling you how many) will be automatically removed. We know we're asking a lot of our readers--to rate posts not on what views are expressed but on how they're expressed--but we think you're up to the task.  
• Of course, you can still always "flag" abusive posts for removal by our staff if something's obviously inappropriate.
• Plus, personal profiles for each commenter with optional attributes including "avatar" images.

We hope you'll continue to enjoy reading God's Politics at its new home!

Most of you are too young to remember Joe Friday, the tough inner-city police sergeant on the old television series Dragnet, which I still see sometimes in syndication. The no-nonsense cop was famous for a line he almost always used while conducting his investigations into a crime. To the many eyewitnesses he would interview, he would say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

Where is Joe Friday when you need him, like during this election campaign? Who is going to check the candidates on their positions, statements, speeches, and especially their attacks on each other, which are getting more vicious? And now, who will also check the media, especially the cable networks, who are increasingly just dividing along partisan political lines?

Where do we go to find the facts? Unfortunately, the media (especially the cable television networks and talk radio shows) are of less and less help -- especially in presenting "just the facts." I try to watch all the Sunday morning news shows some time during the day. Last Sunday's Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace had a long feature with one "analyst" to help us all understand what was happening in this election. The analyst? Karl Rove -- the only analyst. The great Republican architect has now become the great Republican analyst.  Now how's that for "fair and balanced?" And if you want the political alternative, just turn on MSNBC, which is increasingly the ideological counterpoint and competitor with Fox. Then we go to CNN, where more and more of the commentators have become surrogates for one side or the other, saying predictable things along predictable party lines, with notable exceptions like David Gergen, who has worked in the White House for both Republican and Democratic Administrations and really does try to be fair and balanced.

Most of you are also too young to remember when evening news anchors were mostly eloquent narrators of the news. Now turning on television is like tuning into an ongoing partisan debate or, worse, seeing a succession of negative ads fighting back and forth in the name of commentary.

There are, however, a few segments on television, and more investigative stories in the newspapers, where journalists are trying to do the job of keeping the politicians honest. And there are respected fact checking places emerging on the Internet which appear to be developing respect on both sides of the aisle -- a very rare thing these days. One of them is FactCheck.org, whose spokespersons seem to be both fair and balanced. So far, I have seen them do helpful fact checking into the lies now being told in campaign ads and the overstretching of the truth in both campaigns. No, Obama did not support a bill in Illinois to teach sex education to kindergartners, but rather one to protect them from sexual predators. And no, McCain didn't say we should keep the war going in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, just that we might have to support troops there that long as we do in other places.

Check the facts very carefully when the campaigns tell you what their opponent will do on taxes. Hopefully, there will be more of such places emerging that can be trusted. Send in the best choices for fact checking in your experience. Let's find some Joe Fridays out there -- "Just the facts, ma'am." Better yet, let's try to be Joe Fridays ourselves.

[Correction: Thanks to our fack-checking commenters, we have learned that the Dragnet detective's name was, in fact, Joe Friday (not Jack Friday), and the actor's name was Jack Webb. This correction is now reflected in the text.]

We are deeply concerned. Attempts are being made to link Héctor Mondragón to the FARC guerilla movement in Colombia's paper of record, El Tiempo, which has reported on alleged e-mails to Héctor found on the computer of assassinated FARC leader Raul Reyes. Héctor, a Mennonite economist dedicated to the cause of the poor, is a good personal friend.  He works closely with Colombia's indigenous and small-scale farmers (campesinos).  He speaks passionately and writes prolifically on connecting the dots between the social political violence suffered and multi-national economic interests underlying the current armed conflict. In Colombia, good work does not go unnoticed. He is a survivor; he was being tortured around the time I entered the world. 

Colombian Mennonite Church President Alix Lozano writes:

Héctor H. Mondragón has been a member of our church since 1994, that is, 14 years. We have known him as a Christian not only committed to the cause of Jesus Christ, but also to Jesus' teaching and example of nonviolent love. ... His positions towards the government as well as toward the insurgent groups have been clear. ... The Colombian Mennonite Church rejects any attempt to link one of its members -- and in this particular case Héctor H. Mondragón -- to any armed group or any violent practice or to slander his/her name, which as we all know, is also extremely dangerous for the life and security of any person in this context. (Click here for the full statement; aquí para español.)

You can also read Héctor's response in his own powerful words in an essay called "My choice for civil resistance" (aquí para español):

Those who know me know very clearly that I am not part of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), because I disagree with their strategy, their political line, and their methods.

For 18 years, I have publicly and privately differed from the FARC's strategy. That strategy is centered on the role of the guerrilla converted into a revolutionary army, through which the people can seize power and transform society. ... It has become a tragedy for popular struggles. It has permitted the strengthening of the extreme right, which today is running the country. Not only has it failed to stop the displacement of hundreds of thousands of peasants and Afro-Colombians, but it has actually exacerbated that process, and even provoked the forced displacement of indigenous peoples in various parts of the country. ...

Since 1994 I have opted for a personal commitment to nonviolence as the way to contribute to radical social change. I renounced the use of arms in self defense under any circumstance. I got rid of two revolvers that I had legally carried since I had been threatened with assassination ... I stopped working with bodyguards because I did not want to save my life at the expense of another. I ended up abandoning all routines, and thus the possibility of a stable job, in order to avoid being assassinated. I believe in the struggle for radical social change, but I believe it must be accompanied with a radical change of method, the abandonment of armed struggle and the abandonment of the notion that the end justifies the means. The radical means of nonviolence can help us reach the objective of truly radical social change. ...

It is not about replacing one corrupt, right wing government with another. It is not about exchanging one set of gangsters for another, so that our friends can rule instead of our enemies. It is not about demonstrating "governability" without meeting the basic needs of the 80% of Colombians who live in poverty. Colombia needs deep changes, especially on the land and in its relationship to the transnationals. And the only way to win these changes is to deploy the widest civil resistance, to construct alternatives from the base, and to have massive and committed civil mobilization. Absolutely everything I have done in these years, every single day, has been to work towards this with all my strength and all my experience.

Today, I still carry wounds from the torture that I suffered in 1977 and also from 20 years of being threatened with death, pursued by the paramilitaries. Sometimes I lose hope, especially when I know that some of my friends have been killed. I ask myself why continue in this struggle with indigenous people and peasants, why not give up. But then I am struck again with the passion for the people I love and the certainty that they deserve lives with dignity, and solidarity. They failed to kill my body but today they are threatening to kill my words, and I feel it like a re-opening of my old wounds. But the word is a seed and it grows, whatever happens, in the peasant on the land, in an indigenous person in her territory, in Afro-Colombians returning to their communities, in those who live in the popular neighborhoods of the cities who will eat better after the land reform that we will win, in every working family that will get a just wage for work, there the word will live. They won't be able to kill it.

A call to action may be forthcoming.  For the time being we invite you to share this concerning turn of events and pray.  Héctor writes, "I remain firm in prayer and many have prayed for me as well.  They sustain me.  (Me he aferrado a la oracin y muchos han orado por m. Me llegan muchos apoyos y me sostienen. )"

Janna Hunter-Bowman works for Mennonite Central Committee in Bogotá, Colombia, as the coordinator of the Documentation and Advocacy Program for Justapaz.

Just war theory is a mode of analysis that lists criteria by which war may be considered righteous before, during, and after its execution.  The criteria to consider before a war are: declared by legitimate authority, just cause, right intent, reasonable hope of success, last resort, and announcement.  The criteria to consider during war are: noncombatant immunity, proportionality of damage to good that will result, and limitations on weapons and tactics.  Young scholars in Christian ethics are developing criteria to consider after war, such as reparations, truth and reconciliation, and refugees.

Just war theory has a long history inside of Christianity.  It is a middle way between holy war and pacifism.  However, just peace theory occupies the ground between just war theory and pacifism.  From the perspective of just peace theory, just war theory is only war.  It presupposes war.  It comes into the discourse at the moment when a conflict reaches a crisis point and the possibility of war.  The conversation becomes about making the case for war using just war principles.  In contrast, just peace theory presupposes peace.  The discourse becomes about what the nation is doing to preserve the peace.  Further, just peace theory moves beyond just war theory because just war theory is unrealistic in the face of the nature of war itself.

For example, before a war we consider just cause.  In reality, the causes of war are always multiple, complex, and entangled. So underneath arguments about defense and humanitarian intervention, there often lies an economic intent.  Further, once war begins, no one can ever know how successful a nation will be in executing the war.  Just war during war calls for the immunity of innocents and the protection of noncombatants from being targets of violence.  Realistically, innocents always die in war.  Some will object that this is an argument of moral equivalency.  It is.  The blood and tears are equivalent; people are equivalently killed and physically and psychologically injured.   An innocent ecology is equivalently wounded.

Moreover, the nature of warfare is to defeat an enemy by any means necessary, and this includes using weapons and tactics that will demoralize the enemy even if that means killing innocents.  Just war theory cannot come to terms with this reality.

Just peace theory understands that peacemaking happens every day, that the only just war is the war that we prevent because there is no such thing as victory in war.  War itself is a defeat of human reason, communication, truth, and respect.  At the same time, just peace theory recognizes there may be times when a military force ought to deploy to protect vulnerable populations or to enforce a peace agreement.

September 21 is the U.N. International Day of Peace and Global Cease-fire.  It is a day when the world can pause to think about ways to make justice and peace the project and the goal of daily life.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School     

Thus says the Lord: Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, "We will not walk in it."

- Jeremiah 6:16

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The latest news on the Wall Street Crisis, Iraq, Iran, Presidential Campaign, Hurricane Ike, Hurricane Ike-Cuba, Crime, Homelessness, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, Bolivia, and Father D'Escoto at U.N.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

God does not have hands, we do. Our hands are God's. It is up to us what God will see and hear, up to us, what God will do. Humanity is the organ of consciousness of the universe ... Without our eyes the Holy One of Being would be blind.

- Lawrence Kushner

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Yesterday afternoon, after devastating the Texas coast, the remnants of Hurricane Ike tore through Granville and the rest of Ohio, uprooting centuries old trees and downing power lines with hurricane force winds.  More than one million Ohioans lost power, and some of us may be waiting for up to a week for power to be restored.  In central Ohio where I live, 455,000 remain without power at this time.  The schools here are closed, and many of us are without water due to well and septic systems that rely on electricity to work.   

We lived through this kind of power outage before -- during the ice storm of 2004.  So neighbors are pulling together, checking on the elderly, and making sure everyone has enough supplies to last until the power is restored. The Granville college students are helping with water delivery and clearing the trees.  Local residents are pooling their cash and making trips to stores in Columbus that have opened to sell water, batteries, candles, and other necessities.  Churches are checking on their shut-ins and providing food to those without the necessary provisions. The local government turned out road crews with chain saws and tools to clear blocked streets and passages.  And in the one coffee shop that has electricity, residents are sharing the electrical outlets as we charge up our laptop computers, Blackberries, and cell phones.  So, all in all, our small community will weather this storm.

But I wondered last night, when I saw one gas station charging $5.99 per gallon for gasoline, what about those who are living on the edge here?  Are the folks in the trailer park at the edge of town okay?  Can they afford to pay for price-gouged gas?  Can they afford to replace an entire refrigerator and freezer worth of food that is now spoiled?  Do they have the extra cash to buy emergency supplies and food for a week until the power comes back on?  Can they take their child to work for the day, or a week, until the schools and childcares open again?   

One in six children in Ohio is hungry.  How many of those children will miss their government subsidized meals this week because the schools are closed and the meals cannot be prepared?  Poverty hurts -- and an unexpected emergency like a windstorm and a long term power outage makes poverty hurt even more by laying bare the continued economic disparity in our country -- and in my small town.   

These are the issues that propel me forward in my work to Vote Out Poverty.  These are the questions that drive me to ask pastor after pastor after pastor to host a Poverty Sunday this fall to raise the consciousness of parishioners in the pews about poverty.  These are the questions that had me participating by candlelight last night in a national conference call with Jim Wallis to Vote Out Poverty.  And these are the questions that have turned the Lord's Prayer into my plea: "thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Please keep in prayer the families of the three people killed in Ohio last night during the windstorm, as well as the thousands and thousands in Texas and the Gulf Coast who were displaced by Hurricane Ike.  Please also pray: "The world now has the means to end extreme poverty; we pray we will have the will."

Rev. Virginia Lohmann Bauman lives in Granville, Ohio with her family, and she is the Ohio Field Director for Sojourners.

The presidential tickets in this election on both sides of the aisle have lots of "personality;" some of the candidates have even been referred to as "rock stars."  John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis has said that "this election is not about issues, this election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." That has been widely interpreted as a prediction that the election will be about personalities more than about issues. That would be a tragedy. And some on the Obama side were perhaps hoping that their candidate's charisma and popularity would be enough. But those qualities won't be enough and shouldn't be. Here are ten reasons why.

1. The economy is in grave danger. Over the weekend, two more of the nation's top investment banking firms have gone down. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America. With the earlier demise of Bear Stearns, that's three out of the nation's top five investment banks who have not been able to weather the financial storms triggered by the subprime lending crisis. Analysts this morning say this is either the beginning of the end of the crisis or the beginning of the end. The stock market looks like it fears the second outcome. Ordinary Americans are worried about college and retirement funds and, much worse -- a downward economic spiral that affects most all of us. We need more than personalities here.
2. "Poverty is now our next door neighbor." That's what a hospital administrator said to me during my annual physical last week. With foreclosures, declining housing equity and opportunity, job losses, stagnant wages, and lack of affordable healthcare, more and more people are being affected. And, of course, those at the bottom are in the worse shape of all.
3. Globally, the progress we were making on international poverty has been seriously set back because of food and fuel prices. Untold numbers of people are facing starvation.
4. There continue to be about 1.3 million abortions a year.  Partisan shouting on both sides during election seasons has prevented our finding solutions that result in real abortion reduction.
5. A broken immigration system is resulting in more and more raids on workplaces, breaking up thousands of families.  How can we create reforms that are compassionate and just along with protecting our borders?
6. Global warming is shrinking the polar ice cap at an unprecedented rate, more plant and animal species are endangered, and weather patterns are becoming erratic and more dangerous.  How can we stop and reverse climate change?
7. The war in Afghanistan has gone on for seven years now, yet the situation on the ground is getting worse by most accounts. The war in Iraq has gone on for more than five. Some claim progress and others say the underlying issues remain unresolved. Both those who want "victory" and those who say we should "end" the war must show their plans for success.  There are other wars now threatening in places like Iran and Syria. How many more wars can we fight at one time? The military is severely strained, especially service men and women and their families. And those veterans who come home needing so many things are not getting them.
8. We are no closer to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, still a critical factor in Middle East conflicts.
9. The conduct of the United States' war on terrorism has taken a great toll on America's standing in the world. The use of torture, the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and secret prisons around the world have all taken their moral toll. There needs to be a plan to repair the nation's moral stature.
10. The great danger of nuclear proliferation continues unabated. And even the pleas of national security wise men, from both sides of the aisle, have not been heeded.

And because each of you has other crises you think should be added (I can think of another ten easily), it becomes more and more clear that voting on personalities this election would be irresponsible. It's time to focus on the issues, the records of the candidates, and their plans for solving the massive problems that we face.  That will be the subject of my blog posts between here and the election -- and what a more "prophetic" than "partisan" Christian witness might be. Stay tuned.

Last year I lived in a Catholic Worker house that offers hospitality to immigrants without first inquiring about their legal status. One day, a woman called the house on behalf of two young boys who had come home to an empty apartment; their parents had been taken in a raid, and the boys had no other relatives or friends in the country. They had been born in the U.S., but their parents were undocumented workers; the raid had traumatized and temporarily orphaned them. They were afraid to leave their home and had no idea how to locate their parents.

Unfortunately, these boys' story is not unique. Over the past year, throughout the country the Department of Homeland Security has conducted increasingly numerous worksite enforcement raids that target employers who hire unauthorized workers. During these raids, large numbers of workers who have often worked in difficult and appalling conditions are arrested. Children are separated from their working parents for days at a time, and community life is disrupted.

Last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement urging Homeland Security to discontinue worksite enforcement raids until several "humanitarian safeguards" are put into place. The statement says, "The humanitarian costs of these raids are immeasurable and unacceptable in a civilized society" and reminds us that "many families never recover, others never reunite."

Catholic social teaching states that the family is the "fundamental institution upon which society and government itself depends" and that the family "must be supported and strengthened." May Christians follow the lead of these courageous bishops to speak with one voice, urging the government to support families and put an end to the inhumane practices of worksite enforcement raids.

Jennifer Svetlik is a policy and organizing assistant at Sojourners.

The latest news on Hurricane Ike, Wall Street Crisis, Afghanistan, Unemployed Women, Education, Urban Gleaning, Religion, Arms Sales, Zimbabwe, Canadian Election, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Bolivia, India, and Select Op-eds.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Your beliefs will be the light by which you see, but they will not be what you see, and they will not be a substitute for seeing.

- Flannery O'Connor

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not listen?
Or cry to you "Violence!"
and you will not save?

Why do you make me see wrongdoing
and look at trouble?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.

- Habakkuk 1:2-3

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Once upon a time there was a house...

Anything that begins with such words as that usually carries with it the implicit promise that a tale is about to be told. "Once upon a time" rarely is a vehicle for conveying factual or objective truth. Rather, we have learned to read it as the set piece that introduces a bit of folk entertainment which, in the end, will leave us with a bit of folk wisdom forever wrapped in a memorable tale. All well and good and as it should be.

On the other hand, when a professional religionist begins something by saying, "Once upon a time," there is the hesitant assumption that the forthcoming insight or wisdom will be less folk or common wisdom and more geared toward making some kind of moral point. And when a professional religionist begins something by saying, "Once upon a time, there was a house...," there is every reason to assume -- especially if the religionist is a Christian -- that we are about to re-visit, whether we wish to or not, the parable of the two houses. One was built on a solid foundation of rock so that, when the storms came, it withstood their onslaught and remained standing. The other was built upon a foundation of sand and, when the storms came, crumbled under their onslaught and fell down. It is one of the better known of Jesus' parables and contains something very close to folk wisdom or common sense in addition to its theological ramifications.

Actually, a number of New Testament parables are common sense or folk wisdom tales, requiring not much depth of perception to understand and yet still wrapped in the skin of story and entertainment ... a fact which is, I suspect, a good deal of the reason for our having a certain kind of laziness about extending them into our own time instead of leaving them as quaint, but still honored, artifacts of an earlier one. All of this came to mind for me three or four Sundays ago when the parable of the two houses was the New Testament reading for the congregation with whom I was worshipping at the time. I've been chewing on the matter ever since. So...

Once upon a time, there was a house, whether on sand or rock, I can not say; but let us assume that this house was securely positioned, at least for our purposes here. Now this house of ours had an occupant. Who, we don't know, but an occupant. That occupant has a family ... a mate, children, a few pets, and an occasional relative or friend who comes for a visit. Now the children are all worrisome and gratifying and demanding, as children are supposed to be. The mate is the beloved whom the occupant can hardly bear at times, though it is clear that each of them is really in the business of sculpting the other into something that more resembles half of a new whole than it does anything else. The pets all bounce around ... or the dogs do, anyway. The cats prefer to sit back, tails curled under them, and wait to be asked about what should be done next. The pets are quite dear at times and not so dear at others, but all of them are fed and housed with an affection which, unlike that extended to the children and the mate, is largely untainted by any sense of obligation or duty.

The house has all the appointments that one would expect. There are windows, well-positioned not only to let in the light, but also to admit of good cross-ventilation. There is an adequate electric system that also keeps the house well-lit, warm enough and cool enough, and very functional. Likewise, the plumbing is in good balance with the needs of the house, though like all plumbing, it will occasionally suffer from overload and back up or will be the dumping place for more than it can handle and overflow. These are ongoing nuisances that cause the occupant only passing inconvenience, but rarely extended difficulty. There is the usual division of the house's rooms into those that are more or less public and those that are private and also, of course, those that are distinctly personal ... or at least, from time to time and on a routine basis, their use is. There is, as we would expect, a lovely, warm, cheerful kitchen which transcends the categories and simply is communal space at all times. The occupant, being a good person, sees to the house and its maintenance responsibly, consulting experts from time to time, when that is necessary, and spending time and money, as well as energy, in seeing to the house's ongoing good health.

In all of this, it is very clear to all concerned that the occupant is not the electrical system, though neither the house not the occupant would scarcely be able to function without it. It is equally clear that the inviting, communal kitchen is not the occupant, nor are the attractively dressed windows nor the front porch and flowers beds that complement the house. The furnishings, all of them adequate and suited to their purposes, are not the occupant, even though they are used constantly for the comfort, sustenance, and betterment of the occupant. And certainly no one would ever think that the occupant was the stairways which went up and down, from basement to first floor to second floor to attic, or even from doorways to driveway and sidewalk and patio. The occupant is none of these things, in part, of course, because the occupant isn't a "thing" and therefore can never be one. It is true, however, that the occupant could not long survive without a house of some sort, be it this one we are speaking of, or some other shelter.

But the house and the occupant do share one commonality: they both will someday cease to be. Both will pass away. The occupant, who was not the house, will die; and the house, who was not the occupant, will burn down or molder down or be torn down or undergo some other such ending. All will be gone. All the pieces and parts of our lovely story gone into dust and ashes. All of them gone as pieces, anyway. What is and always will be is what neither the house nor the occupant, as separate entities, ever was. What is and is ever to be is home ... the joy-giving, rest-filled, and light-bearing presence within experience of the reality of "home." What is, is the translation of passing tangibles into the eternal. What is, is the fusing of occupant and house into one that is neither, but both together. What is, is a story about an occupant and a house that, in truth, is really a story resurrection bodies and the kingdom of God, as in "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as in Heaven." Or so it seems to me anyway.

Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why.

Based on some responses to my last post, and a new poll by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, it seems there are many evangelicals who believe that there are in fact times when torture is necessary and proper.  I am assuming these people also believe it is at times necessary and proper for Christians to do the torturing?

According to the poll, 57% of white evangelicals in the South believe that torture is often or sometimes justified.  Another 16% believe that it can be justified in rare occasions.  Only 22% believe that it is never justified.  This is surprising because only 48% of the general population believe that torture can be justified.  How can this be?

Well, it seems it is because those Christians polled have forgotten or ignored the teachings of Jesus.  The poll found that 44% of those asked relied on personal experience and "common sense" more than on Christian teaching when making their decision.  Only 28% of the people polled initially were found to base their decision on Christian teaching.  When these same people were reminded of the "Golden Rule," many changed their answer.  When taking into account Jesus' teaching that those who follow him should, "Do to others what you want them to do to you," opinions changed by 14%.  After the reminder, 52% of white evangelical Christians polled replied that the U.S. government should not do to others what they do not want done to their soldiers.  This is a 14% jump from the initial 38% who claimed that torture is never or rarely justified.

When we lose sight of the life and teachings of Jesus, we tend to stray away from the path he paved for us to walk.  How do those who respond to the call of Jesus to "follow me" end up supporting the torture of children of God?  By forgetting what he taught and lived.  If we take the words of Jesus seriously to "do unto others...", it becomes much clearer that torture is out of the picture for Christians to support or engage in.  There are no known sayings of Jesus that can remotely hint that torture is ever justified, but there are many that point to the fact it is never justified.  "Do unto others" is just one of those teachings.  Jesus does not call us to "common sense" but to radical discipleship and love.  He calls us to the type of discipleship and love that is more likely to get you tortured than approve of the torture of others. 

Jimmy McCarty is a student at Claremont School of Theology studying Christian ethics, a minister serving cross-racially at a church in inner-city Los Angeles, and a servant at a homeless shelter five days a week.  He blogs at http://jimmymccarty.wordpress.com/.

This week, The New York Times ran an editorial about H.R. 6691, follow-up legislation to the June Supreme Court decision on D.C.'s gun ban. After reading the editorial, I made a resolution: One day I will join the National Rifle Association.

I first started learning about the sport of marksmanship when I was 10 years old at "Camp Good News." We practiced with our BB rifles every day after our morning worship services. I graduated to a .22 rifle soon after to rid our family's barn of pigeons and our garden of woodchucks. In the fall, our family would enjoy venison stew that came from deer shot in the woods behind our house. 

What has stopped me from signing up for the NRA thus far has been their support of legislation such as H.R. 6691. This legislation has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with powerful business interests looking to make a profit by moving more product. This legislation would allow residents of D.C. to legally walk the streets with loaded AK-47s. It would make it legal to own .50 caliber sniper rifles with an accuracy of up to 1 mile in our nation's capital. 

The NRA has lost its way. It has made an organization of sportsmen and women into a cover organization for business interests ready to sacrifice safety and national security for their bottom line. 

I am ready to join the NRA the day I can be convinced that its goals are to protect my constitutional rights and not to protect business interests at the expense of public safety.  Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.'s non-voting member of Congress, has introduced alternative legislation that would responsibly ensure the District's adherence to the Supreme Court's ruling.  If it was about the Constitution, H.R. 6691 would be unnecessary.    

So one day, when the NRA puts American lives, safety, and rights first -- and not lobbying dollars -- I'll join.

Tim King is the special assistant to the CEO for Sojourners. For more information, visit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Even though we don't often weigh in on local D.C. political issues, the Sojourners policy team made an exception on a new piece of legislation that would have a direct impact on gun violence in the District. We signed Sojourners on to a faith-group letter last week opposing the bill described in this New York Times editorial: 

The bill, which seems headed toward passage in the House, is advertised by its supporters as a necessary response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down the district's 32-year-old ban on possessing handguns in the home. It is nothing of the sort. The City Council has already passed temporary changes to comply with the ruling and is working on permanent revisions.

This extreme bill goes way beyond what the high court required. Among other things, it would repeal a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and eliminate firearm registration requirements, even for such things as sniper rifles and small, easily concealed semiautomatic handguns. Under the lunatic logic of this bill, made to order for the gun lobby, such rifles could be toted around on the street fully loaded.

Sojourners has a long history in the Columbia Heights neighborhood in D.C., and many of our staff and their families live in the area in addition to working here. For many years we ran a neighborhood center and saw the results of gun violence in the lives of children who attended programs at the center.

So while we agree that the District of Columbia must adhere to the Supreme Court decision on handgun ownership, Congress should listen to residents, local businesses, and organizations and their need for safe streets, schools, and homes, and vote against HR 6691.

Elizabeth Denlinger is deputy director for policy and organizing at Sojourners.

[Click here to see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

Greetings from Brazil! Rosalee and I have been following this exchange closely even if from afar -- or à distância. A few of our friends in the U.S. -- including Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Ángel Gallardo (who has lived at both Simple Way and Rutba House), and Eliacin Rosario-Cruz -- are or have been part of New Monastic communities. In addition, our local church in the U.S. is Mt. Level Missionary Baptist Church in Durham, North Carolina, a historically African-American congregation. From our friends and mentors there, we began to learn about race and racial reconciliaton. 

All this to say: Even though we write from afar, we write because we find ourselves a part of this conversation. Here are a couple of our observations:         

1) Why this conversation needs to be happening. There is no "gracious and hopeful invitation to public dialogue" about Christian community and race in Brazil. On the one hand, there is no New Monastic movement here, but there are base Christian communities and other vibrant examples of comunidade. On the other, the race question is more slippery, in large part due to the fact that belief in the "myth of racial democracy" (as it is called here) is still popularly affirmed. But all our Afro-Brazilian friends are quick to point out that Brazil, too, suffers deeply from its own racial wounds. (If there is any doubt, consider that (1) of the roughly 10 million Africans who were enslaved during the colonial slave trade, around a half million were taken to the U.S., and around 4 million were brought to Brazil; and (2) recent estimates indicate that 31 million Brazilians live below the poverty line. Of those 31 million, 80 percent are of African descent.) Yet given that harsh reality, there is still no serious public conversation about race within the Brazilian church.  

Recently, we participated in a forum at a church in Salvador that is part of the government-sponsored campaign called "Program Against Institutional Racism." We found out afterward that this was the first time such a forum had taken place in a church in Salvador -- where the population is between 80 to 90 percent black. Race is being talked about, but, unfortunately, almost all of the prophets are found outside of the Christian community.

So, first of all, we are encouraged by this conversation as it challenges us in Brazil to embody New Monasticism's Mark #4: "Lament for Racial Divisions Within the Church and Our Communities Combined with the Active Pursuit of a Just Reconciliation."

2) What submission might look like. These conversations reminded us of a scene from Ken Burns' documentary, Jazz. There's an interview with Ossie Davis in which he, an African-American, describes how Benny Goodman, who was white, crossed the colorline to learn jazz in Harlem:

"I think Benny Goodman was the man who stood "outside" and was attracted to something he heard "inside" and came inside himself, and saw what was going on and picked up the nearest thing and joined it. He experienced in his own person the "true welcome" that's at the root of jazz. For him to cross the threshold was easy, because jazz made it easy." (Jazz, disc 2,"Swing, Pure Pleasure," Title 3, Chapter 7)

Benny Goodman went to them and learned their cultural forms, yet he didn't submit to the African-American jazz community. Instead he took their riffs, and their songs, and became one of the biggest bandleaders of all time.

The point -- the connection between this scene and this conversation -- is this: It's one thing to relocate (Mark #1), to cross over, to receive the "true welcome," and to learn from our neighbors. But the real question is about submission (Mark #5). How do we build a "collective witness" that moves from Mark #4 to Mark #5: "Humble Submission to Christ's Body, the Church." If white privilege, dominance, and male leadership have been recognized as problems, what would submission look like here? 

As we read it, Jason and Vonetta, Eliacin, and Gabriel don't question whether white guys can be in the band. But they raise another question: What would it look like to be in the band without leading it?

We look forward to hearing more from this "jam session." Who knows, maybe we'll even hear a little samba.

Sam (native Tarheel) and Rosalee (Brazilian-American) Ewell live in Brazil with their three kids, James, Isabella, and Katharine. Sam is a theological educator/networker with School for Conversion-Latin America and local pastor at Igreja Batista Catuaí (and a late convert to soccer). Rosalee also works as a theological educator and writer, primarily through her work with the Comité Bíblico Latinoamericano.

[Click here to see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

The latest news on Hurricane Ike, Remembering 9/11, Palin Interview, Domestic Violence, Cost of Killing, Zimbabwe, Child Deaths, West Bank Peace, Iraq, Venezuela, Pakistan, Egypt, India, and Russia.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Our being Christian today will be limited to two things: prayer and righteous action among humanity.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way."

- Matthew 15:32

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

All of us remember this day, where we were when we heard the news, our feelings, our fears. There has been a lot of controversy about how the memory of this day has been or is being used or misused for political purposes, but I always come back to one of my life mottoes: the best antidote to misuse is not disuse -- it is proper use.

In many ways we have run from the feelings of that day ... grief, grievance, unity, confusion, dislocation, vulnerability and solidarity. In many ways, we quickly transmuted those emotions into ones that we are more familiar with, ones we know how to "work with" -- anger, lust for revenge, blame, scapegoating, offended pride, even hate.

But maybe now, seven years later, we are able to return to the feelings of that day and in some way learn from them now what we may not have been able to learn from them back then.

Grief -- we lost so much that day. Loved ones. A sense of invulnerability. A sense of transcendence over the rest of the world for whom violence is so much a part of daily life. Ungrieved grief makes us sick, and so it is good, today, to grieve.

Grievance -- we knew instantly that the people who were suffering were not guilty of the violence they were experiencing, and this sense of having been wronged filled us all. Something healthy happens in our souls when we hold that feeling up to the light -- without letting it toxify into bitterness and revenge.

Unity -- we knew that we needed each other and needed to stand together. Now, in the midst of a bitterly fought election, can we recall that understanding of our standing together?

Confusion -- we realized that the world was more complex than we realized, that there were forces at work we weren't attending to, and of the pain in being pushed from the category of knowers to seekers. Not understanding is humbling, and again, it is good to hold ourselves in that humility without relieving ourselves of it by pretending we have everything figured out according to our various ideologies and slogans.

Vulnerability -- our confidence in our own power shaken, we faced that there were other powers that must be reckoned with. We felt that we are more like our neighbors around the world than we realized: that our lives can be interrupted by those with grievances, pain, confusion, and fear of their own ... that we are connected with those who have grievances against us, and we must share the world with them, and they with us.

Solidarity -- many said that the whole world was American that day, but it was also true that we in America felt solidarity with the rest of our war-torn, violence scarred world that day. I believe at some deep level, the Holy Spirit was warming each of our hearts with a longing for shalom/salaam/peace ... since we so acutely felt its absence.

If you just read over each of these emotions, and hold them up in your heart to the light of God, you will see the ways in which these emotions can open us towards the living God of love. Then, perhaps, consider the alternatives -- anger, lust for revenge, blame, scapegoating, even hate -- and think of the effect these feelings can have on your spiritual life, how they can be "sacralized" and baptized and camouflaged under religious language. Perhaps, if you see this dark process at work in you and us, that will move you to repentance and prayer.

If you have a few more minutes, listen to this podcast from my friend Fred Burnham, who was across the street from ground zero, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, when the towers fell. His story exemplifies how we can let the experience of 9/11 be a sanctifying one in our lives, individually and together. May it be so.

Brian McLaren is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again. He serves as board chair for Sojourners.

The recent Georgia-Russia mini-war in and around South Ossetia was definitely not a religious war, but it serves as a reminder that religious identity doesn't even come in third place when issues of national identity are at issue. While the battle raged, the majority of participants -- and casualties -- were Christians on both sides.

In both countries, the Orthodox Church -- in practice, though not officially -- functions as the national church. Russia has an icon of St. George at the center of its national coat of arms; the average Russian atheist regards himself as an Orthodox atheist. Georgia prides itself on having adopted Christianity in the 4th century, six centuries before the baptism of Russia.

No matter how borderless Christianity is in theory ("neither east nor west, neither Greek nor Jew"), in practice national borders are as substantial as cathedral walls.

The Orthodox churches in Russia and Georgia, led by Patriarch Alexei in Moscow and Patriarch Ilya in Tbilisi, are no exception. It's rare for either church to stand in opposition to its government. The Russian Orthodox Church has been especially notable for being quick to bless Russia's military -- and has been all but silent in voicing criticism about Russian actions, no matter how brutal. Patriarch Ilya also has been equally silent about post-Soviet Georgia's deepening association with the United States and the U.S.-sponsored military buildup that has resulted.

Thus it has been a surprise to note the efforts made by the leaders of both churches, first to prevent the recent war and then, their efforts having failed, to speed its end.

Ilya seems to have been the one who took the first step. In April he sent a letter to Alexei in which he noted the potential "role and authority of our churches to prevent the escalation of tensions and help restore good bilateral relations."

While Alexei's response has not been made public, it is likely that he intervened with Russia's president and prime minister (he is on close terms with both Medvedev and Putin) in hopes of encouraging renewed diplomatic efforts to prevent conflict.

But when Georgia's military bombarded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 8, hopes to prevent war were shattered. (What lay behind Georgia's action is baffling. It was something like Connecticut opening fire on New York. The Russians had already made clear what would happen in such a case. Georgia's small army hadn't a chance against Russian forces. Was President Saakashvili imagining that America, his military sponsor, would join the battle? Had he even been encouraged to open fire? I'd love to know.)

What is remarkable in the context of the days that followed was Patriarch Alexei making a public appeal to the Russian state to declare a cease fire.

"Today blood is being shed and people being killed in South Ossetia," he said, "and my heart deeply laments over it. Orthodox Christians are among those who have raised their hands against each other. Orthodox people, called by the Lord to live in fraternity and love, confront each other."

In a sermon given in Tbilisi two days later, Patriarch Ilya said that "one thing concerns us very deeply -- that Orthodox Russians are bombing Orthodox Georgians."

Note that when Alexei made his appeal, he was definitely not acting as the Russian government's amen chorus. At the time, Russia's leaders were strongly resisting international pressure for a cease fire. It seems likely that Russia was hoping, war having begun after years of tension, to seize the moment to bring South Ossetia, bitterly at odds with Georgia for many years, into actual rather than ex officio inclusion in Russia -- a goal Russia is still pursuing, but at present without warfare with Georgia.

Will the two churches make more vigorous efforts to prevent renewed conflict? And if so, how? How willing are the two churches to prevent the cross from being used as a flag pole?

Jim Forest is the international secretary of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship (www.incommunion.org), editor of its journal In Communion, and author of Praying With Icons and The Road to Emmaus: Pilgrimage as a Way of Life.

Seven years ago this morning, airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania.  The next day I joined with a few others to draft the following statement.  In a few weeks, more than 4,000 of America's religious leaders of all faiths had signed it and it was printed as an ad in The New York Times.

Seven years later, as we remember that day, it is appropriate to reflect on this statement and to wonder how the world would be different if its counsel had been heeded. 

We "demand[ed] that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice.  Those culpable must not escape accountability."  Yet after seven years of war in Afghanistan, we are still engaged against a resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden has still not been found.  Then, 9/11 was used as a rationale to invade and occupy Iraq, a conflict that has now taken the lives of more than 4,000 American troops and countless Iraqis.  Rather than "the vision of community, tolerance, compassion, justice, and the sacredness of human life, which lies at the heart of all our religious traditions," we have seen the erosion of our civil liberties, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and indefinite detentions without trial.

Today on this anniversary, let us pause to remember those who died, to reflect on what has happened since, and once again, "Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of the injustice that breeds rage and vengeance." We offered a different way to deny the terrorists their victory, which, I believe, could still be followed. It's not too late to change our course. Please read and reflect upon the original statement.

DENY THEM THEIR VICTORY: A RELIGIOUS RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

We, American religious leaders, share the broken hearts of our fellow citizens. The worst terrorist attack in history that assaulted New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania has been felt in every American community.  Each life lost was of unique and sacred value in the eyes of God, and the connections Americans feel to those lives run very deep. In the face of such a cruel catastrophe, it is a time to look to God and to each other for the strength we need and the response we will make. We must dig deep to the roots of our faith for sustenance, solace and wisdom.

First, we must find a word of consolation for the untold pain and suffering of our people. Our congregations will offer their practical and pastoral resources to bind up the wounds of the nation. We can become safe places to weep and secure places to begin rebuilding our shattered lives and communities. Our houses of worship should become public arenas for common prayer, community discussion, eventual healing, and forgiveness.

Second, we offer a word of sober restraint as our nation discerns what its response will be. We share the deep anger toward those who so callously and massively destroy innocent lives, no matter what the grievances or injustices invoked. In the name of God, we too demand that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice.  Those culpable must not escape accountability. But we must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life. We pray that President Bush and members of Congress will seek the wisdom of God as they decide upon the appropriate response.

Third, we face deep and profound questions of what this attack on America will do to us as a nation. The terrorists have offered us a stark view of the world they would create, where the remedy to every human grievance and injustice is a resort to the random and cowardly violence of revenge -- even against the most innocent. Having taken thousands of our lives, attacked our national symbols, forced our political leaders to flee their chambers of governance, disrupted our work and families, and struck fear into the hearts of our children, the terrorists must feel victorious.

But we can deny them their victory by refusing to submit to a world created in their image. Terrorism inflicts not only death and destruction but also emotional oppression to further its aims. We must not allow this terror to drive us away from being the people God has called us to be.  We assert the vision of community, tolerance, compassion, justice, and the sacredness of human life, which lies at the heart of all our religious traditions. America must be a safe place for all our citizens in all their diversity. It is especially important that our citizens who share national origins, ethnicity, or religion with whoever attacked us are, themselves, protected among us.

Our American illusion of invulnerability has been shattered.  From now on, we will look at the world in a different way, and this attack on our life as a nation will become a test of our national character. Let us make the right choices in this crisis -- to pray, act, and unite against the bitter fruits of division, hatred and violence. Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of the injustice that breeds rage and vengeance.

As we gather in our houses of worship, let us begin a process of seeking the healing and grace of God.

The only dream worth having ... is to dream that you will live while you're alive and die only when you're dead ... To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or to complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget.

- Arundhati Roy
From her book, The Algebra of Infinite Justice

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;                                                                                    nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

- Micah 4:3

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Two of the mantras that my evangelicalism has taught me over the years are these:

1.      Be True to Scripture
2.      Avoid Politics

The heart for God's Word is not all that surprising, given the "Sola Scriptura" roots of Protestantism and the attempt to be faithful to the Bible that have been consistent earmarks of American Evangelicalism.

The second mantra might be a bit surprising, especially as Evangelicals have been branded as part of the Religious Right over the past several election cycles. Despite media portrayals, however, the vast majority of evangelical churches have not preached Republicanism. Rather, they have avoided politics altogether, leaving the partisan work to Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Falwell.

The biggest reasons for avoiding politics? Well, some are justly concerned that the church can easily be co-opted by a political party and its witness stifled. Many are worried that engaging in politics will divert attention from the "simple Gospel." Others recognize that politics can be divisive and are concerned their churches might lose some valuable market share.

So instead of evangelical churches discussing political issues, we have in essence decided that our congregations would be better served getting their political bearings from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann or James Carville than be viewing political issues through the lens of scripture.

Unfortunately, the mantra of avoiding politics has trumped our commitment to be faithful to scripture!

In the model prayer that Jesus taught, he prayed that God's kingdom would come and God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Bottom line? Doing God's will on earth demands that Christians think about the big political issues of the day through the lens of scripture! As any reader of Sojourners knows, the Bible demonstrates God's deep and abiding love for the poor.

In 2008, poverty is out of control locally, nationally and globally. In my neck of the woods, in Cincinnati, more than one in four people live below the poverty line. If God's kingdom is to come in Cincinnati, something must be done about poverty.

So this fall, University Christian Church is hosting a Poverty Sunday as part of the Vote Out Poverty Campaign. On Poverty Sunday, we will encourage congregation members to personally get involved in working with and loving the poor in our community.

We will also encourage members of our congregation to evaluate political candidates based in part on their policies and plans for reducing poverty both nationally and globally.

We will not be partisan. We will not be asking Christ-followers to be single-issue voters. But, we will no longer give politics to Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and Carville.

As Christians, we take up our crosses and follow Jesus, not political pundits. And where Jesus leads, we must follow, so we will be hosting a Poverty Sunday this fall. I pray your church will too.

For more information on Sojourners' Vote Out Poverty campaign and Poverty Sunday, visit www.voteoutpoverty.org

+ Listen to Troy Jackson & Chip Williamson: talk about organizing a Poverty Sunday:

Troy Jackson is senior pastor of University Christian Church in Cincinnati, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and earned his Ph.D. in United States history from the University of Kentucky. He is author of Becoming King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Making of a National Leader and a participant in Sojourners' Windchangers grassroots organizing project in Ohio to work on the Vote Out Poverty Campaign.

The latest news on Remembering 9/11, Hurricane Ike, Immigration, Religion and Employment, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, India, and Bolivia.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Christians are people who follow a tortured and murdered God. This fact speaks clearly to what our values should be. One of those values should be a rejection of torture, violence in the name of "law" and the common good, and murder.

Currently, the U.S. government has been accused of torture at Guantanamo Bay and has refused to ban certain forms of torture (i.e., the waterboarding controversy) in their interrogation of accused terrorists.  Fortunately, both of the presidential candidates speak out boldly against the use of torture. Christians around the nation are beginning to stand up and speak out against this grave sin, and those of us who have not yet joined the chorus should stand up and do so now.

Christians are a people shaped by the cross.  We claim to worship a tortured God and follow a tortured Lord.  One of the lessons humanity should learn from the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is the depths to which humans can sink in their depravity.  It should be a constant warning that we must never again resort to the methods of the cross.  Much like the world responded to the Shoa (Holocaust) with the words "Never again," Christians should respond to the cross with those same words.

Jesus spoke of the last judgment in Matthew 25, saying that what we do for "the least of these" we do to him.  The least of these includes the hungry, naked, and homeless.  It also includes the imprisoned.  How we treat those who are in prison is how we treat Jesus Christ, and it is part of the basis on which God will judge our lives.  In torturing those imprisoned for crimes they have not yet been found guilty of, we torture, again, our Lord and Savior.  For people who claim to follow the one who said we are no longer to function according to "eye for an eye" ideology, but to "turn the other cheek," to not speak out against those who would continue to use the methods of the cross is wrong.

In a few days, there will be a National Summit on Torture sponsored by Evangelicals for Human Rights and the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Visit their Web sites, sign their petitions, and join the chorus of Christian voices around the country speaking out against this injustice.

For those of us shaped by what occurred to a political prisoner 2,000 years ago on a hill called Golgotha, what happens at Guantanamo Bay should pierce our souls. 

Jimmy McCarty is a student at Claremont School of Theology studying Christian ethics, a minister serving cross-racially at a church in inner-city Los Angeles, and a servant at a homeless shelter five days a week.

In books and speeches, I have often said that God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  I have contended that to make either party "The God Party" is idolatry.  This, however, does not mean that Christians should abandon political activism.  It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.  Consequently, I have long called for Christians to be involved in both political parties, striving to be the "leaven" that permeates both parties with biblically-based judgments and values derived from Christian beliefs.

Taking my own advice, this year I played a part in framing the abortion plank of the Democratic Party's platform.  I helped the party to take what some have called a "historic step" by having the party become committed to abortion reduction.

More than 60 percent of all abortions are economically driven.  The reality is that without provisions for hospital coverage; pre- and post-natal care; maternity leave so that a woman giving birth will not lose her job; and nursing assistance to help single mothers transition into parenthood, millions of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term will not do so.

The good news is that, with help from Jim Wallis and others, the party platform now calls for these needs to be met.  It also calls for educational programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with room for the teaching of abstinence, and asks for government agencies to make adoptions easier. 

These achievements were lauded by Democrats for Life and by the Catholic Alliance for Life.  While at the Democratic National Convention, religious leaders of other faith traditions personally thanked me for my efforts.  Even leaders of some pro-choice organizations hailed this compromise, claiming that at last they could find some common ground with pro-life advocates.

Purists, on the other hand, have had hard words for me, claiming that I should not have been involved in any way with a political party that is pro-choice.  While I understand their desire to settle for nothing less than the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, I nevertheless believe that my decision to work for abortion reduction was a good one.

Consider these questions:  If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six?  Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

To my Christian brothers and sisters who are part of the party that has a pro-life platform, I have to ask whether they are willing to hold the Republican Party to its pro-life commitments.  For several years, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and had a Supreme Court wherein seven of its nine judges were Republican appointees.  Yet no effort was made to overturn Roe vs. Wade -- and very little pressure to do something about this was put on Republican leaders by evangelicals who had given them 82 percent of their votes in 2004.  And, are they willing to demand that provisions such as I worked for in the Democratic platform become policies of their party?  To fail to do so would be to protect the unborn child and then abandon that child and the mother in the delivery room.  And do not raise the matter of how much money these proposals will cost.  We all know better than that. 

For those who condemn any compromise on this divisive issue of abortion, may I suggest that they consider not paying their taxes since they are financing a government that supports a woman's right to have an abortion -- and in some instances even puts money into organizations that perform them.

There are legitimate concerns about my actions, but I decided that if some of the unborn could be saved, it would be wrong for me not to do what I could to save them.

Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.

Asa cried to the Lord his God, "O Lord, there is no difference for you between helping the mighty and the weak. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this multitude. O Lord, you are our God; let no mortal prevail against you."

- 2 Chronicles 14:11

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Justice is what love looks like in public.
- Cornel West
From Call and Response, a documentary on global slavery.

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on North Korea, Hurricane Ike, Budget Deficit, Presidential Campaign, D.C. Gun Legislation, Death Penalty, Fewer Doctors, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Russia-Georgia, Australia, Excerpts from Bob Woodward's The War Within, and select Op-Eds.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

[Click here to see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

I've been following the recent online conversation about racial reconciliation and the New Monastics rather closely. Why? Because it is a conversation whose time has come.  I honestly believe that much good work is being done in regard to engaging the mosaic of Christians about issues of poverty, race, privilege, and voice. That said, in the words of James Weldon Johnson, "Stony the road we trod." 

Some time ago, I blogged about a mosaic revival happening in the United States. I would add that this mosaic revival has been happening all over the world for some time. By mosaic revival I mean a Christlike movement across race, gender, culture, and economics where we all come to the table as equals, as children of God.  I think that this revival in many of the movements (it is not limited to these but I am responding to a particular conversation) such as the New Monastics, Sojourners, and the Emergent Church is in an embryonic but promising state. Many congregations, denominations, and para-church organizations can learn from this fledgling conversation, including the groups to which I belong. Visions of the "peaceable realm" (Isaiah 11) or the multiethnic, multiracial multitude of the book of Revelation (Revelation 7:9) are still a work in progress.

What does this mosaic revival imply for me as a Latino pastor of an urban multicultural congregation, the New Monastics, Sojourners, the Emergent Church, and denominations that still do not have diversity represented in leadership? Here are some of my thoughts desde otra voz (from another voice):

• Internal Critique: First, that the critique of empire and power that I, the New Monastics, Sojourners, and Emergent Church make of the church and leaders in all spheres of life must continually be turned inwardly. This critique must be true of any movement. Entitlement and privilege is not just something others clutch.  We too must confess where we have sought to be the principal and only protagonists. Pride is ubiquitous and subtle. The teachings of Jesus and the writings of Desmond Tutu, Reinhold Niebuhr (Moral Man and Immoral Society), and the book of Proverbs are helpful here.
• Conversation: We must maintain the dialogue and stay at the table even when we disagree. The world needs followers of Jesus committed to loving one another through their differences, be they ideological, cultural, generational, etc.
• Confession: There must be a continual confession of the privilege of platform and influence and where we have used that influence to exclude others.
• Promoting and Highlighting Diversity: The writings, tours, blogs, books, and particularly leadership on board and executive positions should intentionally highlight diversity. We seek inclusion not simply for diversity's sake but because it is a model of the way of Jesus and the Realm of heaven. This is beyond a token representation, where we have a Latino(a), women's, Asian, African-American caucus, etc. speak to and from their particularity or only on issues that we think are particular to them (immigration, racial justice, women's rights). Diverse leadership (this should neither exclude nor privilege white males) should be at the center of decision making processes. White, black, brown, red all have something to contribute to the Christian story.  Mosaic leadership can speak to many global issues such as genocide in Darfur, just war, poverty, human trafficking, environmentalism, a consistent ethic of life, etc. Perhaps instead of having racial-ethnic minorities join already-begun initiatives, we should join mosaic initiatives as a sign of solidarity and support. All established leadership should endeavor to use their platform to promote an emerging mosaic leadership. Moreover, one group need not always be at the forefront.
• A Historical-Contextual Perspective: This is no small point. Often in the public presentations, books, and conferences of these aforementioned movements, they are presented as something new going on. (I don't think this is intentional.) I have been on college campuses and multiple emerging leaders' gatherings where many well-intentioned next-generation Christian leaders see these movements as if something new is happening. This dangerous omission often makes many indigenous grassroots workers feel like there is some type of cultural capital being cashed in at the expense of lifelong indigenous Christian leadership. Present-day movements should continue to clearly tie and partner, when possible, with the legacy of the black church, the Latin-American and Latino(a) grassroots communities, abolitionists, faithful women's movements, the South African church, etc., around the world. Also the New Monastics, Emergent Church, etc., could learn and partner with the work of storefront Pentecostal and indigenous congregations who have lived and worked in economically challenging contexts for some time. Some of these leaders and pastors did not choose to relocate; they were born, raised, and chose to stay in these contexts.
• Persistence: Continue to work. Despite our shortcomings and critiques, we must continue to do the work of Christ and allow room for growth. Critique is neither for rousing guilt or surrender but for seeking a better way.  We must all continue our work. Not speaking or acting is not an option. In the words of Antonio Machado, "Caminante no hay camino se hace camino al andar."

Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb's Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a Sojourners board member.

[Click here to see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

The other day Marty invited some neighborhood kids over to help with a mailing she brought home from work.  Before they got started, she sent 12-year-old Heather across the street to fetch 13-year-old Jasmine, who has been part of our fellowship from the very beginning.  Heather returned a few minutes later, alone and puzzled. 

"They were in there, but they wouldn't open the door" she told Marty.  "Jasmine's mother said you need to call her." 

You should know that Jasmine's parents, Jacob and Mariah, are good people who have had hard lives.  They generally steer clear of our dinners, but I've gotten to know them pretty well just stopping by their house.  They have been hurt in some awful ways, but they have worked hard to keep their family together.  They have also supported their youngest daughter's friendships with all of us.  Until now.

"Jasmine can't hang around with you people anymore," Mariah told Marty over the phone a few minutes later.  "We know who you are."

Marty was confused.  "Who are we?" she asked.

"You're reptiles," Mariah replied matter-of-factly.  "You don't want to be reptiles, but you are."

Marty was even more confused.  "What are you talking about, Mariah?  Who told you this?"

"It is a Prophecy from the Most High," Mariah replied. 

By now, Marty felt sick to her stomach.  "Please, Mariah," she said, "I don't understand."  She heard Mariah ask her older daughter Jade to explain, but Jade never came to the phone. 

After Marty hung up, Heather and the other kids told her they weren't surprised.  Evidently, they had been hearing strange things about us from Jasmine for a few days.  Later that afternoon, I went across the street to talk to Jacob face to face, but he wouldn't even look at me.  No wonder.  Reptiles, it turns out, is his storefront church's euphemism for children of Satan.

If all of this seems bizarre or ridiculous to you, well, I can see why.  But to me, to all of us here, it seems tragic as well.  Suddenly, because some crazy storefront preacher has appointed himself as prophet, and because extraordinary suffering has made Jasmine's whole family somewhat paranoid in the first place, Jasmine herself has been cut off from a circle of friends who have done nothing but bless and support her.

We have been rejected before, of course, albeit in ways not quite so bizarre.  Last year, when one of our favorite neighbors suddenly would no longer speak to us, it took me months to find out that her oldest daughter, the victim of a boyfriend's molestation, had demanded her mother have no relationship with any man, including me.  Over and over again, people in this neighborhood who are starving for love and friendship draw close enough to us and one another that they can almost touch those things, only to push us away for reasons that don't always make sense.  And it hurts, every time.

Of course, given who and where we are, I always expected us to deal with lots of rejection.  After all, this is a hard place filled with hard people who have learned the hard way to beware of strangers.  What I didn't expect, however, was that so many people would reject us long after we had proven our goodness to them. I should have, of course, being a student of Jesus. 

I won't insult your intelligence by spelling it out, but I will say this much:  God knows better than anyone how it feels to have someone take the full measure of your love and throw it back in your face, even when both of you know they're going to have a hell of a time trying to live without it.

Bart Campolo is a veteran urban minister and activist who speaks, writes, and blogs about grace, faith, loving relationships, and social justice. Bart is the leader of The Walnut Hills Fellowship in inner-city Cincinnati. He is also founder of Mission Year, which recruits committed young adults to live and work among the poor in inner-city neighborhoods across the U.S., and executive director of EAPE, which develops and supports innovative, cost-effective mission projects around the world.

I have paid keen interest to this current presidential race. Being from another country, the whole process is quite fascinating and emotive, as gifted rhetoric and track records are flaunted for the public eye and reflection.

However, as much as the presidential race and electoral process in North America is capturing and intense, a person who is listening closely to the issues and policies presented will find him or herself quite confused by the arguments that are presented by candidates and speakers from both the Republican Party and Democratic Party.

In South Africa there are several political parties, whilst for most U.S. citizens there are only three choices. I have views and beliefs and I am sure that every other person has a thought or viewpoint about the way life should operate. But, amidst all the viewpoints and perspectives there must be a call for a celebrating of the other, whoever the other may be.

This past July, my wife and I facilitated our third delegation of project Heita South Africa on an experiential learning assignment. The assignment involved learning related to inclusivity, diversity, justice, and reconciliation. Delegates from Bethel University and networking partners within the Twin Cities over the last three years have been journeying on an experiential learning adventure.

Author Charles Marsh, in Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer, explains:

Bonhoeffer argues that the integrity of the other, the other's irreducibility to the I -- "to my thoughts and possessions" -- can only be realized in a social, ethical dynamic. When I am encountered by the dialogical other in ethical action, I am arrested in my own attempts to master the world; for in responding to the call of the Thou, I am taken out of myself and repositioned in relation with the other. I no longer control the other, nor does the other control me, but we both discover our individual and social identities in the place of our difference" (1994, p. 69).

Marsh's description of people engaging the difference in each other is very much what has transpired with our delegates journeying to South Africa. Differences are engaged between fellow delegates as well as people across the oceans in South Africa. As learners, project Heita South Africa delegates have been thrust into a place that called each person out of their comfort zones, out of grounded foundationalist thinking, into the wondrous arena of engaging the other, where as Marsh explains, one is encountered by the dialogical other in ethical action.

This notion of entering into dialogue with people who think and operate differently must not be taken for granted, for it is seldom put to practice and rarely becomes a reality. In this current presidential race and election fever, may people amidst all the politics seek to enter the dialogical space, where we see and understand that our humanity is bound up in one another.

Seth Naicker is an activist for justice and reconciliation from South Africa. He is currently studying and working at Bethel University, in St. Paul, Minnesota, as the program and projects director for the Office of Reconciliation Studies. He can be reached at seth-naicker@bethel.edu or smnaick@hotmail.com

The latest news on Housing Finance, Unemployment Insurance, Politics and Pulpit, Vets Suicide, Death Penalty, Immigrants' Health Care, Megachurches, Hurricane Ike, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia-Georgia, Pakistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Sudan, Angola, and UK Politics.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

You have turned my mourning into dancing;
you have taken off my sackcloth
and clothed me with joy,
so that my soul may praise you and not be silent.
O Lord my God, I will give thanks to you forever.

- Psalm 30:11-12

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Sometimes put yourself very simply before God, certain of his presence everywhere, and without any effort, whisper very softly to his sacred heart whatever your own heart prompts you to say.

- St. Jeanne de Chantal
co-founder of the Order of the Visitation (1572-1641)

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

I saw a column this weekend in Time magazine by Amy Sullivan in which she asks, "Are Evangelicals Really Sold on Palin?" It's well worth reading.

Lost in the stampede of social conservatives to embrace Palin this past week is the fact that she is culturally outside the mainstream of Evangelicalism. Over the past few years, a growing number of Evangelicals have been consciously distancing themselves from the more extreme stands of the Christian Right. They live in the suburbs, hold graduate degrees, and while they might not want their children reading certain novels, would be embarrassed by attempts to ban certain books from libraries, as Palin is reported to have briefly considered while Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. They don't attend churches where speakers charge that violence against Israelis is divine punishment for the failure of Jews to accept Jesus, as happened at one of Palin's churches two weeks ago (though Palin has now issued a statement saying she does not agree with those views). And they would disagree with Palin's decision to use her line-item veto as Governor to slash funding for an Alaska shelter that serves teen mothers.

That goes double for younger Evangelicals. These voters tend to be even more pro-life than their parents, but abortion isn't always a priority that moves their votes -- it wasn't when McCain was alone on the ticket, and there's no reason for that to change with the addition of Palin. More important, Palin has problematic stances on many of the issues that do motivate young Evangelicals. Her insistence that global warming is not man-made, for instance, is unlikely to appeal to those Evangelicals who have embraced so-called "creation care" in the past few years. This is particularly relevant to the current race, as young Evangelicals account for much of that demographic's undecided bloc. No one knows what the size of their impact may be in November because young Evangelicals are consistently underrepresented in polls of white Evangelicals. (Even a TIME poll of likely white Evangelical voters conducted last month used a sample in which just 10% of respondents were between 18 and 35. That age group made up 22% of the total electorate in 2004, and its share of the electorate is expected to increase this year.)

[continued from part 1 and part 2]

Back in 1961, Gurdon Brewster was a seminary student at Union Theological Seminary, training to be an Episcopal priest. When this Northern liberal raised his hand to volunteer as a summer intern at Ebenezer Baptist Church, he had no idea what lay in store for him. He tells this story in No Turning Back: My Summer with Daddy King.

Why did you decline the Kings' offer to work as an associate minister at Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1966?

The movement had shifted very dramatically in those five years between 1961 and '66. Black power had come into force. In 1961, I was welcomed by the church and the black community. In 1966, I was treated more skeptically. As an example, my wife helped a group of people build sort of a head-start school, which was going to open in the summertime. The day before it was supposed to open in 1966, the school was burned to the ground. It just felt to me that it was a difficult time to be there. Also, it also felt to me that probably that particular position should be taken by a black person and not by a white person. So, I went down there for the summer of '66 and declined the permanent offer.

What memories do you have of the day Martin Luther King Jr. was shot?

BREWSTER: That was a devastating day for me and for the country. I was going to a seminar that I was leading at Cornell when I heard it on the radio. I just parked my car and began to cry. I went in to the seminar but couldn't really do anything. We just reflected and sat around and talked. I had the sense like so many people that this was the end of an era. We wouldn't see the likes of it again in our lives. So, I remember that day very well.

Explain what happened when Daddy King came to preach at Cornell in 1979.

BREWSTER: When I invited him to Cornell, he preached to our little congregation and began to talk about losing Dr. King and then losing his second son, A.D., and then finally losing his wife, who was killed in the church by a black man. He felt that in the middle of losing all of that, he would not lose his gratitude. He could still imagine God taking more away from him. Then he stopped and said, "Brewster is like a son to me." That completely amazed me because I had no idea of how I might have affected him. When I was down at Ebenezer and living with him, I was 24 years old. Basically, I was a young man. Looking back on it, I was extremely young and probably didn't realize this incredible opportunity that was just right in front of me. I realized the impact he was having on me, but I had no idea of the impact I was having on him. That just didn't compute in my mind. Looking back on it, I could see that I was probably the first white person who ever had lived in this house and had gotten that close to him. I never really talked to him about it but perhaps I was the first white person that he could really sit down and talk to and trust that way.

Becky Garrison is one of the many people interviewed in the documentary The Ordinary Radicals.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

The very first mark of the New Monastic movement is to relocate to the abandoned places of the empire.  However, after quick research, most of the social justice-geared intentional communities I found were either directly inside or in very close proximity to major cities. While there are enclaves within major metropolises that have seen the scourge of the empire, most of the American landscape is drenched in suburban and rural locales set far and away from the residual financial welfare the empire produces. And if that is the case, then the rationale for the privileged suburban dweller to relocate to urban hubs needs reexamination. 

I believe there is a contingent of people that the Most High will call to relocate from suburban and rural places to preach, teach, and serve neighborhoods in urban areas. I would like to believe that these people are willing to fulfill the call of the Lord, counting the cost of their decision -- perhaps reluctantly but with open minds and open hearts. These individuals are to be revered for their desire to be about God's business.

Conversely, there is a growing population that relocates to the so-called "abandoned places of the empire" because of the proximity to all of the amenities and economic promise the empire seems to trickle down. The draw of experiencing the "big city" cannot be ignored, no matter what the overarching humanitarian desire might be.

Indeed, there is quite a difference between the called and the drawn. When we as followers of Christ truly submit to the calling of God to preach good news to the poor, our first inclination should be to find the poor already in our midst, and deliver the message to them -- allowing them the opportunity to take that message home to their families and other neighbors, ensuring salvation for themselves and their households. The statistics are very clear: There are 1 million more impoverished Americans in the suburbs than in urban centers. Rural poverty among single mothers is at astronomical levels. Food stability is most scarce in rural areas. The further a community is from metropolitan areas, the more difficult it becomes to secure steady income, adequate wages, and affordable housing.  In fact, the majority of affordable housing is created in urban areas. Moreover, the infrastructure of social services is more readily available to urban dwellers. However, in suburban and rural areas, social services and affordable housing are somewhat of an afterthought. Looking at the composite of my own community, statistically many of us might actually reach more poor people if we lived in our hometowns than in our assembled New York City home.

The fact remains, the poor are all around us. If we are diligent in our search for the poor to preach to, to teach and serve, we need only look to our neighbors. We should realize that urban areas are not synonymous with poverty, nor are suburbs synonymous with privilege. When we get honest before the Lord with our preconceived notions about the people we believe are the poor and the least of these, we may find that the least of these are our next-door neighbors -- and not the urban ethnic enclave dwellers we so readily flock to.

We must be transparent with God and honest with ourselves when considering service to the poor. Being drawn to an area doesn't justify relocating to it. And being called to a place doesn't make you drawn to it. Throughout history, many people have been called to service, but were reluctant to go. Their reticence did not stop them from accomplishing revolutionary things for the kingdom of God. We must be diligent in seeking out the will of the Lord, and not be persuaded by the people, places, and things we are drawn to. If we are not diligent, we will lose our credibility and risk alienating, offending, and further marginalizing the very people we sent ourselves to enlighten and enfold in God's flock. We must make every effort to be led by the Spirit in all that we say and do to ensure our households experience the power of God through salvation in Christ.

Sharaya Tindal is a member of Radical Living, an intentional community in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. Learn more about their community in this article in the New York Press.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

Last week Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and world governments (including our own) publicly spoke out on an issue that has barely broken through the international news. On August 24, a massive program of violence against Christians began in the Kandhamal district in the Indian state of Orissa after a Hindu leader, Swami Saraswati, was killed by Maoist rebels. Retaliatory violence has claimed at least 25 lives and sent 10,000 Christians fleeing into the jungle. This is the same region that was torn apart by violence instigated by Swami and other Hindu extremists against Christians on Christmas Eve of last year. Ben and I had the honor of visiting the area this past June on a delegation trip in which we interviewed families and witnessed firsthand the degree to which justice has been denied to thousands of people who lost their homes, churches, and sense of security. Even then it was clear that the root causes of the violence had not been fully addressed and that the situation remained a volatile one without stronger state intervention to pursue justice and foster reconciliation. 

According to the All India Council of Churches, "The Christmas 2007 attacks claimed the lives of at least four Christians, and we verified the destruction of at least 105 churches and 730 Christian homes. The current spate of violence will exceed these totals as it continues to spread into other districts. Our estimate from Ground Zero is close to two dozen people dead -- one a Hindu girl burnt to death working for a Christian orphanage -- a nun has been gang-raped, religious men and women personnel humiliated, beaten, tortured, some close to death, while policemen have looked on or have been absent. We appeal for the restoration of law and order. But the root cause must also be addressed."

A growing chorus of leaders are speaking out against the violence, including: "Last week Pope Benedict XVI 'firmly condemned' the violence in Orissa and called on Indians 'to work together to restore peaceful co-existence and harmony between the different religious communities'" (Source: Sydney Morning Herald). "Indian Muslim Council-USA (IMC-USA), an advocacy group based in the U.S., denounced 'in the strongest terms,' the violence and the killing of VHP leader that preceded this violence" (Source: Indian Muslims). "The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom calls on the U.S. Department of State to urge the Indian government to take immediate steps to quell the violence against religious communities in the state of Orissa" (Source: USCIRF). There are many more statements we could post, voices of concern from Christianity Today, the Italian government, Christian organizations within India, and more.

Conspicuously missing from these statements is the voice of the Indian government itself. Its deafening silence is a loud indicator of India's lack of commitment to protect her minorities, uphold justice, and to protect peace.

When a despotic government pursues or tacitly supports violence against a minority population, the world community often complains loudly and often dedicates significant resources to restore security and promote justice. India, however, is the world's largest democracy and America's largest trading partner. India is often pointed to as an example of a successful post-colonial democracy, a nation where the advancement of democracy and the pursuit of freedom resulted in a strong, multireligious nation.

How do we then explain the terrible violence being waged against Christians this week or the immolation of Muslims in the state of Gujarat in 2002?

The bitter reality is that India is a nation that, while remaining dedicated to the basic principle of democracy, so often fails to adequately protect the rights of minorities. Christians, Muslims, Dalits, Scheduled Tribes, and other minority groups in India are too often vulnerable and persecuted, while their plight serves as an electoral "issue" and hot topic for debates and public speeches to gain new voting blocs.

Too often the United States' concern over religious freedom and human rights gets trumped by economic and trade interests. Our ability to apply real pressure on the government of India becomes muted to a whisper by these overriding foreign policy priorities. I pray that you will join us in lifting up prayers for the people of Orissa. These prayers can then be followed by tangible support to the ongoing relief effort and by advocacy to hold the Indian and U.S. governments more accountable to their professed ideal of protecting freedom, including the fragile freedom of the Christian and other minorities in India.

Benjamin Marsh is the state department liaison for the Dalit Freedom Network. Adam Taylor is the senior political director for Sojourners.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

 

Las Caras Lindas de mi Gente Negra,
Son un desfile de melaza en flor,
Que cuando pasan frente a mi se alegra,
De su negrura todo el corazón 

-Tite Curet Alonso

I was delighted to be asked to participate in this conversation, even though I am not a leader or spokesperson for the New Monastic movement.  I am using the term New Monasticism (as the group that is inspired by The School(s) for Conversion: 12 Marks of a New Monasticism) for the sake of common understanding because that is the concept that has been used in this conversation so far, even though I believe New Monasticism is varied and larger than just the 12 marks and the popular idea of what New Monasticism is.

Like Jason and Vonetta, my family is interracial and multiethnic. I am a Puerto Rican of brown skin. My wife is white, born and raised in the state of Washington. We have two kids and a third growing in "mamí's belly," as my daughter would say. My kids are growing as hyphenated people, with a rich racial and ethnic heritage as Irish, white, Taino/Arawakan, brown, African, Potowatomi, Welsh, Spanish, black, German,Puerto Rican, mestizo, and USA American.  My children are growing also in one of the few countries that ignores and often violently negates the reality of people's multiple racial and ethnic identities. This does not happen only in the political/social services arena, but it is pervasive in all aspects of our lives -- including our churches and our "movements." En donde quiera se cuecen habas.

For me and mine (my family, community, friends) this conversation is not just another topic of the many we can choose from; this conversation is part of our core beings. Because of this I want to invest time and energy in conversations and relationships that will generate mutual transformation and growth. As a good friend told me recently, "blog conversations are a good start on a small front -- but the real work is ahead of us."

I am joyful to read Shane's and Jonathan's responses of how they are perceiving and working with the issue of racial reconciliation, healing, and full embrace in their private lives and in the life of their communities. I am also glad at their honesty in considering those points as only baby steps. Realizing that we are only crawling is a necessary action in order to see that we still have a lot of maturing to do.  Andando, andando que la Virgen nos va ayudando. 

What Vonetta and Jason have done with their provocative blog post is to help shed light on the homogeneous white and male expression in New Monasticism and beyond.  By that I mean how "natural" it seems that most of the perceived leadership of this movement is white and male. I am certain there are women and men of color alongside. People of color are often considered strong companions and wise counselors, but often in hierarchies of power, people of color are behind the scenes -- not in the spotlight. Part of the luxury of oblivious white privilege is that it is normal to have people of color around, while for the most part being oblivious that they are systematically assigned a place on the sidelines. It is not by chance that it is hard to find people of color as prominent figures in spreading the vibes of New Monasticism through books, conferences, and new media. This also true of many other new emerging expressions of contemporary Christianity. 

This predominantly white expression of New Monasticism is not a personal thing; it is part of a larger system of social categories, social identity and perception. New Monastics, white and of color, are not above or beyond the psychology that structures our racial and social identity and consciousness.  Nor do we live in a vacuum where we are not affected -- positively or negatively -- by these structures. So this conversation is not about just individuals, but about bigger dominant systems of oppression. That said, it does get personal sometimes -- and not by choice. The unearned privilege that comes with being white may not be something people choose or take.  The advantage is given by the system of social categorization, but the realization that some might benefit from a social construct while others are marginalized is a tough pill to swallow.  

People in the spotlight and those who are socially perceived as leaders have lots of responsibility to speak out loud about these evil structures that thrive on silence. It is not enough to speak when asked and stay silent the rest of the time. To not speak of the issue is to give the perception that there is no issue. 

If there is no challenge to the practices that -- intentionally or not -- support and preserve the marginalization of people of color, then we are accomplices in a self-perpetuating system of domination and oppression, while at the same time pulverizing efforts of racial healing, reconciliation, and full embrace. I am very glad Jason and Vonetta started making a loud enough noise about this subject that now it is part of a public open discussion. 

Perhaps we need to work to a broader understanding of the formation of racial identity and systems of oppression and privilege. Perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact that while some have the option to move to the abandoned places of the empire, there are even more desolate places in hearts and minds and that are in dire need of liberation and redemption. 

I do have some other things to say, but I was asked to write only a blog post, not a dissertation. Maybe there is more to come later.

Somos la melaza que ríe,
Somos la melaza que llora,
Somos la melaza que ama,
Y en cada beso,
Es conmovedora

-Titet Curet Alonso

Eliacín Rosario-Cruz serves as community catalyst and cultivator with Mustard Seed Associates. He and his family are part of The Mustard Seed House -- an intergenerational Christian intentional community in Seattle, where they eat, play, work, garden, pray, and conspire for a new reality.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

The latest news on Housing Finance, Hurricane Ike, Politics and Pulpit, Unemployment, Children's Health Insurance, Immigration, Palin's Faith, Cyberspace War, Afghanistan, Candian Election, Israel, Nuclear India, US-Russia nuclear agreement, Sudan, and select op-eds.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

They do not know how to do right, says the Lord,
those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds.
- Amos 3:10

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Selfishness ... feeds an insatiable hunger that first eats up everything belonging to others and then causes a creature to devour itself.

- Dom Helder Camara
Brazilian archbishop

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

I am going to preach this morning. Actually, in all probability I will be preaching by the time you read this. I will not be away from home in some alien pulpit, though, but at home in my own parish and among those whom I love. I won't preach, of course, because I can't. What I will do is just talk. And what I will talk about is where I was last week.

Last week, I was in Seattle at Fremont Abbey, which is the home structure or base for The Church of the Apostles, where an African-American female friend and colleague of mine, Karen Ward, is abbess and where a significant portion of the Fremont area of Seattle seems to gather to do its worship or to do its socializing or maybe just to lick its wounds, re-group, and go forth into the world renewed. None of those exercises is a bad thing for a church or parish to be engaged in, and most assuredly none is a bad thing for the folk who are the beating heart of Fremont Abbey.

Fremont Abbey is an Anglimergent church. That is to say that what you and I and all our kind are living through right now is referred to as The Great Emergence. Like The Great Reformation of the 16th century, The Great Schism of the 11th century, the time of Gregory the Great in the sixth century, or The Great Transformation that happened at the change of the eras, this one of ours also marks a seismic shift in human affairs, both religious and secular. When scholars call this one The Great Emergence, they do not exaggerate; for as was true with all its predecessors, out of it is coming a whole new definition of what it means to be human, of how society should be structured, of what constitutes the good life -- even of what human life itself is and how it may be defined.

In this "Great Emergence" there are churches, movements, and congregations that are frankly "emergent." That is, they are completely new conceptualizations of what "church" is to be. There are, in other words, many congregations and gatherings that frankly are emergent away from, or emerging up out of, the traditional flow of "church' as we normally think of it, and they are a legitimate new form of Christianity as surely as, 500 years ago, bodies protesting the dominance of Latin Catholicism were emerging and protesting and forming new bodies of the faithful and were legitimately Christian.

In all of this reshuffling and reconstituting, there are also other parishes, however, other churches and congregations that are moving to embrace emergent Christian thought while melding it with extant and/or historic expressions of the faith. They are known as the hyphenateds. They are the presbymergents and methomergents, the luthermergents, and the baptimergents, the submergents and the anglimergents, etc. They fascinate me more even than do completely emergent congregations, because they seem to me to be engaged in the more difficult task of bringing to the party the best of two worlds, the ancient and the future. They are hyphenated, in other words, because they seek to meld the DNA and passion and post-modern theology of a new form of Christianity with the extant body and operative history of an established tradition. Among them all, none is so absorbing or compelling to me as are the anglimergents, of whom there is no better example than the Church of the Apostles in Seattle.

Part of my joy in this and my sensitivity to it, undoubtedly, is that I am, for lo these many decades now, an Anglican through and through. Standing in the nave of the Church of the Apostles last Saturday night, I was reminded again of the richness and the glory of that singular and never-quite-domesticated or tamed position, especially as it is being translated into postmodern Christianity. I watched people of all classes and strata, abilities and dress styles, and all kinds of sexual or gender persuasions come together in a worship that used much of the order of service laid out in the Book of Common Prayer, but somehow remained innocent of preconceptions while revealing itself as long on mercy, compassion, and adamant belief. The worship at COTA was blatantly dedicated to the premise that the Bible is one narrative, not two narratives in one set of covers, and to the even more radical premise that Jesus, the Nazarene, actually meant what he said in everything that he said, including the fact that the promises of Holy Writ are fulfilled in him and had better be acted upon by us.

What will I preach this morning? I won't. I'll simply say to those of us gathered in our Tennessee nave that the time has come to take heart. Now, in this time of re-formation culturally and sociologically as well as religiously, our brothers and sisters in Christ all over this country and the globe are finding generous and merciful and grace-filled ways to exercise their faith and to include all peoples, and we can do no less. That is what I shall say, and I will begin the saying of it this morning by reading aloud a collection of words that I have heard many times before but never received until last week when I heard them proclaimed in the mixed beauty and aberrant, warm, but not quite familiar hospitality of anglimergence at its most powerful. The words are those of Isaiah, the prophet, who foretold Messiah's coming. They go like this:

Thus says the Lord, Keep right judgment and do justice; for my salvation is near and soon to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

Blessed is the one who does this, and blessed is the one who lays hold of it, who observes the Sabbath and does not pollute it, and who keeps his or her hand from doing evil.

Neither let the son or daughter of a stranger who has joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, "The Lord has utterly separated me from His people." Neither let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."

For thus says the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep My Sabbath and choose the things that please Me and take hold of My covenant;

Even unto them will I give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Also the sons and daughters of the strangers that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him and to love the name of the Lord and to be His servants, and everyone that keeps My Sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of My covenant,

Even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.

Isaiah 56:1-7

May it soon be so everywhere and in all places. Amen.

Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why.

John McCain's acceptance speech last night sought to present him as a maverick and bipartisan reformer, in contrast to the total partisanship of Sarah Palin the night before. She clearly relishes her own self-description as a pit bull with lipstick who fires up the conservative base, while McCain wants to reach out to the independents he knows he needs to win. He told his story again of how capture and torture took him from a reckless and selfish young man to a deep love for his country.

As I suggested after the first presidential primary many months ago, "change" has already won this election, given the deep unpopularity of George Bush and the many failures of his administration. Change is the theme of both Barack Obama's campaign and of John McCain's. Usually when voters want change, they change parties in the White House. But McCain has the difficult task of persuading voters that a different kind of Republican can do the job, while Obama will continue to ask him to explain why he voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

But now the conventions are over and the fact-checking can begin. There were a lot of very partisan things said at both conventions (that is the reason for conventions), but now all those things should be tested. I hope those who say that this will be an election about "personalities" are wrong. It must instead be about the real issues facing the country and the world. Whose tax policies will benefit whom the most? Who offers the best hopes for poor and middle-class families? And who has the smartest policies to defeat the real threats of terrorism -- not whose rhetoric against Islamic fundamentalism is tougher? So let the fact-checking begin, and given the speeches we have just heard from some politicians, we will need full-time fact-checkers.

But one other thing bothered me last night, and it did also at the Democratic Convention. It was all those signs that read "Country First" and all those chants of "USA, USA, USA!!" The high-powered and, frankly, militaristic rhetoric kept telling us that "country" should be put above everything else -- including family and friendship. But what about faith? Should country be put ahead of faith, too? I kept wanting to yell back at the people yelling at me about putting the country first and say, "No, not me, I'm a Christian." Because we as Christians simply can't put our country first, ahead of God, ahead of Jesus Christ, ahead of the body of Christ (remember the worldwide body of Christ), and even family and friendship. Especially when our country is wrong, and when most of the rest of the body of Christ around the world thinks so.

"Country First" was the theme of John McCain's speech and night, and he asked us to "fight with him." Barack Obama also said in Denver that all Americans must put country first -- to counter the Republican exclusive claim on patriotism. Well, again, not all of us. I suppose people running for president have to say that, but Christian voters shouldn't go along with that. Can anybody imagine Jesus leading cheers shouting "USA!"?

This morning I spoke to the annual Wheaton, Illinois, prayer breakfast. I was driven there by a local Christian leader who spends his days serving poor women and children along with troubled teenagers. When he told me he was Canadian, even though he had lived in the U.S. for years, I asked him if Canadian Christians would respond to the call to put country first. "No," he said, we are "world Christians." What a good thought and what a clear sense of Christian identity. It was a great way to begin the day after two weeks of political conventions. So let the fact-checking and the radical assertion of "faith first" begin in this political campaign.

[continued from part 1]

Jesus did not establish bureaucratic institutions, weekly social gatherings, or houses of religious entertainment. He started a movement that demands that rather than spending our time establishing ever more luxurious churches, we must strive to establish God's kingdom of love and justice on earth as in heaven. The gospel he lived and died for summons us to treat all people and their needs as holy. This means instituting policies that fairly, equitably, and lovingly respond to the suffering and want of all of humanity.

Yes, respond lovingly, because Jesus' entire gospel is based upon love. But note well that the love he taught is not mere sentimentality; it is actively working to secure for one's neighbor what one wants for oneself. That is the difference between the politics of Jesus and the politics of politicians: Jesus' way acknowledges God as "our" God, meaning that all are children of God, and thus the needs of all are holy. It is this standard that separates the politics of Jesus from the politics of politicians.

In the politics of Jesus, then, every policy and policy proposal must be judged by Jesus' yardstick of love and justice. We must ask: Do our social programs treat the people's needs as holy? Do our tax laws? Do our health care policies treat as holy all in need of coverage? Do our foreign policies treat all people as children of the same Creator? Or do we treat those outside our borders as children of a lesser god and, therefore, worthy of only inferior chances in life?

Treating the people and their needs as holy should be the perspective of everyone who purports to be a lover of God and humanity, but it must certainly be the perspective of every religious and political leader who claims to follow Jesus. In the politics of Jesus, there can be no "politicians" in the sense of "professional" politicians, whose dedication is to power and self-aggrandizement rather than to principles. There must only be servant leaders, just as the son of God came not to be served, but to serve.

The goal of Jesus' movement, ministry, and politics is a new creation: a political order that truly serves the good of all in equal measure. Those who strive to practice Jesus' politics must always keep that as the focus of our prayers and our compassion, the focus of our love and our most faithful social action. It is not optional; it is required of every follower of Jesus. He declared as much in terms that left no doubt: "Whoever is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30). That is to say, if you do not work for, or in some real way support, the establishment of God's kingdom of love and justice, then your silence and inactivity ultimately serve the forces of injustice.

It will not be easy. It seems that every aspect of today's political culture militates against the gospel's call for truth, honesty, and sincere service in the public square. But this is as Jesus foretold it: "I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; ... you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them" (Matthew 10:16, 18 [RSV]). This means that in every political setting the true followers of Jesus will be called forth to speak truth to power and to find power in the truth. Even as many strut about proudly wearing their faith like crowns, the true followers of Jesus must hold dear his cross of self-sacrificial love.

All of this requires more than simply bearing Jesus' name. These things we must do if at the sunset of our lives we are to be counted among those who truly tried to love our neighbors as ourselves by living the politics of he who died so others might live.

Obery M. Hendricks Jr., Ph.D., is a professor of biblical interpretation at New York Theological Seminary and author of The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of the Teachings of Jesus and How They Have Been Corrupted.

Sarah Palin appeared poised and confident in her speech on Wednesday evening.

I have the utmost respect for her ability to juggle her role as a wife, mom, and public servant. She is to be commended for her example and particularly in her efforts to better her community through civic engagement. I may not agree with her on the specifics of her policy ideas and even how she came to some of her conclusions, but I can acknowledge that in her way, she is attempting to live out her faith values in the public arena.

So why did she, Rudy Giuliani, and the Republican Party make it a point to mock a significant portion of the population that seeks to live out their faith in the public arena through community organizing? It lent a snarky and condescending tone to Wednesday evening's speeches.

I served as an urban pastor for 10 years. In those years, I witnessed the whole range of urban problems and woes that politicians like to point out every four years or so. The wide range of issues requires different levels of response, sometimes simultaneously. There are times that immediate needs must be met by conducting canned food drives or serving at a local soup kitchen. There are times that the future takes priority and the focus is on discipling and mentoring at-risk children and youth. There are times we look at the big picture of our society and discuss ways that family values can be upheld. And then there are times when an alienated and marginalized citizenry act together to advocate for change in their neighborhood and community.

Community organizing provides an opportunity for neighborhoods and communities to work together to bring about change. It can be as small a change as a group of high school students organizing to ask for better safety and hygiene in their school bathrooms. It can be as large a change as an organization of churches and synagogues becoming one of the most significant voices advocating for universal health care. The community organization I was involved with in Boston, the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, advocated for the rights of Haitian nurses' aides in local nursing homes. Members of Haitian immigrant churches, Jewish synagogues, and black, white, and multiethnic churches joined to advocate for Haitian nurses to bring about change. I experienced a personal joy that fellow believers in more established churches would advocate for a recent immigrant who struggled with a language barrier. My mom worked for a number of years as a nurse's aide in a senior citizen home, and I wished that Christians had advocated for her rights 30 years ago, giving her a voice and freedom that is the promise of America.

Community organizing attempts to give voice to the voiceless in our society (not just the powerful and the elite) and attempts to build influence based on relationships, rather than positions. Community organizing provides a prophetic voice because it arises from outside the system of power from the local community. Those feel to me like very biblical values.

Rev. Dr. Soong-Chan Rah is Milton B. Engebretson Assistant Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary and a member of the Sojourners board. He blogs at: http://www.xanga.com/scrah

Wednesday morning I got an e-mail from a former member of our Sojourners community. Perry Perkins is now a community organizer in Louisiana with affiliates of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). "Perk," as we used to call him, reported on the enormous consequences of 2 million people being evacuated because of Hurricane Gustav, much of the state now being without power, how hard cities like Baton Rouge were hit, the tens of thousands of people in shelters and churches, and the continuing problems caused by heavy rains and flooding. Then he talked about how their community organizers were responding to all of this -- responding to hundreds of service calls, assisting local officials in evacuation plans, aiding evacuees without transportation, coordinating shelters and opening new ones, providing food, essential services, and financial aid to those in most need. Since Katrina, Perry's Louisiana interfaith organizations have played a lead role in securing millions of dollars to help thousands of families return to New Orleans and rebuild their homes and their lives.

Then Wednesday night I heard Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin say that her experience as "a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." The convention crowd in St. Paul thought that was very funny. But it wasn't. It was actually quite insulting to the army of community organizers who work in the most challenging places across the country and have such a tremendous impact on the everyday lives of millions of people. I guess Palin and her fellow Republican delegates don't know much about that. The "actual responsibilities" of community organizers literally provide the practical support, collective strength, and hope for a better future that low-income families need to survive,

Community organizers are now most focused in the faith community, working with tens of thousands of pastors and laypeople in thousands of congregations around the country. Faith-based organizing is the critical factor in many low-income communities in the country's poorest urban and rural areas, and church leaders are often the biggest supporters of community organizers. And many of them felt deeply offended by Palin's remarks. Here are a few of their responses:

"As a lifelong Republican, the comments I heard last night about community organizing crossed the line. It is one thing to question someone's experience, another to demean the work of millions of hardworking Americans who take time to get involved in their communities. When people come together in my church hall to improve our community, they're building the Kingdom of God in San Diego. We see the fruits of community organizing in safer streets, new parks, and new affordable housing. It's the spirit of democracy for people to have a say and we need more of it," said Bishop Roy Dixon, prelate of the Southern California 4th ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church of God in Christ, member of the San Diego Organizing Project and former board chair of PICO National Network.  

They have also pointed out how the most important victories for social justice have come more from community organizers than elected officials.

"We can thank community organizing for the weekend, the eight-hour day, integrated swimming pools, public transportation, health care for children and safe neighborhoods.  Community organizing is behind most of the family-oriented initiatives we benefit from every day. I am proud to work for change in my country, my state, and my city as a community organizer, following the great traditions of Dr. Martin Luther King," said Laura Barrett, national policy director of Gamaliel/Transportation Equity Network (TEN).

And when you put the accomplishments of politicians alongside those of community organizers for poor families, it isn't even close. Without the pressure from community organizers and the movements they lead, there would often be nobody to hold politicians accountable.

"Politicians should thank community organizers, not insult them. As a longtime organizer, I've seen time and time again that we are the ones who make government work for the poor, the powerless and the marginalized. Politicians' policies and promises would amount to nothing without grassroots activists to hold them accountable. We are leaders of faith and stewards of democracy. In a time when the face of faith in politics is often ugly, community organizing is a valuable example of faith's positive role in public life," said Pastor Mark Diemer, senior pastor of Grace of God Lutheran Church in Columbus, Ohio, and a DART community organizer.

Palin's effort to attack the experience of Barack Obama, a former community organizer in Chicago, turned into a bad joke and an insult. Palin owes a lot of good people an apology.

[continued from part 1]

Back in 1961, Gurdon Brewster was a seminary student at Union Theological Seminary, training to be an Episcopal priest. When this Northern liberal raised his hand to volunteer as a summer intern at Ebenezer Baptist Church, he had no idea what lay in store for him. He tells this story in No Turning Back: My Summer with Daddy King.

What truth was there in your mother's friend's comment that if you went to Ebenezer, you'd never be a bishop?

She felt that working with Dr. King would risk the alienation of many white people that I would later work for, and this was true in part. As I later reflected on it, in a certain sense she was kind of prophetic because once you're involved in such a dynamic way of being the church, it's hard to fit totally into the structure of the church that is often against that kind of dynamic ministry. After having experienced a church like Ebenezer, it would be hard to enter a structure so perfectly and always within the box.

In what ways did this summer influence your plans for ministry when you returned to Union Theological Seminary?

BREWSTER:  I came into the presence of Rev. King Sr. and Dr. King and all of the people there, who are really struggling for justice and looking for a larger way of loving humanity. So, I came back to the seminary with this great powerful sense of justice that we really have to struggle for love and freedom across the board, and maybe go into the streets and march and talk and so on. It opened me up to a much larger sense of justice as well as the cost of bringing this about. This was hard work and putting your life on the line, putting your body in harm's way. This was learning how to love your enemy, when I was trained to not have any enemies. So, this really brought me into many different ways of trying to live out the gospel.

How was your prayer life changed after this summer?

BREWSTER: I came out of seminary as an Episcopalian worshipping in the Book of Common Prayer. Most of the time, I would read my prayers and sometimes I would write them and craft them out carefully. But the first Sunday I was at Ebenezer, Daddy King asked me to pray right on the spot in front of the whole congregation. It terrified me because I was used to a much more formal way of praying. Fortunately, I fell back on a formula I had learned at seminary: A-C-T-S -- adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. I pinned a lot of my prayers on those four words until I began to pray more actually and easily.

[to be continued...]

Becky Garrison is one of the many people interviewed in the documentary The Ordinary Radicals.

I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female slaves,
in those days, I will pour out my spirit.
- Joel 2:28-29

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Respect for the people's word need not mean approval for whatever they say. Any criticism becomes constructive when based on a fundamental attitude of respect and listening.

- Clodovis Boff
Catholic theologian in Brazil

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on the Republican Convention, Global Poverty, Angola Election, Campaign, Convention Protests, Hurricanes, Unemployment, Health Care, Death Penalty, Soldier's Suicides, Global Poverty, Iraq-Afghanistan, Angola Election, India, Burma/Mayanmar, Georgia, and Pakistan.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

The most direct self-referential command Jesus has given to those who would call themselves by his name is, "Follow me." That means that even before praising Jesus, we must follow him on his path of love. It is that path that led him to teach, to heal, to save, to sacrifice. Yet his path did not stop there. It also led him to fulfill the prophet's mandate to call to account the shepherds of his people who seemed to care more for power and wealth than for the welfare of the sheep they were vowed to serve.

What does this mean in the roiling realm of politics in America today? It means that we who purport to follow Jesus must issue our own prophetic call to the shepherds of our nation who seem to serve only themselves and the few they claim as their own.

We must call upon our officials and elected representatives to turn from the greed and imperial ambitions of Caesar to embrace Christ's call to care for those in need: the weakest, the neediest, those in the twilight of their days.

We must call upon the politicians of America to stop the crony capitalism that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.

We must call for all Americans to be provided with adequate health care, a livable minimum wage, and access to an education that can prepare them to be fruitful in the marketplace and to contribute to the common good of all.

We must call upon our political leaders to stop their cynical misuse of religion and "faith" to support exclusionary policies, exploitative policies, policies that deal in killing and death.

We must call upon all who claim to be politicians "of faith" to return integrity to America's political culture by embracing the same humility that moved the psalmist to pray, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting" (Psalm 139:23-24).

We must call upon all who claim the name of Christ to reclaim the holistic spirituality that Jesus taught, not the one-dimensional imitation of it that frees us from the responsibility to make justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Finally, we must call upon our politicians to end their ceaseless drive for power and to begin to sincerely serve the needs of those entrusted to their leadership. For the politics of Jesus seeks not to possess worldly power, but to serve the justice of God.

[to be continued ...]

Obery M. Hendricks Jr., Ph.D., is a professor of biblical interpretation at New York Theological Seminary and author of The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of the Teachings of Jesus and How They Have Been Corrupted.

While many conservatives have known and admired Sarah Palin for some time, most Americans do not know her. So the intense media focus on the new Republican vice-presidential nominee was to be expected. But some of it has been inappropriate, especially when reporters go after the Palin family's choices. The suggestion that running for vice president with a 5-month-old special-needs child and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter should make her suspect as a mother is a blatant double standard that would not be applied to a male candidate. All four candidates should indeed focus on the needs of their families, and it's clear they all do. But a mother with children should have as much freedom to run for office as a father in the same situation.

Palin introduced herself to the country with last night's speech to the Republican National Convention. She gave the crowd what it was looking for -- the narrative of her life, an all-out defense of John McCain, and strong criticisms of Democrats, Washington, and the media. If anyone had any questions about her being a formidable political figure, those were put to rest last night. Republican leaders are taking pride this morning in Palin's high school nickname: "Sarah Barracuda." Many found her speech feisty and tough, while others found it negative and smug. But Palin has clearly united the three legs of the modern Republican Party -- social conservatives, economic conservatives, and foreign policy hawks -- and really energized that base, as was evident in the Convention Hall last night. Media commentators across the spectrum commented on the success of Palin's address. But the well-delivered speech still leaves many questions unanswered. As conservative columnist Steve Chapman wrote in the Chicago Tribune,

Palin has another, more complicated task that this speech postponed: reaching out to millions of people who are honestly wondering if she has the experience, depth and temperament to step into the Oval Office. What many of those Americans need to see are qualities like judgment, wisdom, tolerance and flexibility. Those traits were conspicuous by their absence tonight.

With two months to go, the questions will certainly be raised. The most important one that is emerging is which ticket will be most able to reach out to many people in the middle in both parties and the all-important political independents. Facts will be important. Whose tax policies will most benefit low-income and middle-class families? Who has a plan to reverse the economic downturn? Who has the smartest strategy for countering the real threats of terrorism? And who has the best and most comprehensive response to the full range of moral issues that are of deep concern to people of faith?

Now, all four of the political figures on their respective party tickets have been shown to have compelling personal stories. All four are "real people," as the slogan goes. But this election must not just be about personalities, or inspiring personal histories; it must be about the issues, the records, the leadership, and the facts. May God help us to stay focused on that. Last week belonged to the Democrats, this week to the Republicans. Now, after the showy conventions of the past two weeks, the real work of this election can begin.

Back in 1961, Gurdon Brewster was a seminary student at Union Theological Seminary, training to be an Episcopal priest. When this Northern liberal raised his hand to volunteer as a summer intern at Ebenezer Baptist Church, he had no idea what lay in store for him. He tells this story in No Turning Back: My Summer with Daddy King.

Why did you volunteer to be a seminary student at Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1961?

BREWSTER: As I was raised as a white student in the North, I really wanted to get a larger perspective and to see the world through the eyes of a black Christian and the eyes of the Kings. There was a program that was sending white students to the historic black churches, and I was fortunate enough to be chosen and got the Ebenezer Baptist Church.

What was it was like to preach from the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church?

BREWSTER: The first experience I had in preaching was the very night I got there. We had dinner and then Rev. King Sr. asked me to come to evening prayer. So, I went to the prayer service and in the middle of the first hymn, he handed me a Bible and said, "You're going to preach after the first hymn." This terrified me because I had never preached before. But I couldn't say no to the preaching invitation. During the first hymn, I was looking for a text, which I finally found at the end of the last amen and that was the text on the beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount. I began to open my mouth and all of a sudden, somebody right in front of me said, "Preach it, Brewster!" Then [the church] was filled with "amens" and "halleluiahs," and I almost jumped out of my skin. I finally began to get used to it and really began to love their encouragement and finally began to appreciate the power of the dialogue between the pulpit and the congregation. So, it became a wonderful give and take when preaching from the pulpit.

What did you learn spending time in the kitchen with Daddy King? 

BREWSTER: It became clear to me that I was going to be the cook during the summer. So, I began to cook breakfast for Daddy King. While we were eating breakfast together, I began to ask him about his life. At first, he didn't really think I was really interested or that the answers weren't very significant. He thought everybody was more interested in the life of his son. It took him a while to realize that I thought his own life was really important. But I persisted and kept asking him about his life. I learned that he had grown up as the son of a sharecrop farmer in rural Georgia. He had struggled incredibly from being a young boy working behind a mule, going to school from time to time. But then his father would bring him onto the field again. He amazed me at how he could evolve to being the pastor of this large church. The path from there to Ebenezer just took an extraordinary amount of struggle. I became filled with admiration for what he had gone through.

Describe the reactions you got from white clergy when you wanted to invite their youth groups to meet with the Ebenezer youth group.

BREWSTER: This was in 1961. It was only five years after Rosa Parks sat in the bus in Montgomery. So it's very new in the movement. When I first tried to get the youth groups from white churches together with Ebenezer, I met with a lot of resistance. Some of the clergy thought they needed police protection to come into the Ebenezer Baptist Church. It took a huge amount of work, and a number of people -- I was surprised -- were just not interested in coming to Ebenezer. Toward the end of the summer, I got a number of churches to agree. We ended up having a wonderful meeting between maybe four to six youth groups and our Ebenezer Baptist Church youth group. Dr. King spoke.

What did your summer teach you about dealing with the hatred you encountered in Montgomery?

BREWSTER: I learned that it is one thing to resist nonviolently and to stay there and not fight back, but it is something very different to try and love your enemy. That takes very deep spiritual insight and discipline. I learned later on in the civil rights movement that for a mass of people, it's much easier to buy a gun than to try and love your enemy.

[To be continued ... ]

Becky Garrison is one of the many people interviewed in the documentary The Ordinary Radicals.

It was a warm spring afternoon when Martin Luther King addressed tens of thousands gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial, the largest gathering to date in the growing struggle for civil rights.

King rallied the crowd with his stirring refrain: "Give us the ballot!" He called for the government, white liberals, white Southerners, and finally the African-American community to work, struggle, and sacrifice to achieve a more just, free, and integrated nation.

But more than 50 years later, few remember this speech delivered at the "Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom" on May 17, 1957. But the nation and the world are very much aware of a speech King gave only six years later at the very same location.

Why do we remember the 45th anniversary of the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom," while largely ignoring a very similar march that occurred six years earlier?

For one, King's speech was better. "Give us the Ballot" is no "I Have a Dream." The speech helped cement the moment in our national consciousness.

Second, the media coverage was much more extensive in 1963 than it had been in 1957.  Thanks in part to media coverage, the August 1963 march became part of the national consciousness.

Also, the crowd was much larger. While exact attendance figures at such events are always disputed, the 1957 march drew around 20,000, while the 1963 event drew between 200,000 and 300,000 people.

But the biggest difference between 1957 and 1963 was not the quality of the speech, the media coverage, or the size of the crowd. No, these were mere consequences of a much bigger transformation.

In 1957, the march was an attempt to rally the nation around an issue. Building on the Brown vs. Board of Education decision and the Montgomery bus boycott, civil rights leaders tried to leverage their strength to exert pressure on the federal government. But in 1957, there was not yet a national grassroots movement for civil rights.

Although local communities were stirring and organizing, the 1957 march was at the dawn of the movement, and therefore did not galvanize the strength that would be obvious just six years later.

So what changed between 1957 and 1963?

1. The Sit-In Movement of 1960, which galvanized college students throughout the south to submit to physical abuse and arrest to ensure integrated lunch counters in southern dime stores.

2. The founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which provided a network of young civil rights activists who would be on the front lines of the movement throughout the 1960s.

3. The Freedom Rides, which forced the federal government to enforce national laws that called for integrated bus services on intrastate travel. When black and white riders were abused, beaten, had one of their buses firebombed, and eventually filled the jails of Mississippi, the nation became more aware of the courage of the African-American community and the horrific violence of segregationists and white supremacists.

4. The Birmingham Movement, where Bull Conner unleashed firehoses and police dogs on African-American children, leading many in the nation to the conclusion that integration and racial justice could be delayed no longer.

By 1963, a grassroots civil rights movement had emerged. The march represented the culmination of day-to-day organizing in small towns and cities throughout the South. Many in the crowd had been beaten, arrested, abused, lost jobs, and were reviled because of their courageous work for social change.

So we remember King's "I Have a Dream" speech and the 1963 March on Washington not because of a grand event or even a great speech, but because it was an event that galvanized grassroots power built throughout the South and throughout the nation. The 1963 march was not a tactical PR move, but a culmination of a movement that transformed our nation.

As we watch people fill arenas in Denver and the Twin Cities, many will be inspired as we listen to compelling speeches from both Democrats and Republicans. But remember, a collection of tens of thousands of people responding to a grand speech never changed anything, anymore than the millions who will gather for NFL and college football games this fall will have a great social impact on our world.

Speeches and conventions are fine, but the real social change happens on the ground, in our local communities, person-to-person, small group to small group, neighborhood by neighborhood. Jesus didn't usher in the kingdom of God at the Sermon on the Mount, but through a ragged group of disciples who changed the world.

During this election season and beyond, as Christ-followers, I pray we don't get so swept away by a few great speeches that we fail to do the hard work in our local communities that can help "God's kingdom come, God's will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Local organizing made all the difference between 1957 and 1963. In 2008, local organizing will determine if we have a national "feel-good" moment when we elect an African-American president or a female vice president, or whether we experience a transformed nation and a transformed world.

Troy Jackson is senior pastor of University Christian Church in Cincinnati, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and earned his Ph.D. in United States history from the University of Kentucky. He is author of Becoming King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Making of a National Leader, and a participant in Sojourners' Windchangers grassroots organizing project in Ohio to work on the Vote Out Poverty Campaign.

The heated abortion debate has up to this time been focused on legal measures. A new study commissioned by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good concludes that government social spending and economic conditions do more to reduce abortions than legal strategies such as parental consent laws.

Joseph Wright (Penn State University) and Michael Bailey's (Georgetown University) examined the dramatic drop in abortions in the 1990s. The results are significant. States that spend more generously on nutritional supplement programs, for example, could see up to 37 percent lower abortion rates. Other factors such as cutting welfare more slowly and higher male employment rates had a 20 to 29 percent reduction rate. 

The negative approaches don't seem to work. Welfare caps on children born while on welfare and laws requiring parental consent for minors have only negligible impact. The study concludes that "pro-family policies reduce abortions." 

Both Republicans and Democrats should take note. The authors estimate that increased welfare payments and less Medicaid funding for abortions could lower the current abortion rate by 37 percent.

Mary Nelson is president emeritus of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation on the west side of Chicago. She is also a board member of Sojourners.

Consider how many are my foes,
and with what violent hatred they hate me.
O guard my life, and deliver me;
do not let me be put to shame, for I take refuge in you.
- Psalm 25:19-20

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The church ... cannot be content to play the part of a nurse looking after the casualties of the system. It must play an active part both in challenging the present unjust structures and in pioneering alternatives.

- Donald Dorr
Catholic missionary priest

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on the Republican Convention, Convention Protests, Pakistan, John McCain, New Orleans, Russia-Georgia, Israel-Syria, India-nuclear, Atomic Veterans, and Zimbabwe.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Most of the speeches at the Democratic National Convention were politically predictable; the same was true on the first night of the Republican National Convention. Sarah Palin's speech tonight will be worth watching, considering all the attention her nomination has received, and of course John McCain's acceptance speech on Thursday night will be very important, just as Barack Obama's was in Denver.

But one thing looked very different on the first night of the Republican Convention from the first night of the Democratic Convention: the diversity of the audience. Having seen the racial diversity of the delegates gathered in Denver, it was striking to see a sea of white faces on the first big night of activity in St. Paul. While 13 percent of the Republican delegates are minorities, only 36 are African American -- about 1.5 percent of the total delegates, down from 7 percent in 2004. One-third are women, also down from 2004. Last week at the Democratic Convention, the delegates were a record 25 percent African American, along with 12 percent Latino, 5 percent Asian-American, and 5 percent American Indian. Half were women.

As I've said before, committed Christians will be voting both ways in the upcoming election, and while we should have a vigorous discussion about how we each apply our faith to the imperfect choices of politics, we should also fully respect the different conclusions that Christians will come to. Good Christians will be voting for both Republicans and Democrats this year, and many independently-minded Christian voters may be voting for both, depending on the candidates, the offices, and the issues.

But we all should affirm the central importance of racial reconciliation in the life of the church, to racial diversity in our parties and political processes, and to the inclusion of all Americans in our political discourse. Christians should exemplify that commitment to both racial and gender diversity in their respective parties. As Christians on both sides of the aisle have appropriately said, the Democrats should be commended for nominating the first African American for the office of president of the United States, and, similarly, Christians on the Democratic side of the aisle should applaud the selection of a woman by the Republican Party as their nominee for vice president. Those choices for diversity can be praised without necessarily voting for either candidate. Both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin should be evaluated on the basis of their records, ideas, and leadership

But we Christians should be the ones working hardest for diversity all across our society -- including in our political parties, which both have a long way to go.

Peace is a respectful, harmonious, and cooperative relationship between groups and nations.  Peace is the serenity that comes from clarity, the assurance that the truth will reveal itself, even if only in part. Biblical wisdom teaches us that "there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed nor hid that shall not be known" (Luke 12:2). Violence arises from fear born of deception. Scratch a conflict and find a lie. Love rejoices in the truth and perfect love, complete, mature love casts out fear (1 Corinthians 13:6; James 4:18). This is a Christian formulation of Satyagraha, Gandhi's concept of truth/love force. For peace theory, love and truth are powerful.

Given these definitions, we can trace wars, systemic violence, and the verbal violence we perpetrate back to ourselves. All too often we divide the world into them and us. We call them evil; we call ourselves good. And, when the Other does evil acts, this becomes the justification for our own retaliatory evil. We tell ourselves it is only reasonable to prepare for war and to fight wars in the name of defense or of retributive justice. However, New Testament wisdom also teaches us to be self-reflective when locating the cause of war.

James 4:1 asks: "Where do wars and fights come from among you?" James answers: "Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You covet and cannot obtain." Finally, James informs us that we do not have because we do not ask; we do not receive because our motivations are wrong. We only want what we want for the sake of our own pleasure (James 4:2-3).

So where is the deception? The deception is the idea that pleasure comes from what we receive, from what we acquire. True pleasure comes from what we give because "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). When our sense of self is tied to what we own, what pleasures we acquire, when these things are absent we lose ourselves, become fearful, and fear leads to violence.  This is not only true for us, but it is true for the enemy.

When violence happens, our questions ought to be: "How do my own desires figure into this conflict? What do I fear? What good can I do to overcome this evil? The objection could be made that this is a "blame the victim argument," especially if we are fighting a defensive war.  Is not war justified to protect the weak? Peace theory recommends other strategies to avert such crises before they reach the point of violent conflict.

Sept. 21 is the U.N. International Day of Peace and Global Ceasefire. Let us take time that day for our own self-reflection and make peace in the wars raging inside ourselves.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in Religion and Society from Temple University and taught Christian Ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

Jason and Vonetta Storbakken have extended a gracious and hopeful invitation to public dialogue about reconciliation's challenge for New Monasticism. I'd like to say in public what I've already said to them privately: Thank you. I'm grateful not only that they have named an issue that we need to continue to grapple with, but that they have modeled the power of God to move us beyond race to a new identity in Jesus Christ.

It is no secret that many New Monastics come from places of so-called privilege in the white churches that have dominated American Christianity. Disappointed by the ways our whiteness kept us from Jesus, we relocated ourselves to black and Latino neighborhoods to learn from people who knew the power of God at the margins of society. We came to learn community from our neighbors and to know Christ more fully across the dividing walls of hostility that Ephesians says God has already destroyed.

The good news is that we have not been disappointed. Eliacin Rosario-Cruz is exactly right: New Monasticism needs the life and spirit that minorities bring because it is a more complete expression of what the kingdom is. The testimony I have to share with other white Christians is that we can be set free from a history of colonial control and condescending service. We can find new life by submitting ourselves to the traditions and wisdom of minority churches. In my experience, this is possible only because of the radical love of God that is extended by people whom white Christianity has historically ignored and abused.

But this only makes the Storbakkens' central question all the more pressing: "What are the reasons for the membership [of New Monastic communities] to remain so homogenous?" That we come from segregated churches is not surprising. The problem is that these radical communities seem to remain so homogenous.

Where, then, is the church that God is gathering beyond the color line? The last thing a white guy like me needs to offer is an answer to a question like that. But for the sake of this conversation (which I hope others will join), let me offer a few observations:

1) Reconciliation is happening in minority churches. In the historically black neighborhood where I live, our communal houses were started by white folks and continue to be dominated by them. Our local church, however, was started by black folks and continues to invite all of us into a journey of liberation from the power of race and transformation into new life. Our community feels a greater need to be part of the community at our local church than to sell our neighbors on New Monasticism.

2) Listening to neighbors means changing our ideas about community. While we came to our neighborhood with the best of intentions, we've seen that we get things wrong. The Storbakkens are right: We must affirm affirmative action in New Monastic community, welcoming whoever might come. In our experience, though, we've also had to re-evaluate what were inviting people into. Are our meals the sort of meals that neighbors would want to eat with us? Is our Bible study a place where neighbors can share their spiritual gifts? We haven't figured all of these things out, but I know that we've made some changes for every authentic relationship we've built across dividing lines.

3) We are caught between two conversations. Ninety-nine percent of my neighbors and fellow church members have never heard the term New Monasticism. I doubt they need the term. Yet I've written a book about New Monasticism. I talk to churches and denominational leaders about it all the time because I believe that mainstream Christianity needs to imagine a different future.

Any dialogue about reconciliation and New Monasticism needs to take both of these conversations into consideration. One way New Monasticism has failed is that guys like me have tried to communicate the gospel that we've learned from our neighbors without asking for our neighbors' help. An African-American mentor pointed out to me how white people enjoy listening to me talk about the experience of black people, but they don't actually listen to black folks. Indeed, we do need to hand the mic over to indigenous community leaders.

But I also notice that when black friends speak with me or in my place, white audiences often assume my friends are speaking primarily for other black Christians, and not to the church as a whole. So-called black theology and black preaching can be affirmed as good for them without being taken seriously as true for all of us. So maybe it's not enough to just hand the mic over. Maybe we have to stand together, joining our voices in witness to the truth that we confess we can only know together.

Thats why I'm so grateful for the Storbakkens. Not only are they pursuing community across the dividing lines that this world writes on us. They're joining their voices to speak to the whole church about what it means to receive God's gift of reconciliation and become its ministers in the world. Yes, we need dialogue. More than that, though, we need a way of life that is good news for all people and a gospel that we can proclaim together. I hope all our conversation leads us toward that.

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove is the author of Free to Be Bound: Church Beyond the Color Line.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

The latest news on the Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, Churches & IRS, Hurricane Gustav, Poverty, Global Warming, Coca in the Andes, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Thailand, India-Nuclear, and India-Anti-Christian Violence.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

In the Lord I take refuge; how can you say to me,
"Flee like a bird to the mountains;
for look, the wicked bend the bow,
they have fitted their arrow to the string,
to shoot in the dark at the upright in heart.
If the foundations are destroyed,
what can the righteous do?"

- Psalm 11:1-3

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

We are always justified and we are always sinners. We depend not on our goodness, but on the gracious mercy of God.

- Desmond Tutu

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

I'm here at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul, as I was at the Democratic Convention in Denver. We pushed for strong language on poverty and abortion reduction in Denver, and we are pushing for the same things here.

The Republican platform draft sent to delegates last week contained this sentence in its section on abortion:

We invite all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion;

But when the platform committee met to approve the platform and send it to the convention, that sentence had disappeared. The removal of this important platform language is a real disappointment to those of us who are working for a productive and practical discussion about how to reduce the incidence of abortion in America. I joined with several others to issue a statement urging Republican leaders to demonstrate a willingness to bring Americans of diverse political backgrounds together behind common-ground solutions to the abortion crisis by reinstating this language:

As pro-life religious leaders and people of faith who care deeply about ending abortion, we are calling on the Republican Party to restore language in its platform calling for efforts to reduce abortion.

The original draft of the Republican Party Platform stated:"'We invite all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion; to protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement; and to oppose sex selection abortions. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy."

According to the Associated Press, the Republican Party Platform Committee removed the language calling for bipartisan support to reduce the "incidence of abortion." We exhort party leaders to reinstate this language.

Too often the abortion debate has been used to score political points, rather than to identify what kinds of public policies will actually prevent and reduce abortions in America. Recent research affirms that social and economic supports for women and vulnerable families are essential components of efforts to end abortion. Policy makers on both sides of the aisle have a moral imperative to enact legislation that will reduce abortions.

Rev. Jim Wallis, Founder and CEO, Sojourners
Alexia Kelley, Executive Director, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action
Brian McLaren, author and chair of the Sojourners board of directors
Sister Sharon Dillon, SSJ-TOSF, Executive Director, Franciscan Mission Service
Russell Testa, Executive Director, Franciscan Action Network
Chris Korzen, Executive Director, Catholics United

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

In addition to the steps mentioned in my previous post, I also wanted to share some things that go beyond our local community to the broader New Monastic movement and my role in it. As I said before, I don't want to give any impression that we've figured this out, or to boast "look at all I'm doing!" It certainly has been difficult and not without much sweat, tears, and mistakes. But here goes:

• Countering whiteness. We have currently initiated several projects to work against the homogeneity of "the movement." Every month we host a gathering on radical discipleship (for four days) that is limited to around 20 folks to insure diversity (old/young, male/female, ethnicity, denominational). This means that we have to limit the number of white folks (and end up saying no to about 20 for each white participant who comes). We also have different communities hosting every month to give exposure to the many beautiful, diverse forms community takes, and we have been especially excited to celebrate communities led by people of color.

• Affirmative Action. As a speaker, I regularly turn down speaking engagements that do not have women or people of color in the lineup, and I let the organizers know why. I believe that every critique I give comes with the responsibility to try and suggest alternatives, so I also recommend women and people of color who are dynamic communicators to speak in my stead. I give priority to events organized by people of color and speak regularly at events such as Urban Youth Workers, CCDA, Pentecostals for Peace, etc., and I find these are a great place to listen and learn (not just speak).

• Economics. All speaking events we organize are free or on a "suggested donation" basis so as not to exclude anyone for financial reasons. We give away all proceeds of my books and resources, prioritizing "local revolutions" -- groups living among and led by folks in poverty (such as Coalition of Immokalee Workers, homeless coalitions, etc.).

• Politics. Our communities tend to be fairly peculiar in how we engage the political scene. Traditionally, we often resonate with the history of Christian anarchism and movements like the Anabaptists. We have also become very aware that there is a great degree of "privilege" that accompanies decisions like principled non-voting. We wrestle with this in Jesus for President, but many of us have also taken steps to submit our political voice to people of color or undocumented folks here in the U.S. A friend in the NAACP has said, "Affirmative action for white folks in the election is asking black folks who they should vote for." So many of our communities are doing exactly that.  

All this is still certainly not enough -- but God is good to fill the gaps and work through the cracks of our feeble attempts to be faithful. So, again, I want to thank Vonetta and Jason for being the catalyst for reflection, and to cause me to take the pulse on where we are in the "active pursuit of a just reconciliation," to celebrate the steps we have made, and to insist that it is not enough. I guess that is why we begin with "lament." I leave today for a one-month sabbatical, but I eagerly look forward to hearing what others have to say in this conversation and will now "pass the mic" to others.

Shane Claiborne is the author of Jesus for President, a Red Letter Christian, and a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

Randy Newman might be surprised to see himself mentioned on a progressive spirituality blog. In his five decades of making music that is alternately brilliantly satirical and elegant (and sometimes both), he hasn't often smiled on religion or religious people. In spite of his skepticism about spirituality, he also has written some of the most beautiful love songs I've ever heard, and many of these are shot through with regret for his past mistakes.

The title song of his new record, Harps and Angels, sees him looking forward with a combination of reluctance and mystery to the prospect of his own death. At 64, he realizes that his time is short, and if the title song is to be believed, he may have come around to the idea that "there really is an afterlife." But the heart of the album is a quintet of songs in which Newman addresses the political, even spiritual landscape of the U.S. In quick succession, he names what ails the nation ("Y'all have lost faith in yourselves"), reminds listeners that the dream of "America" was built on the idea that everyone could have "a piece of the pie" (although few seem to care about current inequalities, says Randy, except protest singers), and makes some amusing (and provocative) assertions about just how to change things. The most impressive song on the album is a political tract. "Just a Few Words in Defense of our Country" speaks what is so often considered unspeakable in polite conversation -- the fact that we are living through a period in which the global political order we have known since the second World War is coming to an end. The song ends on a bleak note, with Newman bidding farewell on behalf of a U.S. that needs to relearn its place in a new international structure. He may be granted easy passage to say such a thing -- he's functioning much the same way as a medieval court jester, telling the king what he doesn't want to hear but wrapping it up in biting humour.

From my (hopefully) humbler position as an outside observer of the U.S., I think Newman is half right. The global order that we have known is clearly diminishing, and new relationships need to be negotiated. The fact that there will soon be a new U.S. president offers an opportunity for an energized and thoughtful approach. There will be very few people in Europe sorry to see President Bush leave office, and while international adulation for Barack Obama is obvious, there is also a recognition outside the U.S. that John McCain would at least try to rebuild the vastly diminished standing of the country if he is elected in November.

I can imagine the legitimate criticism for an Irish guy suggesting that the American empire is falling, and I would counter this by saying that I love the U.S. so much that I'm moving there next week (if you'll have me). I still see hope in the idea of the values that the U.S. at its best represents. Just for starters, there's a pioneering spirit, hospitality and kindness, the creative impetus, and a positive attitude about the future (serious theologians would call that something like "eschatological hope," I suppose). But I am also aware that limiting such hope to one nation's idea of itself has pretty tragic historical antecedents. I prefer to think in terms of the distinctive gifts and goals of a nation, and how they interact with those of the rest of the world. The U.S. has something special, which in recent times has been mislaid or perhaps even misappropriated by leaders who seem not to understand (or not to want to understand) that we are all in this together. Newman may well be right in asserting that the empire as we know it is falling, but answering the question of what will replace it is a task not just for politicians or provocative artists but for everyone who takes the common good seriously.

Dr. Gareth Higgins is a writer and broadcaster from Belfast, Northern Ireland, who has worked as an academic and activist. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul: Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significant Films. He blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com and co-presents "The Film Talk" podcast with Jett Loe at www.thefilmtalk.com.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

Vonetta and Jason, first I want you to know that I am deeply grateful for the conversation you've invited and stirred with our private conversations and now your blog post. I take all critique very seriously, and pray and reflect on it. Probably the most personally painful lament and failure of our communities is around race and reconciliation; we are at times paralyzed by the deep history and slimy elusiveness of racial injustice and so-called "privilege." We've been trying for 10 years to figure this out. Several years ago, my mentor and friend John Perkins was at the house, and I poured out my dissatisfaction with how white the movement was. He said to me: "Teach what you know ... and it may be white folks who listen. And learn what you don't know, be a good listener."  I've tried to do that, and yet it often just doesn't feel like enough. I am working on a book with John right now (his idea) about the importance of being a good follower -- as there are many books on leadership but very few on "followership" -- and as a white male, that is something we need to learn.

I want to share more publically a few things that I have shared with you in our private conversations -- though I hesitate to do so as it could come across as defensively flaunting all the "progress" we have made. That is by no means the case. I find our pursuit of reconciliation has been riddled with failure and setbacks, and a paralysis of imagination. I share this not as a boastful discrediting of your critique, but rather as a sign that I deeply honor your thoughts and invite your constructive ideas on how we can do things better.    

• Submit to leadership of color. For the past 10 years, I have been submitted to John Perkins, as a teacher and mentor. I have told him to tell me when to speak and when to shut up. For The Simple Way, the chair of our board is an African American (from Philly), a close friend and brother (and also married to one of my former housemates). He's my boss.

• Submit to neighborhood leadership. I see myself as a learner and listener to the indigenous leadership in my neighborhood. Families on our block (even the block captain) have persistently asked me to be a block captain, but I have not assumed (or presumed) such a role, as this is a very clear way I want to continue to be led by elders in and from my neighborhood. Neighborhood renewal, as we say at CCDA, takes "remainers, returners, and relocators" -- all working together.

• Submit to local pastors and congregations. We deliberately join the local neighborhood congregations, rather than start our own services or programs. Every long-term member of TSW joins a local congregation (such as Iglesia del Barrio around the corner from us). This has distinguished us from many other folks who identify with the Emerging Church (and put us at odds sometimes), as we say, "The inner city doesn't need more 'churches' -- it needs A CHURCH, so join the body there already at work."

• Media Savvy. There are many journalists who want to do stories on "New Monasticism" or "The Simple Way," and we have become very sensitive to the dangers of this. Usually they want to portray the relocating white folks like myself as saints, saviors, and sacrificial heroes moving into a poor neighborhood. This is garbage and incredibly hurtful to the dignity of our neighbors. We try to be "as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves." We do not allow cameras in the neighborhood. For instance, a network has wanted to do a story for two years now, and I have insisted that we will only do the story with them if it is in our New Jerusalem community (40 people here in Philly), which is composed of and led by 90 percent people of color. The producer has insisted that they do it at our Potter Street Community (the original house, mostly white, where I live). So we will not do the story. 

• Rethinking Language. A few years into our little experiment in community, we found that much of our language was riddled with privilege and whiteness. For instance, traditional monasticism and the Franciscan love of "Blessed Poverty" and "Vows of Poverty" did not go over well with our homeless friends!  We have studied and reflected on this, and articulate a "Theology of Enough" that is in much of my writing and in the core values statement of our community, summed up well in the Proverbs mantra: "Give me neither poverty nor riches ... in my poverty I may be forced to steal, and in my riches I may forget my God." So we have rethought the traditional vows and even our language around monasticism (this is not the primary language I use in my neighborhood or even in my speaking for what we do).

There are lots of other personal decisions people have made in light of the hunger for racial justice and reconciliation. In our communities folks have married across race and adopted kids from the neighborhood -- all little signs of much thought and deliberation. Later I'll share some steps I've taken that go beyond our local community in my role as a speaker.

To be continued ...

Shane Claiborne is the author of Jesus for President, a Red Letter Christian, and a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia.

[see all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

Rise up, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand;
do not forget the oppressed.
Why do the wicked renounce God,
and say in their hearts, "You will not call us to account"?
But you do see! Indeed you note trouble and grief,
that you may take it into your hands;
the helpless commit themselves to you;
you have been the helper of the orphan.
- Psalm 10:12-14

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

If we want to go deeper, however, desiring that as God's people we will grow together toward maturity, we must care enough to confront.

- Isabelo Magalit
Filipina theologian

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Hurricane Gustav, Republican convention, Sarah Palin, St. Paul protest, Poverty, Immigration, Iraq, Russia, Pakistan, Canada, Japan, Cuba, and Zimbabwe.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Whew. Take a breath, Christians! I just read all the comments to my post Friday on Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech of a major party's nomination to the highest office in the country -- the first African American to have achieved that American milestone. The post was about the historical significance of that event and speech, especially on the very day of the 45 anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s most remembered "I Have A Dream" speech at the 1963 March on Washington.

I didn't even comment on the content of the speech, except to say it allowed Obama to clearly and eloquently present himself and his policy ideas, so Americans could agree or disagree. But the heat of the comments to the post was amazing and alarming to me. So I think it is time to plead for some Christian civility in this election year.

Let me give an example of Christian civility from Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, which is a leading institution of the "Religious Right" and whom nobody would confuse with a Democratic or Obama supporter. On Friday, Perkins released a statement on "Obama's Historic Speech," which said:

Sen. Barack Obama's speech last night, accepting the Democratic nomination for President, was a historic moment. Coming on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the selection of the first African American to be the presidential nominee of a major party illustrates the progress America has made in fulfilling Dr. King's dream of racial equality. The "promise" of equal opportunity was in our nation's founding documents, but it has not always been fulfilled. Every American should fondly hope and fervently pray, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, for the time when this milestone, remarkable as it is, is a memory, and the mere fact of a person's skin color is not reason for political discussion or notice. That truly was the Founding Fathers' vision for our country, and they bequeathed us governing articles and a ruling philosophy - a firm belief that our rights are the gift of our Creator - capable of carrying us through many a "stormy present." By any measure - eloquence, organization, stagecraft, and motivation - the Democratic convention this week and the primary that preceded it were impressive. Yes, the smoke-filled rooms have given way to skies glowing with the haze of fireworks, but our nation is seeing once more that we have a vibrant republic and real choices before us.

I really respected that and agreed that Obama's speech had "eloquence" and offered the American people "real choices." Tony Perkins invited me to debate Richard Land at his own FRC Convention last fall, and to speak at his own book signing some weeks later, just as I had invited Richard Land to speak at the launch of God's Politics in 2005. Tomorrow morning Richard Land and I will be together again in a public forum on "the faith factor" in this election, at the Republican Convention in the Twin Cities. I will be there all week, just as I was at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Here is a fact that might clearly upset the vitriolic partisans on both sides of the political divide: Richard Land and I call each other friends, and Tony Perkins and I are also enjoying our dialogue and frequent conversations. None of us endorse candidates, but I honestly suspect we will likely be voting differently in the fall election.

Since Friday, I have been asked by many journalists what I think of Sarah Palin as the choice for the Republican vice-presidential nomination. I've confessed to knowing little about the new Alaskan governor but have said that she seems to be an interesting, decent, and compelling person, and that her nomination is another milestone as the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, as Geraldine Ferraro was on the Democratic ticket in 1984. Like the milestone candidacy of Barack Obama, she, too, will be evaluated by Christians on a whole range of moral values issues, including poverty, the environment, the sanctity of life, strong and healthy families, human rights, health care, the war in Iraq, and more. Christians, including evangelical Christians, are not monolithic and most Christians will not be single-issue voters in this election. Rather, we will evaluate both presidential tickets according to our moral compass and broad agenda. The Republican Convention, like the Democratic Convention, should offer the voters clear choices, and I suspect it will.

So maybe we should have some rules of civility for this election. Let me suggest "Five Rules of Christian Civility."

1. We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party, but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically-based moral compass.
2. We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues.
3. We advocate for a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right.
4. We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election, knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year.
5. We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year, even if we reach different conclusions.

On Nov. 4, Christians will not be able to vote for the kingdom of God. It is not on the ballot. Yet there are very important choices to make that will significantly impact the common good and the health of this nation -- and of the world. So we urge our Christian brothers and sisters to exercise their crucial right to vote and to apply their Christian conscience to those decisions. And in the finite and imperfect political decisions of this and any election, we promise to respect the Christian political conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ.